All The Things You Aren't Supposed to Talk About : Politics, Religion, & Money! && Grammar!!

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
But how can we have a tolerant society if we don't tolerate all types of opinions, conservative ones included?

It's like saying, "we have to be tolerant with everyone, unless you disagree with whatever I agree". That's how the minorities group are acting when they talk about tolerance. They only want tolerance for the opinions they like.


PS: About his donation, it's public. You can find everyone's names here: http://projects.latimes.com/prop8/
1. we will never have a tolerant society
2. tolerating intolerant views creates more intolerance too

prop 8 was pure homophobia... I live in california, I remember it clearly... there is a difference between political differences and directly supporting a law that holds back the rights of others because their personal lives are "icky" to you

this wasn't a health care bill will multiple opinions are acceptable and there is no 1 true answer to things, this isn't about 2 candidates to chose between who have diametrically opposed views on how the country should be governed ... this was a bill that ONLY served to limit the rights of one group of people, at a certain point we need to understand the difference between political debate and human rights...

what if a bill came up that said everyone with ugly birthmarks on their face must have them removed.... or women over the age of 18 with breasts under a b cup must get augmented... is it tolerant to hear at the pro side of those arguments? no it is not.

yes both sides of a debate should be more tolerant of eachother and more willing to compromise... but this is not a compromisable issue... this was pure homophobia int he form of a bill largely funded by the mormon church from out of state (utah church funds going into california law)
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
1. we will never have a tolerant society
2. tolerating intolerant views creates more intolerance too

prop 8 was pure homophobia... I live in california, I remember it clearly... there is a difference between political differences and directly supporting a law that holds back the rights of others because their personal lives are "icky" to you

this wasn't a health care bill will multiple opinions are acceptable and there is no 1 true answer to things, this isn't about 2 candidates to chose between who have diametrically opposed views on how the country should be governed ... this was a bill that ONLY served to limit the rights of one group of people, at a certain point we need to understand the difference between political debate and human rights...

what if a bill came up that said everyone with ugly birthmarks on their face must have them removed.... or women over the age of 18 with breasts under a b cup must get augmented... is it tolerant to hear at the pro side of those arguments? no it is not.

yes both sides of a debate should be more tolerant of eachother and more willing to compromise... but this is not a compromisable issue... this was pure homophobia int he form of a bill largely funded by the mormon church from out of state (utah church funds going into california law)
No, I'm not discussing proposition 8 or gay rights, I'm discussing if we should or should not be tolerant with all sorts of opinions in order to not fire someone because of their opinions.

When someone says that religious people, like me, are stupid because they believe in things that "doesn't exist", I don't call for their resignation on the internet. That's my point. If someone is against gay marriage, what's the problem? It's his opinion. Gay marriage is a totally new thing. It haven't exist for thousands of years and everybody knows that most of the older people just disagree with gay marriage and they gonna die disagreeing with that and we just can't start sacking and marginalising them all because of their opinions.

Opinions don't harm. Opinions just live on the heads of the people. We're just living in a world where people are afraid to say what they think and that's the original point of the discussion.
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
No, I'm not discussing proposition 8 or gay rights, I'm discussing if we should or should not be tolerant with all sorts of opinions in order to not fire someone because of their opinions.

When someone says that religious people, like me, are stupid because they believe in things that "doesn't exist", I don't call for their resignation on the internet. That's my point. If someone is against gay marriage, what's the problem? It's his opinion. Gay marriage is a totally new thing. It haven't exist for thousands of years and everybody knows that most of the older people just disagree with gay marriage and they gonna die disagreeing with that and we just can't start sacking and marginalising them all because of their opinions.

Opinions don't harm. Opinions just live on the heads of the people. We're just living in a world where people are afraid to say what they think and that's the original point of the discussion.
he didn't say he was against gay marriage he was complicit in funding a measure that directly deprived people of their rights... there is a difference between not liking something, and actively trying to destroy it
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
he didn't say he was against gay marriage he was complicit in funding a measure that directly deprived people of their rights... there is a difference between not liking something, and actively trying to destroy it
Yeah, that makes sense. I agree. I really not aware about the details of this proposition 8, so if it's harming someone, so it's not a matter of opinion, but a matter of being part of something against others.

Once you act against the rights of other people or you're actively discriminating someone, it's not anymore in the realm of opinions but in a action of pure discrimination.
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
I think ultimately, we have to be diligent in understanding that we cannot as a society allow for discrimination be tolerable anywhere. Just take a look at the infamous bathroom bill in North Carolina. It served absolutely zero purpose other than to discriminate against members of the LGBTQ community, and it is no in way enforceable. It was despicable that it was even considered in the first place.

And going off the tolerance and discrimination part, If a group of people feel they have a right to discriminate, then the opposing group can be discriminated against also. In other words, if a business declares they have the legal right (and lets say for sake of argument they do) to discriminate against those who are Muslim because it goes against their Christian values (again, sake of argument), then someone who is Muslim (or non-religious, doesn't matter) could just as easily implement a rule saying no Christians allowed.

I'm not saying this is you, but I hear how some people want to legally be able to discriminate against certain groups of people. Ok then, if that is true, then other groups should be able to discriminate against those who do discriminate (which is ironic of course). My point though is it's stupid either way.

Basically, discrimination and intolerance solves nothing. More than that, hatred solves nothing. If you want to help solve the world's issues, you don't do it by declaring hatred, fear, and anger among people; something that our "great" president Mr. Drumpf doesn't understand at all. SAD!
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
In other words, if a business declares they have the legal right (and lets say for sake of argument they do) to discriminate against those who are Muslim because it goes against their Christian values (again, sake of argument), then someone who is Muslim (or non-religious, doesn't matter) could just as easily implement a rule saying no Christians allowed.
I agree. The only exception in my opinion is for closed associations or religious groups. A church can't be forced to pray to Allah and a mosque can't be forced to accept women that doesn't cover her hair, for instance. It's their internal rules so they can accept whatever they want in their premises and if you don't agree you just don't need to be associated with them. Everyone has to be the right to associate and to live their faith the way they wish, unless they're harming someone like sacrificing people or other gross stuff that is against the law.

I'm not saying this is you, but I hear how some people want to legally be able to discriminate against certain groups of people. Ok then, if that is true, then other groups should be able to discriminate against those who do discriminate (which is ironic of course). My point though is it's stupid either way
Acts of discrimination are always wrong. Everyone should be equal. However opinions are just opinions. Thinking that religious people are dumb is just an opinion as believing that marriage should only be between man and woman. Both opinions can be called stupid, but they're still harmless. I also believe that opinions and hatred are two different things. People that think that religious people are dumb not exactly hate them and want them to be exterminated. The same for people who believe that gay marriage is wrong.

For me stating an opinion is not the same as discriminating. If so, we can say that almost all those atheist scientists that write books calling religion and religious people pernicious and idiots, like Richard Dawkins for example, should be in jail. He says that faith is "one of the world's great evils". Is this hate? Or is this just what he thinks?

Unless he starts to kill religious people, for me, he has the right to say whatever he wants.

What bothers me is that even though saying that common people of faith, (they're everywhere) are part of something evil in the world is quite harsh, I've never seen anyone trying to sack him for nor anyone calling that hate speech.

Considering the example of the Mozilla CEO (even though the guy gave money to something clearly homophobic like MightMe said), I wonder what would happen to Dawkins if he'd said, for example, that gay marriage is one of the world's great evils. Would he be able to keep his job? Would be tolerant with this sort of opinion like people are tolerant with his ideas against faith?


Anyway, onto another point, I also believe that there must be some sort of common sense when you state your opinion. In the USA, the constitution is used to justify all sorts of harsh statements and I disagree with that. It's one of the reasons that I still prefer the British Commonwealth system of law where there's no clear written constitution. In Commonwealth countries like Canada that keeps the British system, there's no clear Constitution so the houses of parliament as representatives of the people and the Crown are sovereign to decide the laws in a way that it evolves better according to the times and avoids so much stuff going up to the supreme court.

In those countries there are no "super law", like a constitution, that one can use easily to defend himself when they say whatever they want. So one can't be reckless to speak their mind and offend people, create hate, share scandals without proof or damage other's reputation because there are many different laws that can be applied to many sorts of things that you say or share. Today we live in a world that people write whatever they want on the internet, because they've got no faces and so they don't care about other people feelings or about other's reputation.

I'm not saying there are no such laws against this in the US, but only that people starting saying whatever they want before thinking twice and then they know, or believe, that the constitution will protect them. Also bills and regulations that try to protect people against calumny and other things on the internet are difficult to be approved because of the constitution free speech protection is taken like something absolute.

