|
Mr. Wiggles posted:Criminy, it's like 2005 in here with the goontheists popping up. You mean about when you were told to shut the gently caress up once and for all by people with a brain cell?
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 05:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 19:28 |
|
|
BattleMoose posted:That is literally exactly the opposite of what I am saying. It is exactly your SECULAR views which should be represented in our laws and society. "Religion not allowed" is a religious position. It makes absolutely no sense to say that you are in favor of religious freedom while also saying that the only religious position that should be represented in law is your own preferred religious position, which is the absence of religion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 05:25
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:"Religion not allowed" is a religious position. It makes absolutely no sense to say that you are in favor of religious freedom while also saying that the only religious position that should be represented in law is your own preferred religious position, which is the absence of religion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 05:27
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:"Religion not allowed" is a religious position. Religion is allowed, its the very definition of religious freedom. What you don't get to do is force your religious views or rules on others, its this part that you are really struggling with. I would also like to hear your SECULAR view against gay marriage. It should be a doozy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
the admins got tired of getting reports from idiotic rightists offended that people were calling them on their bullshit so they installed a bunch of mods who killed the forum and banned anyone with a real opinion, what you're reading now is the fruits of their labors lmao
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 05:29
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Religion is allowed, its the very definition of religious freedom. What you don't get to do is force your religious views or rules on others, its this part that you are really struggling with. Rejection of religion is a religious position... If you are looking to construct a secular society that is a religious position. You don't get to opt out of the whole subject and declare yourself above it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 05:30
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Religion is allowed, its the very definition of religious freedom. What you don't get to do is force your religious views or rules on others, its this part that you are really struggling with. but by saying religion is bad...you are being religious You Are Self...!!! And That Make's You...Just as Bad As the JaBrOnIeS you are criticizing. *loving smashes that futbol into the turf*
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 05:31
|
|
|
zh1 posted:the admins got tired of getting reports from idiotic rightists offended that people were calling them on their bullshit so they installed a bunch of mods who killed the forum and banned anyone with a real opinion, what you're reading now is the fruits of their labors lmao lol sass is back. BattleMoose posted:Religion is allowed, its the very definition of religious freedom. What you don't get to do is force your religious views or rules on others, its this part that you are really struggling with. This is a good point, too. The essence of living in an open society is that no group gets to push its religious views on any others.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Rejection of religion is a religious position...
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
While it's important not to marginalize or ignore the positive social change that has occurred, and will occur, from specific religious people and organizations, it's also important to acknowledge what religion has historically done, politically, and to take a broad view of what an involvement in politics means for a religion. Historically, religion has been a bastion of conservatism and reaction, a well which is drawn on frequently whenever the opportunity presents itself. It has also been a source of conflict, and the empowerment of any one religion has come at the expense of every other religion and the irreligious. So, secular government is just smart thinking. Secular politics is also a necessity. We are well past the age of political theology. We are in a modern age of political ideologies. As we should be, because the language of political ideology is a lot more intelligent & rational than the archaic ideas of divine leadership, being that ideology is founded on reason. Materialistic political ideologies are just better, because they're logical (they start from principles, and then logically derive policy - conflict between ideology is then conflict over those principles, not simply conflict over arbitrary group membership) So all future politics must have a secular basis. In one sense, a certain hostility towards religion in politics is entirely justified, because we can't have the return of political theology. But for the left, specifically, there's the extra problem of what religious piety usually involves - conservatism. Its not exactly been a neutral party, in the left-right conflict. That's just a sociological fact. That doesn't mean that all religious groups are reactionary, or that religious belief necessarily involves support for reaction, but just as water flows downhill, religious groups tend to not value progress, being rooted in the past. So while I don't think it's justified to have any 'personal beef' with religion or the religious, in the long view I can't see it as a positive thing. Its probably gonna have its ups and down, but I'm pessimistic that anything positive is going to be salvaged from it, overall. Having said that, I'm not going to resent the people who do earnestly try to do just that - I just think they're wasting their time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 05:33
|
|
|
the one thread here which isn't a moronic chat thread with thousands of pages has a guy saying "well atheism is a religion because it doesn't like religions so therefore"
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Rejection of religion is a religious position... I am not rejecting religion. I value everyone's right to practise their religions that they see fit. OwlFancier posted:If you are looking to construct a secular society that is a religious position. You don't get to opt out of the whole subject and declare yourself above it. I am actually not looking to construct a secular society. I am however insisting that our laws be secular. Imagine the 2 dozen other religions in their country imposed their religious views on your lifestyle, and how pissed off that would make you. Think about that for a bit. You are only looking at this from the perspective of how you can force your religious views on others while completely ignoring the fact that its utter poo poo to have someone else's religions views forced on you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 05:39
|
|
|
