The death of civilized discussion

dscott8 wrote:I am deeply concerned by efforts to base civil law on religious belief. The lines on this issue are blurred because some religious tenets make sense as civil law, while some do not. If anyone would like to debate specific instances of this, I am happy to do so from the position that civil law is meant to protect every citizen's right to live as they like so long as they do not infringe upon the same right for others.

Indeed! "do no evil"(but aside from that, whatever man!), it´s basically what laws should always be.

Relax wrote:So, you believe religion/culture do not form the basis of your world view...



I knew I was talking to the funny farm, but dang...

Anyone who lets religion form the basis of politics is more or less unfit to be a politician.


#####

PeterZ wrote:Faith is defined as firm belief in the absence of proof. Atheism is a belief structure that hasn't been proven.

*facepalm*

It is the absence of a belief structure, not faith in one... You cannot have faith in something that by its own definition does not exist.

I simply sate definitions and construct a logical chain.

What logic? There´s little to none in your post.

So, no, I redefine nothing.

Yes, you do.

Ah Peter I see your problem.

I don't have faith that there is no god.

I have proof.
I look at the starvation in Africa and say no god would allow that.
I look at the bible and realize that it is all made up. Not just the bible. Have you ever read the book of Mormon? The Koran?

I look at many things that tell me there is no supreme being.

I see good christians and realize that are good people regardless.
Same with every other religion.

I see bad people, again regardless of their religious beliefs. But it's religious organizations that support, succor, aid, and hide them


And that's why you're wrong to equate athiesm with religion.
One is the belief in that which can't be prooven, and the other is the acknowledgement of what is.


Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Annachie wrote:Ah Peter I see your problem.

I don't have faith that there is no god.

I have proof.
I look at the starvation in Africa and say no god would allow that.
I look at the bible and realize that it is all made up. Not just the bible. Have you ever read the book of Mormon? The Koran?

I look at many things that tell me there is no supreme being.

I see good christians and realize that are good people regardless.
Same with every other religion.

I see bad people, again regardless of their religious beliefs. But it's religious organizations that support, succor, aid, and hide them


And that's why you're wrong to equate athiesm with religion.
One is the belief in that which can't be prooven, and the other is the acknowledgement of what is.


Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Please read my post. I do not state atheism is a religion, I assert that being an atheist requires faith. Your proof is simple an acceptance of what you believe to be sufficient evidence to convince you of you position. Besides, what you cite is a lack of omnibenevolence, not that He doesn't exist. We can discuss His attributes if you like.

Tenshinai wrote:

dscott8 wrote:I am deeply concerned by efforts to base civil law on religious belief. The lines on this issue are blurred because some religious tenets make sense as civil law, while some do not. If anyone would like to debate specific instances of this, I am happy to do so from the position that civil law is meant to protect every citizen's right to live as they like so long as they do not infringe upon the same right for others.

Indeed! "do no evil"(but aside from that, whatever man!), it´s basically what laws should always be.

There is no such thing as protecting "everyone's" right. One person says they have the right to steal without government supervision. The other says stealing via government fiat is A-ok. Not everyone's "rights" are being protected.

And what is considered "evil?" Who decides that?

Personally, stealing from someone via the barrel of a government gun in order to give hand-outs to those who refuses to work, is evil. To both the recipient and those whom you decided to steal from.

Why Atheism is a religion. It is the religion of 51% as its arbiter of truth embodied by governance. A system of worship by the 51%. So, if 51% say stealing is good, then it is A-ok. If anyone has a different opinion than the 51% then they need to be quashed to "uphold" the morality of the 51%.

Tenshinai wrote:

Relax wrote:So, you believe religion/culture do not form the basis of your world view...



I knew I was talking to the funny farm, but dang...

Anyone who lets religion form the basis of politics is more or less unfit to be a politician.

So, if your personal religion does not form the basis of your worldview, forming the structure for your politics, what does?

Whatever you name: IS the expression of your religion.

Relax wrote:So, if your personal religion does not form the basis of your worldview, forming the structure for your politics, what does?

Facts? Opinions? Ideologies? Theories?

Believing only religion can be the basis for everything is exceptionally daft and dangerously narrowminded.

This is a language or definition problem.
As to faith, I have faith that my family and friends are good people who support me. It has to be faith as there is no absolute proof apart from previous behaviour.
I don't need faith to know that there is no supreme being, as logic suffices. You expect me to believe in whatever sky fairy you do? Provide proof, and writings by nomadic tribesmen from millenia ago doesn't cut it. As Annachie says, there is no evidence of divine intervention, benevolent or otherwise.

Relax wrote:For instance: Atheism

The atheist anti free speech leftist utopians(theirs of course) in the USA/Western world who believe:
1) money falls out of the air,
2)where ideas of governance do not matter other than ever increasing bigger government who is supposedly "fair" and impartial, its not, just so they can use it as a hammer via ever more regulations and power,
3)where an individuals actions and responsibilities do not matter rather their racial or other "victimhood" group matters, for "equality of outcome" matters, not equality before the law
4)where rule of law only does not matter when it is their side breaking it,
5)culture does not matter and all are equal,
6)morals do not matter(other than theirs of course),
7)where sex does not matter, (moronacy of 3rd wave feminism where they play make believe that they are the same as men)
8)where divorce/marriage do not matter, even though it is the #1 indicator of poverty

You’re actually talking about “progressives”. Their defining feature is not that they are atheists, but that they are leftist statist control freaks. They have rejected faith in authoritarian religion and replaced it with faith in authoritarian government — for everybody else. They are always Right and anybody who disagrees with them is Wrong and Racist and Sexist and even (O the horror!) Conservative. You can’t argue with them when the very fact that you are arguing is proof that you are Wrong, and all those other things.

There are two kinds of atheists.

The first kind are those who refuse to accept religion ‘on faith’ and instead demand at least some unambiguous evidence that those gods even exist. They acknowledge that even though they have not seen any such evidence, it is possible that it exists, somewhere.

The second kind are those who hold an affirmative belief that gods do not exist. They are the ones acting on faith — a belief not supported by any evidence. They are sure — without proof — that no gods exist, and no evidence of them can exist.
-------------------
It is not necessary to create an elaborate fantasy in order to justify establishing rules against destructive social interaction.

Logic illustrates my point. There is no logical proof for either the existence or non-existence of God. If you have discovered a logical proof, please share. Philosophers have been searching for just that proof.

Accepting evidence is fine for either position. It is not logical proof.

Daryl wrote:This is a language or definition problem.
As to faith, I have faith that my family and friends are good people who support me. It has to be faith as there is no absolute proof apart from previous behaviour.
I don't need faith to know that there is no supreme being, as logic suffices. You expect me to believe in whatever sky fairy you do? Provide proof, and writings by nomadic tribesmen from millenia ago doesn't cut it. As Annachie says, there is no evidence of divine intervention, benevolent or otherwise.