Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So now the real motive surfaces. What laws bother you? Take care.
You make it sound like this was some hidden motive that is only becoming apparent to you now. It is not so. Many of us are quite clear that this is one of the main motives of what we are talking about. That is essentially what secularism is.... denuding public policy, law, education and science of the truth claims of religion.
And to answer your question, it is not just laws that are current that bother such people, but ALSO laws that people are trying to implement. Not just laws either, but policy and education curriculum. All around the world for example people are trying to change education curriculum to include the idea that the earth is 6000-10000 years old, that noahs ark is historical and not metaphorical, and that any science or history being taught in schools that contradict that should be removed.
Even in the north of Ireland, a small corner of the world, the political party DUP are attacking Museums and schools for this very thing, and demanding that they change their ways to reflect a young earth rather than what science and history actually tell us is true.
So no, this is not some hidden real motivation that you have heroically uncovered... it is a very real concern and one people who call themselves atheist or secular are very open about.
This opens another matter altogether: the "chicken little" effect.
I contend that you DO know the truths that I'm aware of ("cherish" in your sentence).
And I contend that you live among and use them every day of your life as well...
just as every other human on the planet does.
The schism between us, between theists and the rest, is the other dozen or hundred (or million?) things
which you assert to also exist...
and which you assert that you live among...
and which you assert that you use every day...
that no one else sees of feels.
To be clear: I don't object to you having these beliefs.
I'll protect to the death your right to have them and to teach them and to preach them too...
but where we part is with attempts to describe them as anything other than (let alone more than) your "belief".
(and of course all the laws and social constriction believers try to force on the rest of society)
Clearer?
I got into this discussion based on the OP point of respect. Once I replied to the response to my message was about truth so I replied. I agree it is a different point and I agree with you the point of respecting others beliefs.
All the the lines you wrote simply showed me again what I pointed in a previews paragraphs where I stated you and those people that believe in the Bible and Jesus share the same thing and also love to push your points and in your ways love to demean or berrate the other. Both sides thump on table claiming the truth. Well, I love knowing the truth and in my journey in life I seek it. Will I ever get the truth, the whole thruth and nothing but the truth? Maybe not and if that is the case the journey was worth seeking it even if I came up short. I do not try to remain on a high horse as some or many of the members on both side of the issue do.
I admit I chuckle how both side of the god issue try and even seem happy to tear the other side down. It is not funny but I can't help see people let emotions get the best of them.
I suppose this is part of the human dimension because it applies not only in the god issue but in politics and other human endeavors where all claim the truth and all claim to be logical and rational. Do you see in these forums people claiminng "I made no sense"? How about "I do not use logic"?
On ocassion I simply state it is because that is how I feel and believe and it does not have to be logical. That is part of being human, we are not robots. So we do live part of our lives based on feelings and emotions, not only logic as Spock or some programmed computer. Here is where some on any issue look at themselves as having the TRUTH. If you do, great as I stated before. If the god crew see it that way, great also. I am not going to get into the arrogance mode.
I have read articles on human behavior and in the realm of psychology where surveys show how people reason and use logic is greatly influenced by the philosophical beliefs they hold, their upbringing, their environment, their political inclinations, their degree of sense of humanity to others, etc. In other words we are a product of our environment and that influences a lot how we believe and now that affect our logic and rationalization of the world around us.
But going back to the origian OP point I do agree with your we both respect how others believe regardless of how we differ in others beliefs, take care.
Absolutely, and dealing with that problem is essentially what secularism is all about. It is about getting all parties together and saying "Let us have a conversation based on the things we all share and can show to be true. We have real world data to work on when making out decisions, so why invent more that we can not even show a basis for".
Conversation between everyone is not impossible if we limit ourselves to the data we all actually HAVE. We just need to denude ourselves of fantasy claims and baseless assertions, such as the existence of gods.
I would refer you at this point, should you be interested, to the 2006 keynote speech Obama made as he says it better in that speech than I am saying it. I will quote the relevant part of his speech here for you to save you looking it up yourself. It essentially is saying the exact same thing I am, only better...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama2006
Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.