I'm looking at it from the perspective that you are proposing that what appears to be your theological perspective should be the legal basis for society, and that this will materially hinder people with different theological perspectives from getting their views represented on what constitutes a society that looks after its citizens. And you're arguing that this is different from when another theological perspective does that. You're saying, essentially, that materialism is the only valid theological position, that it's the only one we can use to structure our society, and then trying to claim that this isn't a theological position. That makes no sense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 05:44
|
|
|
i don't know how many times and in how many threads i can say it before i'm banned but i want anyone unfamiliar with this forum to know that this was never a good discussion forum, but it at least wasn't the graveyard it now is. at one time there was something resembling discussion here, but about 9 years ago, it began, and anyone criticizing obama was banned, then anyone advocating correct politics was banned, and now it's a moonscape of piddling 'centrists' and mr wiggles. i don't recognize anyone else because you're all insects who wouldn't know an actual conversation if it met with you, decided upon concrete deliberative milestones, reached a sort of consensus derived from common ground, proffered a novel and well-argued position at odds with your own, considered your riposte and allowed it to influence the aforementioned principles, and generally grew mutually via a system of discourse to arrive a set-upon conclusion which could potentially allow society to continue existing for future generations (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 05:45
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'm looking at it from the perspective that you are proposing that what appears to be your theological perspective should be the legal basis for society, and that this will materially hinder people with different theological perspectives from getting their views represented on what constitutes a society that looks after its citizens. And you're arguing that this is different from when another theological perspective does that. SECULAR LAWS, do you understand what secular means?!
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 05:46
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:SECULAR LAWS, do you understand what secular means?! it's pretty clear that guy doesn't know what his own foot is dude
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 05:47
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:SECULAR LAWS, do you understand what secular means?! By exclusion of every alternative, it means materialistic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 05:47
|
|
|
zh1 posted:it's pretty clear that guy doesn't know what his own foot is dude I know, but I was kinda enjoying it. But its at an end now. Its the boring old nonsense of, "your demand for secular laws is a religious perspective so therefore its okay for me to insist on my religious perspective"
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Secular politics is also a necessity. We are well past the age of political theology. We are in a modern age of political ideologies. As we should be, because the language of political ideology is a lot more intelligent & rational than the archaic ideas of divine leadership, being that ideology is founded on reason. Materialistic political ideologies are just better, because they're logical (they start from principles, and then logically derive policy - conflict between ideology is then conflict over those principles, not simply conflict over arbitrary group membership) I agree overall with what you're saying but aren't you being perhaps a bit overly idealistic here? To use the slang "feels over reals" is the name of politics today. People don't want theories and explanations, they want someone who can tap into their hearts and minds and appeal to them on a primal level. A charismatic and competent orator is more powerful than anyone, intelligence or knowledge be damned. All the well-reasoned ideology in the world can't compete. Authoritarianism and its attractiveness have not gone away in the modern era is my point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 05:51
|
|
|
Your demand for secular laws is a religious perspective therefore it makes absolutely no sense to try and claim it as an absolutely correct position, above criticism from an opposing religious perspective. I mean bloody hell if you need to pretend that atheism is an absolute moral truth then why do you even bother believing it? What is the point of atheism if not to make you a complete moral relativist?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 05:52
|
|
|
If I worship the state, how do I separate the church and state?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 05:53
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Your demand for secular laws is a religious perspective therefore it makes absolutely no sense to try and claim it as an absolutely correct position, above criticism from an opposing religious perspective. you can't be more than 15
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 05:54
|
|
|
Leftists should convert to radical Christianity and work to win converts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
I never found religion convincing but my parents' church thinks gay people are alright so 
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 06:00
|
|
|
Motto posted:I never found religion convincing but my parents' church thinks gay people are alright so cool dude. that's maximum fwiggin epic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Your demand for secular laws is a religious perspective therefore it makes absolutely no sense to try and claim it as an absolutely correct position, above criticism from an opposing religious perspective. It's a common mistake that people try to link the lack of religious belief to being a religious belief into itself. Material rationalism is not a belief system, beyond the extent that you believed the material universe is a real thing that you can perceive with a reasonable degree of accuracy. There is no metaphysical component to demanding secular laws, so it is absolutely not a religious view. There's no such thing as "absolute moral truth", and secular reasoning admits this and instead comes up with moralities via the human experience. There isn't a "point" to atheism beyond interpreting the world in an accurate way without relying on magic to explain things. It's not immoral, simply amoral. Secular laws use things like empathy, compassion, and reason to deal with societal problems and should be wanted by people of all faiths, because it protects everyone equally regardless of their religious beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:It's a common mistake that people try to link the lack of religious belief to being a religious belief into itself. It also requires a rejection of the idea that there is anything to the world beyond the observable and material. Which is an idea you have been exposed to if you live basically anywhere on earth. It is a decision, insomuch as anything is a decision, to construct your entire worldview based on material perception, which most definitely is a belief system, it is simply based on a different reference than a religious one. Secular laws use materialist concepts of empathy, compassion and reason. Secularism, by excluding all non-materialistic positions, is by necessity a materialist position.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 06:12