We all believe in free speech, but there must be some common sense and decency before speaking our minds. Free speech can't be absolute.
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
free speech isn't absolute in america, and never has been.. libel and slander are illegal activities for example... most of the fundamental rights of our country are based on our occupation by the British.... free speech is counter to controlled narrative, the right to abre arms is meant for the case of tyranny, a country can't rise up without arms (although I argue this is a dated idea as a few riffles and shotguns aren't going to do squat against tanks and nukes, and I sure as hell don't want everyday people to have the right to own nukes)

----------------

as for Dawkins... he said religion is a great evil of the world, not "the religious" saying that this should be explored as hate speech is kind of foolish imo, as is any statement in which christians are portrayed as a victim group... that is just silly... it is like the mens rights and white rights groups...

also, unlike homosexuality, sex, and race.... people CHOOSE their religions

personally I loathe religion, but I do not loathe the religious, unless they tread on the non religious or try and discriminate against groups of people... or unless they are outright scam artists, like Benny Hinn...
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
free speech isn't absolute in america, and never has been.. libel and slander are illegal activities for example
Yeah, It isn't absolute anywhere I guess, but still many people offend others without thinking twice because they believe that the 1st amendment will protect them. The same for the guns, people take the right to have guns absolute even though it isn't absolute and just discussing things like guns and free speech on constitution is like starting a war.


as for Dawkins... he said religion is a great evil of the world, not "the religious" saying that this should be explored as hate speech is kind of foolish imo,
There's no point in being religious if there's no religion. Religion is the most important thing for a religious person. But I agree with you, it's totally his opinion. The same for those who are against gay marriage. Saying that they are discriminating and hating gay people is silly imo.


as is any statement in which christians are portrayed as a victim group... that is just silly...
It depends. Christians are a bunch of billions of people. They have normal lives in the West, but they are crucified in the middle east. They're victims and minorities in many places in the world.
 

mattavelle1

IT’S GOT A DEATH RAY!
Moderator
There were 32 Christians killed in Egypt on Palm Sunday just the other day. There worship service was bombed.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/09/middleeast/egypt-church-explosion/index.html

@theMightyME said

as for Dawkins... he said religion is a great evil of the world, not "the religious" saying that this should be explored as hate speech is kind of foolish imo, as is any statement in which christians are portrayed as a victim group... that is just silly... it is like the mens rights and white rights groups...

As of this moment you could be very well right at we aren't the victims. But it won't always be like this, and the time is drawin nearer that it won't. To talk on @Shoulder point about chip technology potentially being a solution for carrying literally your info on you I think this will come to pass. More and more in the world you are seeing wearable technology getting people used to it being no big deal to have this tech even on you or inside of you.

Also your seeing globalization being a term that is being used more than ever before because we actually have the tech to combine the worlds with the internet. Seeing the world come together and be ok with middle eastern country's being wreaked by us all lead to the path that I'm about to bring up.

They all work towards Revelations. I'm not saying these things happen tomorrow, but I'm saying that we could see the wearable or implanted tech become the Mark of the Beast, golbalization has to happen aswell for the end to come and we're moving more and more in that direction.

Also there has to be extreme conflict in the Middle East for many years, because if there wasent conflict the antichrist wouldn't have any reason to come and make peace for his reign.

To bring this all back to Mightys original point yeah as of right now Christians probably aren't the victims in many instances. Are the persecuted abroad yes at certain times, but when the end comes near you will see us killed, starved, and presecuted like never before and people will be ok with that by that time.

I do agree with you that religion is extremely dangerous. That's why I don't follow a religion because religion can not save you from anything. I follow a man named Jesus who was God in human flesh.
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
There were 32 Christians killed in Egypt on Palm Sunday just the other day. There worship service was bombed.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/09/middleeast/egypt-church-explosion/index.html

@theMightyME said

as for Dawkins... he said religion is a great evil of the world, not "the religious" saying that this should be explored as hate speech is kind of foolish imo, as is any statement in which christians are portrayed as a victim group... that is just silly... it is like the mens rights and white rights groups...

As of this moment you could be very well right at we aren't the victims. But it won't always be like this, and the time is drawin nearer that it won't. To talk on @Shoulder point about chip technology potentially being a solution for carrying literally your info on you I think this will come to pass. More and more in the world you are seeing wearable technology getting people used to it being no big deal to have this tech even on you or inside of you.

Also your seeing globalization being a term that is being used more than ever before because we actually have the tech to combine the worlds with the internet. Seeing the world come together and be ok with middle eastern country's being wreaked by us all lead to the path that I'm about to bring up.

They all work towards Revelations. I'm not saying these things happen tomorrow, but I'm saying that we could see the wearable or implanted tech become the Mark of the Beast, golbalization has to happen aswell for the end to come and we're moving more and more in that direction.

Also there has to be extreme conflict in the Middle East for many years, because if there wasent conflict the antichrist wouldn't have any reason to come and make peace for his reign.

To bring this all back to Mightys original point yeah as of right now Christians probably aren't the victims in many instances. Are the persecuted abroad yes at certain times, but when the end comes near you will see us killed, starved, and presecuted like never before and people will be ok with that by that time.

I do agree with you that religion is extremely dangerous. That's why I don't follow a religion because religion can not save you from anything. I follow a man named Jesus who was God in human flesh.
I can't really see that story as direct persecution of christians as these terrorist groups bomb their own damn mosques, the ones they think are not hardline enough... they don't target christians so much as everybody who isn't exactly them.

I agree that 1 day christians may be a minority group that faces actual persecution, but that day is LONG off, and the amount of people whop use that long off fear of possible persecution to ACTUALLY persecute others is of far more pressing concern IMO

it is like millions of children actually dying of cancer, and 1 other child is afraid he'll be struck by lightning, so they put all of the cancer research budget into anti-lightning protection

when people express a need to protect christians from persecution.. THAT is what I think... it is not a real world modern day current problem.. by any means... and we live in a world with MANY very real world modern day current problems
 

sjmartin79

White Phoenix of the Crown
There were 32 Christians killed in Egypt on Palm Sunday just the other day. There worship service was bombed.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/09/middleeast/egypt-church-explosion/index.html

@theMightyME said

as for Dawkins... he said religion is a great evil of the world, not "the religious" saying that this should be explored as hate speech is kind of foolish imo, as is any statement in which christians are portrayed as a victim group... that is just silly... it is like the mens rights and white rights groups...

As of this moment you could be very well right at we aren't the victims. But it won't always be like this, and the time is drawin nearer that it won't. To talk on @Shoulder point about chip technology potentially being a solution for carrying literally your info on you I think this will come to pass. More and more in the world you are seeing wearable technology getting people used to it being no big deal to have this tech even on you or inside of you.

Also your seeing globalization being a term that is being used more than ever before because we actually have the tech to combine the worlds with the internet. Seeing the world come together and be ok with middle eastern country's being wreaked by us all lead to the path that I'm about to bring up.

They all work towards Revelations. I'm not saying these things happen tomorrow, but I'm saying that we could see the wearable or implanted tech become the Mark of the Beast, golbalization has to happen aswell for the end to come and we're moving more and more in that direction.

Also there has to be extreme conflict in the Middle East for many years, because if there wasent conflict the antichrist wouldn't have any reason to come and make peace for his reign.

To bring this all back to Mightys original point yeah as of right now Christians probably aren't the victims in many instances. Are the persecuted abroad yes at certain times, but when the end comes near you will see us killed, starved, and presecuted like never before and people will be ok with that by that time.

I do agree with you that religion is extremely dangerous. That's why I don't follow a religion because religion can not save you from anything. I follow a man named Jesus who was God in human flesh.
@mattavelle1 - Have you ever read "The Shack"? Amazing book. And I think it's the closest someone has come to describing my personal view of faith.
 

Koenig

The Architect
I can't really see that story as direct persecution of christians as these terrorist groups bomb their own damn mosques, the ones they think are not hardline enough... they don't target christians so much as everybody who isn't exactly them.
I agree that 1 day christians may be a minority group that faces actual persecution, but that day is LONG off
I completely disagree, but this is also a matter of region and culture as well.

and the amount of people whop use that long off fear of possible persecution to ACTUALLY persecute others is of far more pressing concern IMO
I do agree with this however, although I think it is of equal concern. However it is a fact that the privileges and, depending on who you ask, rights for religious groups in America have been substantially whittled away in the recent decades, while many of the protections that said religious groups have benefited from have been revoked or even turned against them. To dismiss the concerns of the people involved would be no different than the "bigotry" that they are so often accused of.
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
The reason the "rights" being taken away from big religions doesn't matey is because it was powers and influence they never should have had in the first place... So basically what is eroding is the unfair advantage they should have never had in the first place... Not a concern... And even if it was it is silly to say it would be a concern of anything even remotely proportionate to that of opposing positions.... A religion being blocked from entering the country is a bigger deal than less people going to church
 

Koenig

The Architect
The reason the "rights" being taken away from big religions doesn't matey is because it was powers and influence they never should have had in the first place...
How so? And if they never should have had them in the first place, how did they get them to begin with? I wan't to understand your reasoning here.
So basically what is eroding is the unfair advantage they should have never had in the first place... Not a concern...
Again, it is most definitely a concern of those effected. Just because you think otherwise does not invalidate their thoughts on the matter. If it did, you would be no different than a dictator which would undermine the whole point of the Democratic system.