Even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson’s, or Al Sharpton’s?
Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application?
So before we get carried away, let’s read our Bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their Bibles.
Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice.
Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences.
To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing. And if you doubt that, let me give you an example.
We all know the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is ordered by God to offer up his only son, and without argument, he takes Isaac to the mountaintop, binds him to an altar, and raises his knife, prepared to act as God has commanded.
Of course, in the end God sends down an angel to intercede at the very last minute, and Abraham passes God's test of devotion.
But it's fair to say that if any of us leaving this church saw Abraham on a roof of a building raising his knife, we would, at the very least, call the police and expect the Department of Children and Family Services to take Isaac away from Abraham. We would do so because we do not hear what Abraham hears, do not see what Abraham sees, true as those experiences may be. So the best we can do is act in accordance with those things that we all see, and that we all hear, be it common laws or basic reason.
What is being missed in the above post is that this IS science, because that is how science works. Science is a process whereby the existence or truth of something is based only on the data you have, not on the data you have ignored or imagined. What is being missed therefore in the above post is that if a concept is entirely devoid of any supporting data then scientists are forced to proceed without that concept when creating Theory (though they are free to play with those concepts when creating hypothesis all they like.)
What is missing? Everything you accept as knowledge about Reality IS knowledge about God. You have NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS to call it "No God" . . . except preference. There is no more omnipresent, omnipotent entity than our ENTIRE REALITY. That you require MORE than that to call it God is preference and bias against the absurd unfounded religious BELIEFS ABOUT God. But YOUR BELIEFS ABOUT "No God" are equally unfounded. Take a philosophy course and get educated about the reality you THINK you understand. Your ignorance is way too obvious to require rebuttal to your charges about my education and knowledge. How could you possibly recognize it with your intellectual deficits.
You make it sound like this was some hidden motive that is only becoming apparent to you now. It is not so. Many of us are quite clear that this is one of the main motives of what we are talking about. That is essentially what secularism is.... denuding public policy, law, education and science of the truth claims of religion.
And to answer your question, it is not just laws that are current that bother such people, but ALSO laws that people are trying to implement. Not just laws either, but policy and education curriculum. All around the world for example people are trying to change education curriculum to include the idea that the earth is 6000-10000 years old, that noahs ark is historical and not metaphorical, and that any science or history being taught in schools that contradict that should be removed.
Even in the north of Ireland, a small corner of the world, the political party DUP are attacking Museums and schools for this very thing, and demanding that they change their ways to reflect a young earth rather than what science and history actually tell us is true.
So no, this is not some hidden real motivation that you have heroically uncovered... it is a very real concern and one people who call themselves atheist or secular are very open about.
This is an admirable and acceptable aim . . . but religions and their beliefs about God are NOT God and do not establish God's existence . . . our Reality does. Keeping what are too frequently the absurd religious BELIEFS out of our laws and science curriculum is laudable . . . but it is NOT the same thing as keeping God out of the explanatory framework for Reality. Creationism (especially young earth) is a fraud and ID AS presented by the Discovery Institute is also a fraud. But NONE of that makes God a fraud. Your "No God" is NOT a scientific default since it based entirely on preferred BELIEFS about our ignorance ("we do not know") of what undeniably exists.
Absolutely, and dealing with that problem is essentially what secularism is all about. It is about getting all parties together and saying "Let us have a conversation based on the things we all share and can show to be true. We have real world data to work on when making out decisions, so why invent more that we can not even show a basis for".
Is it necessary a Bible believer and theist to sit down and debate and try to prove their points as the truth. Not really. Have you seen any success in any of these forums? I have not, tell me if you have anyone on either side say "I see the light now, I am now a theist or atheist". No one REALLY wants to sit down and share. At least that is my impression when I read message back and forth on both sides of the god issue. People in my opinion tend to disguse it by really saying "Let me try to convince you that you are wrong and I have the truth".