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It also requires a rejection of the idea that there is anything to the world beyond the observable and material. Which is an idea you have been exposed to if you live basically anywhere on earth. Real World Interactions Governed by Real World Observations, News at 11...BC
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 06:17
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Secular laws use materialist concepts of empathy, compassion and reason. It would be nice if religious laws did this too. But they don't. So they can gtfo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
If you want to argue that materialism is more correct than spriritualism I'm not going to argue, but I do require that you recognize that that is a relative position, just because I agree with it doesn't make it absolute.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 06:19
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It also requires a rejection of the idea that there is anything to the world beyond the observable and material. Which is an idea you have been exposed to if you live basically anywhere on earth. It absolutely does not require blanket objection, it just requires evidence. If magic spells were demonstrated to be effective, and even linked to praying to a god or some sort of ether or whatever magical things happened, that would be accepted. It would have an impact on the material world and therefore be observable, but somehow even with millions of cameras all of their world on people at all times, nothing supernatural ever happens that is recorded. Basing your worldview and things that can be demonstrated to be true is not a belief system in any comparable sense to religious mythos and "metaphysics". Secularism doesn't automatically reject anything, it means being focused on the world we actually live in instead of some sort of spiritual life/afterlife. But it helps people arguing for "spirituality" having special value to misrepresent atheist and secular ideas as being close minded.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:It absolutely does not require blanket objection, it just requires evidence. If magic spells were demonstrated to be effective, and even linked to praying to a god or some sort of ether or whatever magical things happened, that would be accepted. It starts from a different set of premises and works from there under its preferred method of reasoning, it is neither particularly more closed or open minded than any other theological position.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 06:26
|
|
|
"i support helping the needy because i think it is nice" = good, correct thought "i support helping the needy because the bible explicitly says that i will go to hell if i don't" = bad, false thought, apparently
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 06:30
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It also requires a rejection of the idea that there is anything to the world beyond the observable and material. Which is an idea you have been exposed to if you live basically anywhere on earth. No, it doesn't. I believe there's a lot to the world that isn't observable or material, I'm just not arrogant enough to say with certainty what it is. quote:It is a decision, insomuch as anything is a decision, to construct your entire worldview based on material perception, which most definitely is a belief system, it is simply based on a different reference than a religious one. You dense motherfucker. quote:Secular laws use materialist concepts of empathy, compassion and reason. Secularism, by excluding all non-materialistic positions, is by necessity a materialist position. you dense loving motherfucker jesus christ
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 06:39
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:"i support helping the needy because i think it is nice" = good, correct thought what exactly is wrong with you
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 06:45
|
|
|
this forum could not be deader
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 06:46
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:"i support helping the needy because i think it is nice" = good, correct thought yeah, it's pretty objectively bad. if the only reason you help people is because of fear, you are a bad person.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 06:48
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If you want to argue that materialism is more correct than spriritualism I'm not going to argue, but I do require that you recognize that that is a relative position, just because I agree with it doesn't make it absolute. materialism as a philosophical framework is not, in any universe, equatable to religion. they are not equal things, they do not relate to each other or oppose each other. you have decided that they are opposing forces apropos of nothing, and you have no supporting argument for this except "it is so". moreover, materialism as a monism hasn't been relevant since the mid 40s. the discovery of quantum mechanics renders the traditional concept of it meaningless. you're demanding that your opponents adopt a necessarily reductivist viewpoint so that your argument makes sense. it doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 07:14
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:yeah, it's pretty objectively bad. if the only reason you help people is because of fear, you are a bad person. Isn't that a rather sticky moral issue? Like, if you do nothing but help people all your life, how can you be a bad person?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 07:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 19:28 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It starts from a different set of premises and works from there under its preferred method of reasoning, it is neither particularly more closed or open minded than any other theological position. Evidence based reasoning, by definition, is a more open ideology than any theological position. A theological position requires that the universe has some supernatural component that influences the natural world. It requires that one must reach a certain conclusion, and argues backwards from there. This is more close minded than a secular approach which observes events and then builds conclusions based on that evidence. The equivocation is bullshit and is trotted out by religious "intellectuals" who always cherry pick data and warp meanings to conform to a theological perception of the universe. Secular reasoning starts with premises based on observable reality and uses testable and arguable methods, while theological reasoning assumes a conclusion and devises premises to reach that conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 07:25
|
|