And even if it was it is silly to say it would be a concern of anything even remotely proportionate to that of opposing positions...
Agreed. Although whether or not it is less important is too miss the point entirely.

A religion being blocked from entering the country is a bigger deal than less people going to church
Agreed, although what does less people going to church have to do with anything we have been talking about?
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
How so? And if they never should have had them in the first place, how did they get them to begin with? I wan't to understand your reasoning here. Again, it is most definitely a concern of those effected. Just because you think otherwise does not invalidate their thoughts on the matter. If it did, you would be no different than a dictator which would undermine the whole point of the Democratic system.

Agreed. Although whether or not it is less important is too miss the point entirely.


Agreed, although what does less people going to church have to do with anything we have been talking about?
What problems do you think Christianity is currently facing? What rights do they not have that other religions and individuals do, what persecutions are they suffering that everyone else is not? I don't see any.. Any at all
 

Koenig

The Architect
What problems do you think Christianity is currently facing? What rights do they not have that other religions and individuals do, what persecutions are they suffering that everyone else is not? I don't see any.. Any at all
Generally it is considered polite to answer a question before asking your own, so please answer mine at the first opportunity.

As for your question; education, prayer, religious acts, and the like all readily come to mind. In regards to education, in many places students are openly mocked with no repercussions in public schools, while the same kind of bullying in other methods make headlines. Meanwhile the idea of creationism is banned not for scientific reasons, but that it might conflict with the "separation of religion and state". Subsequently monotheistic students are again taught a single curriculum that often conflict with their own upbringing and are forbidden to ask questions or call out fallacies. No discussion is allowed, and their own beliefs are again mocked and vilified. Perhaps I am speaking more from my own upbringing, but it is something I have witnessed first hand.

In regard to prayer, it is well documented that in almost any institution now people can and have lost their jobs for praying or even offering to pray for others publicly. A blatant violation of not only the freedom of speech but the freedom of religion. (Although I would argue this overlaps with the sue happy culture that has surrounded the court system today)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...d-job-offering-pray-patients-waiting-surgery/
http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/...h-joe-kennedy-sues-bremerton-school-district/

In regards to religious acts, Churches and Pastors have been frequently sued in recent years for not performing the marriage vows for same sex couples even though they generally do so on the grounds of their own faith. The recent law passed last year has complicated things further, leaving the whole thing in a legal grey area, but one that exists none the less.


And finally their is the matter of religious whitewashing. Simply put, history books, public locations, and even works of literature have been subtly censored to remove references to religious acts or context. While at the same time only negative or out of context religious references are left in, often framing said objects in a blatantly hostile view. Keep your eyes peeled in any piece of literature or media coming out now days for these kind of things, I think you will be surprised at what you find.


It is true that many of these points are not as severe as some of the issues that are going on in our country (or the world), but it is most certainly something that does exist. To willfully turn a blind eye to it is no different than doing the same to other groups or persons when they are persecuted similarly.
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
Generally it is considered polite to answer a question before asking your own, so please answer mine at the first opportunity.

As for your question; education, prayer, religious acts, and the like all readily come to mind. In regards to education, in many places students are openly mocked with no repercussions in public schools, while the same kind of bullying in other methods make headlines. Meanwhile the idea of creationism is banned not for scientific reasons, but that it might conflict with the "separation of religion and state". Subsequently monotheistic students are again taught a single curriculum that often conflict with their own upbringing and are forbidden to ask questions or call out fallacies. No discussion is allowed, and their own beliefs are again mocked and vilified. Perhaps I am speaking more from my own upbringing, but it is something I have witnessed first hand.

In regard to prayer, it is well documented that in almost any institution now people can and have lost their jobs for praying or even offering to pray for others publicly. A blatant violation of not only the freedom of speech but the freedom of religion. (Although I would argue this overlaps with the sue happy culture that has surrounded the court system today)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...d-job-offering-pray-patients-waiting-surgery/
http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/...h-joe-kennedy-sues-bremerton-school-district/

In regards to religious acts, Churches and Pastors have been frequently sued in recent years for not performing the marriage vows for same sex couples even though they generally do so on the grounds of their own faith. The recent law passed last year has complicated things further, leaving the whole thing in a legal grey area, but one that exists none the less.


And finally their is the matter of religious whitewashing. Simply put, history books, public locations, and even works of literature have been subtly censored to remove references to religious acts or context. While at the same time only negative or out of context religious references are left in, often framing said objects in a blatantly hostile view. Keep your eyes peeled in any piece of literature or media coming out now days for these kind of things, I think you will be surprised at what you find.


It is true that many of these points are not as severe as some of the issues that are going on in our country (or the world), but it is most certainly something that does exist. To willfully turn a blind eye to it is no different than doing the same to other groups or persons when they are persecuted similarly.
prayer should not be in school, open mocking of religious preference not being punished is the fault of the local government and/or schools.. but what constitutes open mocking?

teaching evolution instead of creationism is scientifically sound, you don't teach alternate theories with zero basis in scientific discovery ebcause it makes people feel better about their religion, that is just silly, in no way should creationism be taught in public schools

as far as praying losing people their jobs... that can fall into many categories, from religious harassment in which the one praying IS in the wrong, to over sensitive PR departments and legal teams afraid of largely non existent repercussions...

none of this is even remotely comparable to the real problems of our current world, and most non-christians would look at those "problems" and simply respond


because it is incredibly silly.. especially in those low numbers... look at the police shooting that kicked off portests int he last few years, look at the Muslim ban enacted by our government, look at the refugee crisis ... and then compare that to a nurse overexerting her boundaries and losing her job because of an overly sensitive pr group at her hospital... the fact that you can cite such singular cases points to how little of an issue it is... people lose their jobs every day, some from real and actual discrimination... we should be tolerant of others who would do things like openly pray for their patients, even if it does create possible offenses.. but to even suggest that this is a real issue is kind of silly to me

as an atheist in highschool I argued with a teacher that she shouldn't have a giant portrait of jesus in her classroom

why? because I was a rebellious know it all kid who was starting to see the amount of undue influence christianity had on the masses and it bothered me... would I do the same thing now? no, I wouldn't be happy about it, and i might engage in a private conversation with the teacher expressing my concerns, MIGHT, being the operative word...

but at the time I was sent to the office, they then sent me to our on campus sheriff who screamed and yelled at me for about an hour about how Christians were all that mattered in this world and the law isn't on my side if I oppose them, and that Christians have protections that non christians do not, bla bla bla... it was a truly spectacularly fucked up instance of a christian authority figure belittling and screaming at a non christian minor for over an hour on a public school campus while the office ladies nodded their heads along in approval (which was evident by the looks I got when I came out of the office)

it traumatized me, and deeply offended my friends when I told them about it.. including 1 who was christian, and is now a pastor.

but even in my case it wasn't a scandal, it was just a few rotten eggs that made asses of themselves, and/or condoned said assery...

when I hear people complain about the church's shrinking power and influence I am happy, because it means maybe somebody wont have to be screamed at for an hour by a psycho with a gun on his hip... or that a few mroe gay children wont go under conversion therapy and end up killing themselves, or that more kids will be raised with information gleamed from a 2000 year old book whose disproven lessons have been reinterpreted as "not being literal" while their current battlefield is over how something from the book SHOULD be taught in PUBLIC non-religious schools as literal facts.

what is funny is that a lot of scientists in support of ideas like evolution ARE christians, it an fit into their faith, but creationism cannot fit into our science.
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
Going back to what Mighty was saying about religious rights that are being taken away or something to that effect, consider that the Pledge of Allegiance never had the words "under God" when it was first created. It was only during the height of the Cold War did those words get included. Also, why do we swear on a bible when in court, and hear the words, "so help me God?"
 

mattavelle1

IT’S GOT A DEATH RAY!
Moderator
prayer should not be in school, open mocking of religious preference not being punished is the fault of the local government and/or schools.. but what constitutes open mocking?

teaching evolution instead of creationism is scientifically sound, you don't teach alternate theories with zero basis in scientific discovery ebcause it makes people feel better about their religion, that is just silly, in no way should creationism be taught in public schools

as far as praying losing people their jobs... that can fall into many categories, from religious harassment in which the one praying IS in the wrong, to over sensitive PR departments and legal teams afraid of largely non existent repercussions...

none of this is even remotely comparable to the real problems of our current world, and most non-christians would look at those "problems" and simply respond


because it is incredibly silly.. especially in those low numbers... look at the police shooting that kicked off portests int he last few years, look at the Muslim ban enacted by our government, look at the refugee crisis ... and then compare that to a nurse overexerting her boundaries and losing her job because of an overly sensitive pr group at her hospital... the fact that you can cite such singular cases points to how little of an issue it is... people lose their jobs every day, some from real and actual discrimination... we should be tolerant of others who would do things like openly pray for their patients, even if it does create possible offenses.. but to even suggest that this is a real issue is kind of silly to me

as an atheist in highschool I argued with a teacher that she shouldn't have a giant portrait of jesus in her classroom

why? because I was a rebellious know it all kid who was starting to see the amount of undue influence christianity had on the masses and it bothered me... would I do the same thing now? no, I wouldn't be happy about it, and i might engage in a private conversation with the teacher expressing my concerns, MIGHT, being the operative word...

but at the time I was sent to the office, they then sent me to our on campus sheriff who screamed and yelled at me for about an hour about how Christians were all that mattered in this world and the law isn't on my side if I oppose them, and that Christians have protections that non christians do not, bla bla bla... it was a truly spectacularly fucked up instance of a christian authority figure belittling and screaming at a non christian minor for over an hour on a public school campus while the office ladies nodded their heads along in approval (which was evident by the looks I got when I came out of the office)

it traumatized me, and deeply offended my friends when I told them about it.. including 1 who was christian, and is now a pastor.

but even in my case it wasn't a scandal, it was just a few rotten eggs that made asses of themselves, and/or condoned said assery...

when I hear people complain about the church's shrinking power and influence I am happy, because it means maybe somebody wont have to be screamed at for an hour by a psycho with a gun on his hip... or that a few mroe gay children wont go under conversion therapy and end up killing themselves, or that more kids will be raised with information gleamed from a 2000 year old book whose disproven lessons have been reinterpreted as "not being literal" while their current battlefield is over how something from the book SHOULD be taught in PUBLIC non-religious schools as literal facts.

what is funny is that a lot of scientists in support of ideas like evolution ARE christians, it an fit into their faith, but creationism cannot fit into our science.
Ok I see now this is what I've been waiting for. Because of your unfortunate run in with some people yelling at you it totally turned you off and now you think that all of us are like that. Well you will be hard to have open discussion with just for the fact that you will turn anyone off with an alternative perspective than what you have experienced, which is sad. What happened to you shouldn't have and I'm sorry you were yelled at and turned away. I also think you take your facts from extreme cases of people who aren't Christians that claim to be but that fits your experiences so that's understandable.

I do have a question tho when you talk about facts and science. A lot of people say that there is noway to test God to prove his existence. I wonder how many of those people have actually tried to test God as he says in

Malachi 3:10 which says.

"Being the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this, Says the Lord Almighty, and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it."

Now, this is a scientific experiment if your willing to test him. 10% of what we bring home is the minimum of what he has asked of us. I give atleast that much back to him outta what I make and I watch my bank account, or how often my things ruin and both do very very well, I regularly have so many blessing that I don't have room for them. Would be super cool to see people who don't believe try this and see what there experience is.
 

sjmartin79

White Phoenix of the Crown
I always enjoy hearing perspectives from people about issues of discrimination and such who are not of the minority that are experiencing said discrimination.

Being on the receiving end of said discrimination gives me a certain earned perspective, but I honestly do find it interesting to see others' reactions from the outside.

I'll never be able to fully see things from their point of view just as they will never be able to understand things from mine.

Sure, there can be interesting and complex discussions, but neither of us will ever truly understand the views/feelings of the other.
 

DarkDepths

Your friendly neighbourhood robot overlord
Sorry Matt, I'm going to pick on you here. I don't entirely agree with Mighty, but I also don't agree with you :p

I also think you take your facts from extreme cases of people who aren't Christians that claim to be but that fits your experiences so that's understandable.
This isn't a useful thing to say. It's the no-true-Scotsman fallacy. Who is a "real" Christian, and who are you to define them? If it's people who follow all the teachings of the bible exactly, then I'm quite certain you aren't one (and all the better for it). So if you can choose which aspects are most applicable to you, and others do the same, how do we define what a "true" Christian is?

I do have a question tho when you talk about facts and science. A lot of people say that there is noway to test God to prove his existence. I wonder how many of those people have actually tried to test God as he says in

Malachi 3:10 which says.

"Being the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this, Says the Lord Almighty, and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it."

Now, this is a scientific experiment if your willing to test him. 10% of what we bring home is the minimum of what he has asked of us. I give atleast that much back to him outta what I make and I watch my bank account, or how often my things ruin and both do very very well, I regularly have so many blessing that I don't have room for them. Would be super cool to see people who don't believe try this and see what there experience is.
There are a few problems here. First, this is absolutely not a scientific experiment. How do you measure your blessings? I don't mean that rhetorically. I don't want to read about how happy you are, or the levels of joy that you get from your family, or the well-being of you family, etc. I want well-defined metrics, numbers. For this to be scientific, I need to be able to measure "blessings" and plot them on a graph over time. Which brings us to:

Second, what even is a blessing? In order to measure blessings, we must know precisely what they are. Further, we need to be able to differentiate between common good luck and other happenstance, and the willed effects of an action consciously enacted by a divine being.

It's all well and good for you to have many "blessings" and I'm happy for you. But I also have many "blessings", and I don't pay anything for them.

There are additional problems. One of the tenants of scientific rigor is that experiments must be repeatable and falsifiable. If our hypothesis is "If a person pays a tithe, then they will have 75% more blessings than someone who doesn't pay a tithe" (which is not a good hypothesis because we can't define, let alone measure, blessings). But if I run this experiment, I must do it many times under controlled conditions. Personal experience amounts to almost nothing. This is important because there is also an element of a self-fulfilling prophecy here.

People who pay a tithe and expect it to amount to good blessings will undoubtedly count their blessings highly, probably because they are invested but also because they believe in it - placebo at work.

Indeed, if we actually did do this, I think we find that there is little correlation. In fact, it seems probable that many people who pay a tithe have objectively "worse" lives than many who don't. Additionally, I know many people (including myself) who don't pay a tithe and already feel quite fulfilled. If that's the case, then apparently we have falsified the hypothesis.

But again, not really, because (a) there are too many variables to control, and (b) the hypothesis is not testable in the first place. Are there other factors involved in the dispensation of diving blessing, or is it contingent only on paying a 10% entrance fee? I would assume there are also aspects of "being a good person" and so on that would affect the amount of good blessings bestowed upon you. We must then also have a way of measuring goodness, and we must control the level of goodness of all participants in the study. Similarly, we must do the same for any other variables that might arise.
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
Ok I see now this is what I've been waiting for. Because of your unfortunate run in with some people yelling at you it totally turned you off and now you think that all of us are like that. Well you will be hard to have open discussion with just for the fact that you will turn anyone off with an alternative perspective than what you have experienced, which is sad. What happened to you shouldn't have and I'm sorry you were yelled at and turned away. I also think you take your facts from extreme cases of people who aren't Christians that claim to be but that fits your experiences so that's understandable.

I do have a question tho when you talk about facts and science. A lot of people say that there is noway to test God to prove his existence. I wonder how many of those people have actually tried to test God as he says in

Malachi 3:10 which says.

"Being the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this, Says the Lord Almighty, and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it."

Now, this is a scientific experiment if your willing to test him. 10% of what we bring home is the minimum of what he has asked of us. I give atleast that much back to him outta what I make and I watch my bank account, or how often my things ruin and both do very very well, I regularly have so many blessing that I don't have room for them. Would be super cool to see people who don't believe try this and see what there experience is.
I have had experiences with Christians, but i have also had great experiences with Christians, i have determined that it isn't Christianity that makes people good or bad... My point was that my example shows how schools and religion do not mix and how religion should not be in schools... At least in public schools, it was also to point out the power and privilege the church had enjoyed in public positions that it should have never been a part of...

When Christians fear that Christianity is being taken away from them... It isn't, Christianity had just lost its absolute dominance in things it should have never even had a presence in

Thomas Jefferson had a letter where he said something along the lines of government and church corrupt eachother, and must be kept seperate... His point wasn't that religion is bad, nor that government was bad, but that when the 2 are paired they turn eachother bad... They corrupt eachother.

So again, let me clarify, yes, i have had bad experiences with Christians, but i associate those problems with the assholes themselves and not the religion they declared... You don't have to be an asshole to be a Christian, and you don't have to be a Christian to be an asshole.
 

Koenig

The Architect
@theMightyME Again, I ask that you bother to answer my question from before. It is hard to have an actual discussion otherwise.

prayer should not be in school
Why? That is the same thing as saying you can't wish someone a good day or keep them in your thoughts.

open mocking of religious preference not being punished is the fault of the local government and/or schools.
Agreed, but then why I have I never once seen these addressed before when other "bullying" actions are?

... but what constitutes open mocking?
The literal definition of mocking itself: "making fun of someone or something in a cruel way; derisive.", Only in this case it is for a students personal beliefs as apposed their skin color, pre-existing health conditions, or sexual orientation.

teaching evolution instead of creationism is scientifically sound. you don't teach alternate theories with zero basis in scientific discovery ebcause it makes people feel better about their religion, that is just silly, in no way should creationism be taught in public schools
Again, why not? I am curious just how much experience you have with creationist teachings and their intelligent design counterpart that you can say that neither is scientifically sound.

as far as praying losing people their jobs... that can fall into many categories, from religious harassment in which the one praying IS in the wrong, to over sensitive PR departments and legal teams afraid of largely non existent repercussions...
In the case of the latter, could you provide an example? In the case of the former though, how is that not a problem?

none of this is even remotely comparable to the real problems of our current world, and most non-christians would look at those "problems" and simply respond


because it is incredibly silly.. especially in those low numbers...
Again, to marginalize these issues is to miss they point; the mere fact that these issues (like so many others) even exist, is proof enough of the problem at hand. To call them silly is just as offensive to those involved as it is to tell another minority group that their concerns are invalid.

look at the police shooting that kicked off portests int he last few years, look at the Muslim ban enacted by our government, look at the refugee crisis ... and then compare that to a nurse overexerting her boundaries and losing her job because of an overly sensitive pr group at her hospital... the fact that you can cite such singular cases points to how little of an issue it is... people lose their jobs every day, some from real and actual discrimination... we should be tolerant of others who would do things like openly pray for their patients, even if it does create possible offenses.. but to even suggest that this is a real issue is kind of silly to me
I do agree that all of these are issues, however I don't see how it is "just" to give them more or less concern than others issues though; If something is wrong it should be addressed plain and simple, it does not matter or big or small it is.

as an atheist in highschool I argued with a teacher that she shouldn't have a giant portrait of jesus in her classroom

why? because I was a rebellious know it all kid who was starting to see the amount of undue influence christianity had on the masses and it bothered me... would I do the same thing now? no, I wouldn't be happy about it, and i might engage in a private conversation with the teacher expressing my concerns, MIGHT, being the operative word...
Why do you consider it undue though?


but at the time I was sent to the office, they then sent me to our on campus sheriff who screamed and yelled at me for about an hour about how Christians were all that mattered in this world and the law isn't on my side if I oppose them, and that Christians have protections that non christians do not, bla bla bla... it was a truly spectacularly fucked up instance of a christian authority figure belittling and screaming at a non christian minor for over an hour on a public school campus while the office ladies nodded their heads along in approval (which was evident by the looks I got when I came out of the office)

it traumatized me, and deeply offended my friends when I told them about it.. including 1 who was christian, and is now a pastor.

but even in my case it wasn't a scandal, it was just a few rotten eggs that made asses of themselves, and/or condoned said assery...
Now this upsets me deeply. Things like this fly completely contrary to not only the foundational beliefs our nation was founded on, but the very religious groups that used it as an excuse to torment you. It makes me angry thinking about it, and I am very sorry that this ever happened to you or others in the situation.

when I hear people complain about the church's shrinking power and influence I am happy,
Why should the unjust of actions a few corrupt be used to justify the demonization of an entire branch of religion?

because it means maybe somebody wont have to be screamed at for an hour by a psycho with a gun on his hip... or that a few mroe gay children wont go under conversion therapy and end up killing themselves
I agree.

or that more kids will be raised with information gleamed from a 2000 year old book whose disproven lessons have been reinterpreted as "not being literal" while their current battlefield is over how something from the book SHOULD be taught in PUBLIC non-religious schools as literal facts.
What does the school being public have to do with it? Removing such topics from the education system effectively removes them from the conversation completely, leading to a bias against it later in life with no real discussion for or against being accepted.

what is funny is that a lot of scientists in support of ideas like evolution ARE christians, it an fit into their faith, but creationism cannot fit into our science.
And the reverse can and also has been claimed. I find it no so much funny as I do sad that both sides refuse to acknowledge the other.


Going back to what Mighty was saying about religious rights that are being taken away or something to that effect, consider that the Pledge of Allegiance never had the words "under God" when it was first created. It was only during the height of the Cold War did those words get included. Also, why do we swear on a bible when in court, and hear the words, "so help me God?"
In regards to the oath swearing, this is a holdover from old English and traditional court history. It was originally used in conjunction with religious beliefs, to affirm that one was telling truth; afterall "what God fearing man would swear an oath in his name and then lie?". However it's use in courts today is questionable, not only because of the separation of church and state, but because many religious groups consider such a thing sacrilegious in and of itself. It seems most courts today do not use this any more, and those that do cannot enforce it.
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
I've lost track of your original question koenig, what was it?

As for creationism, to my knowledge there is zero scientific backing, it is all religion, and as such is fine for Sunday school, for discussion at home, or for private schools that are not government funded... But but cool at all for public education.
 

Koenig

The Architect
I've lost track of your original question koenig, what was it?
The reason the "rights" being taken away from big religions doesn't matey is because it was powers and influence they never should have had in the first place...
How so? And if they never should have had them in the first place, how did they get them to begin with? I wan't to understand your reasoning here.
As for creationism, to my knowledge there is zero scientific backing, it is all religion, and as such is fine for Sunday school, for discussion at home, or for private schools that are not government funded... But but cool at all for public education.
There is a surprising amount of depth and accuracy to be had (at least in the original, non English translations) of creationist mythology. But as for the public school setting, I would argue it should still be an option for Students who opt for it, or at the very least brought up for discussion in the public sector.
 

DarkDepths

Your friendly neighbourhood robot overlord
What does the school being public have to do with it? Removing such topics from the education system effectively removes them from the conversation completely, leading to a bias against it later in life with no real discussion for or against being accepted.
My own take on this is that religious ideas should be taught in schools, in a religious studies course which covers the major contemporary religions. They shouldn't be taught as facts, or in any authoritative way, but as a study of religions and what they believe. Regardless of what is true or untrue, many people clearly believe a variety of things. I don't think creationism should be taught as a "true" thing in school, and certainly not in a science class, but it should be taught as an idea that some people believe. Again, not because they necessarily have any merit of their own, but because we have to interact with a variety of people in our lives, and it is useful to understand other perspectives.

In regards to the oath swearing, this is a holdover from old English and traditional court history. It was originally used in conjunction with religious beliefs, to affirm that one was telling truth; afterall "what God fearing man would swear an oath in his name and then lie?". However it's use in courts today is questionable, not only because of the separation of church and state, but because many religious groups consider such a thing sacrilegious in and of itself. It seems most courts today do not use this any more, and those that do cannot enforce it.
Oath swearing is really much older than this - predating English, even Christianity, entirely. The Romans, for example, even had a God (Orcus) whose main job was to punish people who broke their oaths. In legal settings, they swore by Jupiter with an Ius iurandum. Actually, interesting fact, the word "sacrament" comes from the latin "sacramentum" which in Roman law was an oath given to the gods.
 

Wolven

The Wolf of TNE Street
I haven't unpacked the whole thread yet, but I am definitely on @theMightyME 's side from what I am catching on to.

Here is the one thing that I need to add on to here though, we really can't excuse homophobic viewpoints as a more "conservative" view of sex. It would be kinda like excusing sexist viewpoints as a more "conservative" view of gender roles or excusing racist viewpoints as a more "conservative" view of race.

The guy definitely deserved the shit he got, considering we would give the same shit to someone who donated to an openly racist movement.

Like I said, tons to unpack so I don't know if the above is still relevant to the conversation.
 

mattavelle1

IT’S GOT A DEATH RAY!
Moderator
Sorry Matt, I'm going to pick on you here. I don't entirely agree with Mighty, but I also don't agree with you :p


This isn't a useful thing to say. It's the no-true-Scotsman fallacy. Who is a "real" Christian, and who are you to define them? If it's people who follow all the teachings of the bible exactly, then I'm quite certain you aren't one (and all the better for it). So if you can choose which aspects are most applicable to you, and others do the same, how do we define what a "true" Christian is?



There are a few problems here. First, this is absolutely not a scientific experiment. How do you measure your blessings? I don't mean that rhetorically. I don't want to read about how happy you are, or the levels of joy that you get from your family, or the well-being of you family, etc. I want well-defined metrics, numbers. For this to be scientific, I need to be able to measure "blessings" and plot them on a graph over time. Which brings us to:

Second, what even is a blessing? In order to measure blessings, we must know precisely what they are. Further, we need to be able to differentiate between common good luck and other happenstance, and the willed effects of an action consciously enacted by a divine being.

It's all well and good for you to have many "blessings" and I'm happy for you. But I also have many "blessings", and I don't pay anything for them.

There are additional problems. One of the tenants of scientific rigor is that experiments must be repeatable and falsifiable. If our hypothesis is "If a person pays a tithe, then they will have 75% more blessings than someone who doesn't pay a tithe" (which is not a good hypothesis because we can't define, let alone measure, blessings). But if I run this experiment, I must do it many times under controlled conditions. Personal experience amounts to almost nothing. This is important because there is also an element of a self-fulfilling prophecy here.

People who pay a tithe and expect it to amount to good blessings will undoubtedly count their blessings highly, probably because they are invested but also because they believe in it - placebo at work.

Indeed, if we actually did do this, I think we find that there is little correlation. In fact, it seems probable that many people who pay a tithe have objectively "worse" lives than many who don't. Additionally, I know many people (including myself) who don't pay a tithe and already feel quite fulfilled. If that's the case, then apparently we have falsified the hypothesis.

But again, not really, because (a) there are too many variables to control, and (b) the hypothesis is not testable in the first place. Are there other factors involved in the dispensation of diving blessing, or is it contingent only on paying a 10% entrance fee? I would assume there are also aspects of "being a good person" and so on that would affect the amount of good blessings bestowed upon you. We must then also have a way of measuring goodness, and we must control the level of goodness of all participants in the study. Similarly, we must do the same for any other variables that might arise.
I have no problem with you pickin on me DD, that's what I'm hear for. :msilly:

I'll start with the first quote and unpack the 2nd "test" later. Before I start on the first quote let me get everything together for it and I have one question. How are you quite certain I'm not a follower of Jesus?

After I have that info I'll start unpacking everything. I just wanna make sure I get everything in one post. :mthumb:

I don't know what a Scotsman is, so if it offended @theMightyME im sorry about that. I've ment no harm in my post.
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
How so? And if they never should have had them in the first place, how did they get them to begin with?
It's really quite simple. Laws used to be made in the name of God, or what the Church demanded. When it came time for the US to be created, and its constitution, most people were still very much Christians, and yet the founding fathers knew there would become a time when other religions and/or beliefs might be around. Now, it could be argued that when they refer to religion in the 1st amendment (which btw is the only place the use of the word religion is used, and "God" is never mentioned in the text), maybe it only pertains to Christianity, but they use the term religion in order to leave it ambiguous.

But as time went on, it was obvious people in power used their religion to help influence matters in this country. Just one example, dry states and/or counties on Sunday, where no alcohol can be served, or sold during that day. Also, the use of a bible in court to swear an oath. Hell, the President of the United States still swears an oath to a Bible. What if the elected president was Jewish? Hindu? Muslim? Atheist? Would he/she still be required to swear an oath to the bible, something which they personally do not believe in?

It's not so much the case now, but way back in the day, religion was extremely important to many, and the sheer thought of going against that was considered hersey. And think about this for a second. More people have been killed in the name of God (both by individuals, and governments) than for pretty much any other reason. Now, having said that, I don't necessarily blame the people back in the day, because it's reasonable to suggest that they didn't know any better, and back in those days, you just never did question it. Within the last couple hundred years though, we've come to pass of more information that can not only call into question certain doctrines of the Bible, but also change the way how people think and feel about religion in general. The thought that maybe there isn't a God (we just don't know the answer to that) that created us in his own image. These are all thoughts people think about now, and possibly did think to some extent back in the day, but it was never information made public for fear of persecution.

Religion in general has had a profound influence on society over thousands of years, but I think we are reaching a point (due to more information being accessible) where in a century or so, it might be something we don't think much about, nor practice on a regular basis. I'm not saying people should not practice the religion they associate themselves with, let me be clear on that. That is their own personal choice to consider.
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
I always enjoy hearing perspectives from people about issues of discrimination and such who are not of the minority that are experiencing said discrimination.

Being on the receiving end of said discrimination gives me a certain earned perspective, but I honestly do find it interesting to see others' reactions from the outside.

I'll never be able to fully see things from their point of view just as they will never be able to understand things from mine.

Sure, there can be interesting and complex discussions, but neither of us will ever truly understand the views/feelings of the other.
That's true. People can't understand how being against gay marriage hurt someone who wants to get this right as many can't understand how being militantly against faith and religion also hurt people of faith.

I believe we all have to have some compassion whoever the victim is. I don't try to judge victims, if they are true weak or not. We have all sorts of victims in this world:

Gays that can't get their rights
Gays that are killed in the middle east
Christians that are killed in the middle east
Women that are mistreated and enslaved in the middle east
North Koreans, the entire population, that are enslaved
etc

What bothers me is the double standards though. Things like cultural appropriation, that is clearly racism but can't be called racism because it comes from "minorities leaders". Feminists that fight against transsexuals because they're no "true women". That are all sorts of rubbish going on around those minorities leadership that people can't talk because they're "minorities" and all those sorts of things against religion that aren't considered offensive and persecution just because religious and Christians aren't "true minority" or they supposedly "rule the world".

Everyone should be treated equally, "majorities" or "minorities" both. Either when they are in trouble or when they screw up. "Majorities" can be in trouble and minorities leaders or institutions that claim to represent them can screw up and vice versa.
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
Both creationism and evolutionism are theories.

Evolutionism isn't fact and creationism isn't only religious stuff.

There are many scientists who are creationists.

Creationism isn't taking seriously because the most important scientific journals and departments are ruled by evolutionists.

The same happen with man-made global warming which is not a fact, but a theory and there are many scientists that teach against man-made global warming theory too. (Geologists usually don't believe in global warming, for example ) The media and the scientific journals don't publish them, because they're ruled by the global warming party. Both theories must be discussed.

PS: Someone might ask me to share sources. Google them, please. Google for list of scientists that don't believe in global warming and scientists that don't believe in evolutionism. Evolutionism and man-made global warming are just theories that become popular and nobody want to fight against them. Theories can be wrong. Many scientific theories of that past have been proven wrong. Maybe in a thousand years Evolutionism and global warming may be proved wrong, but so far they've not been proved right either.
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
How so? And if they never should have had them in the first place, how did they get them to begin with? I wan't to understand your reasoning here.
religious powers and rights include having religious statements int he pledge of allegiance and on cash... Jefferson was opposed to in god we trust being on our money, but it made it in anyways, eventually as religious groups with political sway forced it in, despite being highly unconstitutional... one nation under god is more recent, and a more direct attack on my own peeps. Communists were seen as ungodly because they denied religion int her government, in turn, many American believed that communism was an atheist ideology, and wished to attack the ungodliness of atheism by adding "under god" to the pledge, this happened during the cold war with Russia.

Christianity has had incredibly sway over politics because christians want candidates with christian values, nothing can really be done about that except wait as Christianity continues to decline as the most important aspect of people's lives... either by the people abandoning religion, or by religion becoming a more passive part of their lives... which is a good thing, because most of the atrocities of this world are caused by heightened fervor, either nationalism or religious zeal... so the further we get from those mentalities (know that I am not saying the further we get from religion in general, but rather the further we get from people dedicating their entire lives and identity to religion) the better.

so... what powers and rights did christianity have that they never should have had
1. overt political influence
2. adding god into places he/she/it should never have been a part of if we payed attention to Jefferson's views on the separation of church and state.
3. the incorrect perception that america is a christian nation when it was always intended to not be tied to religion at all.

Christianity has sunk its tendrils into every aspect of our government, and that goes against the very ideology this government was founded on

as we modernize and more literal aspects of the bible become figurative aspects of the bible, Christianity loses a lot of it's authoritative power... because it goes from "every word of the bible is LAW... DO THIS NOW"... to a much calmer "the bible has lessons to teach us"

and that is where religion should be... a spiritual guide you turn to in troubling times

some of you might go to church, I go see a therapist

for example, yesterday I went to my therapist and talked about how my diet is gone,my exercise stopped, and my anxiety rising, by talking to the therapist I was able to conclude that I need to find the cause of these self destructive behaviors and begin to nibble at the edges of them, the first target in sight is my schedule... I was waking up and going to sleep at erratically different times, which makes it hard to eat healthy, and find time to exorcise and even just plan activities (big or small).... faced with a similar issue, Matt might consult religion and find another (likely similar) path.... the difference being that when I do it I am analyzing the way my own brain works and working with that in mind, where as Matt might (I say might because I am not speaking for what he would actually do) be abandoning an aspect of control in order to alleviate anxiety and make a clearer decision.

have I answered your question now? if not then I need you to rephrase it.
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
I completely disagree, but this is also a matter of region and culture as well.

I do agree with this however, although I think it is of equal concern. However it is a fact that the privileges and, depending on who you ask, rights for religious groups in America have been substantially whittled away in the recent decades, while many of the protections that said religious groups have benefited from have been revoked or even turned against them. To dismiss the concerns of the people involved would be no different than the "bigotry" that they are so often accused of.

There were 32 Christians killed in Egypt on Palm Sunday just the other day. There worship service was bombed.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/09/middleeast/egypt-church-explosion/index.html

@theMightyME said

as for Dawkins... he said religion is a great evil of the world, not "the religious" saying that this should be explored as hate speech is kind of foolish imo, as is any statement in which christians are portrayed as a victim group... that is just silly... it is like the mens rights and white rights groups...

As of this moment you could be very well right at we aren't the victims. But it won't always be like this, and the time is drawin nearer that it won't. To talk on @Shoulder point about chip technology potentially being a solution for carrying literally your info on you I think this will come to pass. More and more in the world you are seeing wearable technology getting people used to it being no big deal to have this tech even on you or inside of you.

Also your seeing globalization being a term that is being used more than ever before because we actually have the tech to combine the worlds with the internet. Seeing the world come together and be ok with middle eastern country's being wreaked by us all lead to the path that I'm about to bring up.

They all work towards Revelations. I'm not saying these things happen tomorrow, but I'm saying that we could see the wearable or implanted tech become the Mark of the Beast, golbalization has to happen aswell for the end to come and we're moving more and more in that direction.

Also there has to be extreme conflict in the Middle East for many years, because if there wasent conflict the antichrist wouldn't have any reason to come and make peace for his reign.

To bring this all back to Mightys original point yeah as of right now Christians probably aren't the victims in many instances. Are the persecuted abroad yes at certain times, but when the end comes near you will see us killed, starved, and presecuted like never before and people will be ok with that by that time.

I do agree with you that religion is extremely dangerous. That's why I don't follow a religion because religion can not save you from anything. I follow a man named Jesus who was God in human flesh.
Christians are minorities and are persecuted in dozens of countries.

Christians in Nigeria are suffering too. They're being attacked and killed and the neither Nigeria gov nor the UN don't give a damm.

Christians in Iraq and Syrian are being mass murdered. The UN and the USA are shielding Arabs, women and other minorities there, but they're not helping Christians groups. The Syrian and Iraq Church are being helped only by donations from the Catholic Church and other Eastern Churches or random Christians who are donating here in the West.

There's a bishop from the Iraq Church (he hired an attorney in the US to try to talk to the Congress to ask for help, I forgot his name), because the USA don't give a damm about the Christians and nobody knows why. He's been asking for help in the US.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/0...p-travel-ban-hopes-for-aid-to-christians.html

“That said, the fact that an American administration seems to know that there are Christians and other religious minorities here who need help is something I find heartening. I hope this means that we will no longer be excluded from U.S. government and UN aid, which our people desperately need.”​

The bishop himself tried to fly to Washington to ask the Congress for help but the Trump's ban ended up stopping him to enter the US. Can you believe that?

http://www.cny.org/stories/Travel-Ban-Postpones-US-Visit-of-Chaldean-Archbishop-of-Erbil,15036
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
I have no problem with you pickin on me DD, that's what I'm hear for. :msilly:

I'll start with the first quote and unpack the 2nd "test" later. Before I start on the first quote let me get everything together for it and I have one question. How are you quite certain I'm not a follower of Jesus?

After I have that info I'll start unpacking everything. I just wanna make sure I get everything in one post. :mthumb:

I don't know what a Scotsman is, so if it offended @theMightyME im sorry about that. I've ment no harm in my post.
you didn't offend me, except for thinking that I can't understand reason because I am biased... we are all biased, we all have our own good and bad treatments that have shaped us... that doesn't mean I cannot be objective, or at the very least strive towards objectivity, if anything you said offended me it was giving up on me in that way. But I know you didn't mean it like that...

as for the Scotsman thing

it is called a No True Scotsman Fallacy

think of it like this.... a Scotish guy and an Irish guy are sitting in a Scotish pub... one of the Irish guys Irish friends does soemthign incredibly stupid, the Scotish man looks at the first Irish man and says "No Scotsman would be so foolish".... immediately after which a Scotish guy in the bar does the exact same thing... the original Irish man throws the Scot an "oh yeah?" look.. and the Scotsman repsonds by saying "well, no TRUE Sctosman would do that

the idea being that in order to protect his original point, the scotsman has established himself the arbitrator of everything that makes a Scotsman a TRUE Scotsman.... he has created conditions that allow his point to stand, but those positions cannot be questioned because he has made himself the sole source of Scotsmanality (lol)

the fallacy is very similar to moving the goal post

which is when an argument is changed by one of the sides.... both of which were practiced by Odo, for example in our debate over whether or not the switch is a hybrid.... he moved the goal post as to what a hybrid needed to be into something he never actually explained, while saying that the switch is a tablet and not a TRUE console

so that is a case in which that has been used on these boards before.
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
which is when an argument is changed by one of the sides.... both of which were practiced by Odo, for example in our debate over whether or not the switch is a hybrid.... he moved the goal post as to what a hybrid needed to be into something he never actually explained, while saying that the switch is a tablet and not a TRUE console

so that is a case in which that has been used on these boards before.
No, I didn't. You're just a bad reader and think that you're a smart person.
 

Koenig

The Architect
Keep it chill you two.

have I answered your question now? if not then I need you to rephrase it.
You have explained your point thoroughly now, so it is no longer such a blanket statement. Thank you for that, it makes it much easier for me to understand your point of view, even though I disagree with much of it.
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
Keep it chill you two.



You have explained your point thoroughly now, so it is no longer such a blanket statement. Thank you for that, it makes it much easier for me to understand your point of view, even though I disagree with much of it.
So as a curious person, why do you disagree?
 

GaemzDood

Well-Known Member
Setting aside subsidizing things, do you agree that larger companies should be allowed to threaten retailers and other distribution services, along with other methods of limiting supply in order to destroy their competition outside of the realms of capitalism?
What are they going to threaten them with if they can't get the federal government involved? The big food industry is able to assert power because they can get bills passed at a federal level. Antitrust laws thrive on deliberate vagueness and ex post facto rulings.

All antitrust criteria is meaningless. An example is the criterion of substantially lessening competition. This implicitly assumes that "competition" is some sort of quantity. But it is not; it is a process, whereby individuals and firms supply goods on the market without using force. To preserve "competition" does not mean to dictate arbitrarily that a certain number of firms of a certain size have to exist in an industry or area; it means to see to it that men are free to compete (or not) unrestrained by the use of force.

Some of this was taken from Power and Market: Government and Economy by Murray Rothbard.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 

Koenig

The Architect
What are they going to threaten them with if they can't get the federal government involved?
Patent exploitation, excessive litigation, demanding retailers and providers blacklist competition upon threat of termination, false marketing to slander the competition, and the fabrication of scandals to misdirect information further; all of these come to mind off the top of my head. Sadly, even existing anti-trust laws do not address half of these so I have no argument to defend them in their current state in that regard. I do believe anti trust laws should exist, but be focused on ensuring companies compete with product and service rather than with connections and deception.

All antitrust criteria is meaningless. An example is the criterion of substantially lessening competition. This implicitly assumes that "competition" is some sort of quantity. But it is not; it is a process, whereby individuals and firms supply goods on the market without using force. To preserve "competition" does not mean to dictate arbitrarily that a certain number of firms of a certain size have to exist in an industry or area; it means to see to it that men are free to compete (or not) unrestrained by the use of force.

Some of this was taken from Power and Market: Government and Economy by Murray Rothbard.

Sent from my SM-G900V using genital warts
It is most definitely flawed, and far to vague for its own good in its current form. Although I would argue for the points I mentioned above, that anti-trust laws should be reformed, not removed.
 

GaemzDood

Well-Known Member
Patent exploitation, excessive litigation, demanding retailers and providers blacklist competition upon threat of termination, false marketing to slander the competition, and the fabrication of scandals to misdirect information further; all of these come to mind off the top of my head. Sadly, even existing anti-trust laws do not address half of these so I have no argument to defend them in their current state in that regard. I do believe anti trust laws should exist, but be focused on ensuring companies compete with product and service rather than with connections and deception.

It is most definitely flawed, and far to vague for its own good in its current form. Although I would argue for the points I mentioned above, that anti-trust laws should be reformed, not removed.
Those are all theoretical, and again, need some sort of overarching force to enforce.

To quote philosopher Ayn Rand writing in “Antitrust: The Rule of Unreason” Voice of Reason,
"The alleged purpose of the Antitrust laws was to protect competition; that purpose was based on the socialistic fallacy that a free, unregulated market will inevitably lead to the establishment of coercive monopolies. But, in fact, no coercive monopoly has ever been or ever can be established by means of free trade on a free market. Every coercive monopoly was created by government intervention into the economy: by special privileges, such as franchises or subsidies, which closed the entry of competitors into a given field, by legislative action…The Antitrust laws were the classic example of a moral inversion prevalent in the history: an example of the victims, the businessmen, taking the blame for the evils caused by government, and the government using its own guilt as a justification for acquiring wider powers, on the pretext of “correcting” the evils."

What about Rockefeller’s Standard Oil?
ANTITRUST
Standard Oil was punished for dropping the price of oil more then half, by buying up competitors in order to gain greater economies of scale — as their market grew they were able to achieve greater economies of scale, and thus lower their production costs, and thus lower their prices, while increasing their profits. Of course, by taking over inefficient refineries and charging lower prices, their inefficient competitors were unable to compete successfully (i.e., they were free to enter the market and compete, but because they were not as productive they could not ‘win’), and so under antitrust ‘Standard Oil’ was punished for being too successful.
Writes Dominick Armentano [professor of economics at the University of Hartford],
The little-known truth is that when the government took Standard Oil to court in 1907, Standard Oil’s market share had been declining for a decade. Far from being a “monopoly,” Standard’s share of petroleum refining was approximately 64% at the time of trial. Moreover, there were at least 147 other domestic oil-refining competitors in the market — and some of these were large, vertically integrated firms such as Texaco, Gulf Oil, and Sun. Kerosene outputs had expanded enormously (contrary to usual monopolistic conduct); and prices for kerosene had fallen from more than $2 per gallon in the early 1860s to approximately six cents per gallon at the time of the trial. So much for the myth of the Standard Oil “monopoly.”

http://capitalism.org/category/antitrust/
https://thepolicy.us/without-anti-trust-laws-wouldnt-we-be-at-the-mercy-of-monopolies-d067751a91e4

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 

Koenig

The Architect
So as a curious person, why do you disagree?
In part for the reasoning behind it and references to Jefferson. The notion that a nation that was as a majority religious at the time should in no way reflect their ethics, morals, points of view and other beliefs in the democratic government they ran is a paradox; the whole notion of democracy is that it reflects the will of the people whom it consists of.

Likewise the reference solely to Jefferson when discussing the founding fathers in this kind of topic is something I also see often. Jefferson was but one of many of our founding fathers, who just like him, had their own takes on government and what our nation should or should not be founded on and what it should become; yet unlike Jefferson who is frequently quoted for this topic as a deciding factor, they are often completely ignored in other often larger aspects of our nation. (Banks and lending, anyone?) If one wishes to argue with the opinions of one Founding father, then they must also take into equal account those of all the Founding fathers. This has seldom been the case, especially in the past few generations. The United States of America is most definitely completely different being than it was at its conception, for better and for worse.

On the third point, It is more a matter of perspective. If America is as a majority inhabited by Christians, then it is a Christian nation; just the same as if it were inhabited by LGBT citizens as a majority, it would be LGBT nation, same so for Muslim, Atheists, Mormon, or even "Scientology". A democratic Nation is defined by its people. I would however argue that America is no longer a "Christian" nation, although I don't think it has asserted itself as anything else yet either; their are so many competing ideologies and political beliefs competing right now, which makes our current "2-party" system all the baffling and ineffective.
 

Koenig

The Architect
@GaemzDood Again I would argue that anti-trust laws should be reformed to more accurately acknowledge the current market itself rather than outright being removed. Because as long as patent, copyright laws, and civil lawsuits exist, their will always be ways for companies to "Force" their competition into a disadvantage outside of the actual capitalist market. (Granted, I would also love to see the Patent System, Copyright laws, and Civil Justice system thoroughly revised to fix their own respective and far reaching problems, but that is an argument for another time.)
 

Juegos

All mods go to heaven.
Moderator
Christians are minorities and are persecuted in dozens of countries.

Christians in Nigeria are suffering too. They're being attacked and killed and the neither Nigeria gov nor the UN don't give a damm.

Christians in Iraq and Syrian are being mass murdered. The UN and the USA are shielding Arabs, women and other minorities there, but they're not helping Christians groups. The Syrian and Iraq Church are being helped only by donations from the Catholic Church and other Eastern Churches or random Christians who are donating here in the West.

There's a bishop from the Iraq Church (he hired an attorney in the US to try to talk to the Congress to ask for help, I forgot his name), because the USA don't give a damm about the Christians and nobody knows why. He's been asking for help in the US.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/0...p-travel-ban-hopes-for-aid-to-christians.html

“That said, the fact that an American administration seems to know that there are Christians and other religious minorities here who need help is something I find heartening. I hope this means that we will no longer be excluded from U.S. government and UN aid, which our people desperately need.”​

The bishop himself tried to fly to Washington to ask the Congress for help but the Trump's ban ended up stopping him to enter the US. Can you believe that?

http://www.cny.org/stories/Travel-Ban-Postpones-US-Visit-of-Chaldean-Archbishop-of-Erbil,15036
I've wanted to post all of this ^. I have an Egyptian Christian Orthodox friend that has family over there, and every year I hear about multiple church bombings that kill dozens of Christians. Christian persecution in the US is absolutely not the same thing as it is in the Middle East.
 

Wolven

The Wolf of TNE Street
Both creationism and evolutionism are theories.

Evolutionism isn't fact and creationism isn't only religious stuff.

There are many scientists who are creationists.

Creationism isn't taking seriously because the most important scientific journals and departments are ruled by evolutionists.

The same happen with man-made global warming which is not a fact, but a theory and there are many scientists that teach against man-made global warming theory too. (Geologists usually don't believe in global warming, for example ) The media and the scientific journals don't publish them, because they're ruled by the global warming party. Both theories must be discussed.

PS: Someone might ask me to share sources. Google them, please. Google for list of scientists that don't believe in global warming and scientists that don't believe in evolutionism. Evolutionism and man-made global warming are just theories that become popular and nobody want to fight against them. Theories can be wrong. Many scientific theories of that past have been proven wrong. Maybe in a thousand years Evolutionism and global warming may be proved wrong, but so far they've not been proved right either.
Oh man

Anti evolution and global warming.

Alright I looked it up for you.

In 1991, according to a gallup poll, only 5% of scientists identified as creationists.

A 2009 PEW research poll found that nearly all scientists (97%) support evolution.

This is from skimming the wikipedia page.

Of course there'll be a minority for everything. In this case it is a very extreme minority.

I don't believe that being pro-evolution and being devoutly religious are in contradiction with each other though. My friend, she's very deeply catholic, is very pro-science and evolution and she believes in climate change too.

Now, I don't see as much harm in being anti evolution as I see in being anti-climate change. You don't have to be a scientist to find out that our climate is fucked up. We've been on a pretty solid "warmest to date" streak, and no it isn't the earth going through cycles. Even if it was the earth going through cycles, it is still extremely deadly for us.
 

Wolven

The Wolf of TNE Street
Christians are minorities and are persecuted in dozens of countries.

Christians in Nigeria are suffering too. They're being attacked and killed and the neither Nigeria gov nor the UN don't give a damm.

Christians in Iraq and Syrian are being mass murdered. The UN and the USA are shielding Arabs, women and other minorities there, but they're not helping Christians groups. The Syrian and Iraq Church are being helped only by donations from the Catholic Church and other Eastern Churches or random Christians who are donating here in the West.

There's a bishop from the Iraq Church (he hired an attorney in the US to try to talk to the Congress to ask for help, I forgot his name), because the USA don't give a damm about the Christians and nobody knows why. He's been asking for help in the US.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/0...p-travel-ban-hopes-for-aid-to-christians.html

“That said, the fact that an American administration seems to know that there are Christians and other religious minorities here who need help is something I find heartening. I hope this means that we will no longer be excluded from U.S. government and UN aid, which our people desperately need.”​

The bishop himself tried to fly to Washington to ask the Congress for help but the Trump's ban ended up stopping him to enter the US. Can you believe that?

http://www.cny.org/stories/Travel-Ban-Postpones-US-Visit-of-Chaldean-Archbishop-of-Erbil,15036
I wonder how it feels to be oppressed. :/

Did no one here hear about what happened in Chechnya? Its shit. People are oppressed all over the world. I guarantee you that Christians don't have it nearly as bad as LGBT people in other countries. It's horrible. The Christian religion is the overwhelming majority of the world (1/3 of the people in the world follow one of its many faiths!!). And it sucks that this sort of discrimination is going on, but we can't just single out one minority being oppressed because they're Christian. There are tons of them man.
 
Top