Conversation between everyone is not impossible if we limit ourselves to the data we all actually HAVE. We just need to denude ourselves of fantasy claims and baseless assertions, such as the existence of gods. Right there. YOU already demanded a criteria in a conversation between both sides. Do you think it sits well with an individual that loves his Bible and believes what is in it? No, you already put him down with you comments of fantasy or as others call them delusionals. That also seems condescending. This happens of both sides I must state. If you REALLY want an honest and sincere exchange of ideas then you need to allow the Bible guy to sit down with his Bible and explain his views and he does the same with your scientific method views WITHOUT DEMEANING, something I do not see in these forums.
I would refer you at this point, should you be interested, to the 2006 keynote speech Obama made as he says it better in that speech than I am saying it. I will quote the relevant part of his speech here for you to save you looking it up yourself. It essentially is saying the exact same thing I am, only better...
That is a nice speech I will say. I am for the government not imposing religion on others. I have no problem with that. I do go back to the original OP point about respect. He talked in demeaning terms of why should he respect those people and if I recall correctly bothers him when someone expresses Gods views without even trying to impose his views. So if I say God loves you, are you going to get bent our of shape? Not me. Let them. No big deal. I am not going to make such a big fuss and be disrespectulf or tell him I do not believe in his fantasies. Do you show tact and/or respect to others in other areas of your life even though they make a comment or express a view you do not agree with? I know you do so why does that disappear if someone tells you God loves you?
That is a nice speech I will say. I am for the government not imposing religion on others. I have no problem with that. I do go back to the original OP point about respect. He talked in demeaning terms of why should he respect those people and if I recall correctly bothers him when someone expresses Gods views without even trying to impose his views. So if I say God loves you, are you going to get bent our of shape? Not me. Let them. No big deal. I am not going to make such a big fuss and be disrespectulf or tell him I do not believe in his fantasies. Do you show tact and/or respect to others in other areas of your life even though they make a comment or express a view you do not agree with? I know you do so why does that disappear if someone tells you God loves you?
I can only point out my own experiences regarding such discussions. It has been my experience that when discussing opposing points of view regarding this god debate with the delusional types, they often revert to disrespectful and personal attacks on me and others like me. I have no problem displaying respect for their beliefs and I always use tact when engaging in discussions with them and often preface remarks with "with all due respect to you and your church, or religion...." But like I've stated before, often times I get the "you're so goin to hell" response.
I have had many tell me "god loves you anyway" to which I respond with a thank you.
SO, to get back to the original post, I do not have respect for anyone who displays their ignorance as well as their puerile beliefs, however I keep my contempt and pity for such people to myself. If the opportunity presents itself to express it, I do it, politely and respectfully. But I have no problem telling a delussional type how I feel, telling them with all due respect of course.
I can only point out my own experiences regarding such discussions. It has been my experience that when discussing opposing points of view regarding this god debate with the delusional types, they often revert to disrespectful and personal attacks on me and others like me. That is your personal experience. Now, look at the forums and do a survey. Simply look at the OP titles and please tell me which ones tend to be offensive, condescending, or demeaning more? Look at your own comment. You call them "the delusional types". Was that necessary. You already demean them. Were you able to make your point to me without that remark? It did not offend me because I do not believe in the Bible and Jesus. I have decided to believe in God but I do not make it my point to prove its existence. Still your comment I do not let it get to me but other can rightfully say is disrespectful, the same you label them.
I have no problem displaying respect for their beliefs and I always use tact when engaging in discussions with them and often preface remarks with "with all due respect to you and your church, or religion...." But like I've stated before, often times I get the "you're so goin to hell" response. Here is one of those instances where you claim you were so polite. Well, maybe you were or maybe your demeanor did not support your polite words. People do not realize how their true feelings are reflected in their words even though they claim to say something else. However, accepting your claim that your facial expression and words were very respectful the response to you was not godly.
I have had many tell me "god loves you anyway" to which I respond with a thank you. I would respond with a God loves you anyways too.
SO, to get back to the original post, I do not have respect for anyone who displays their ignorance as well as their puerile beliefs, however I keep my contempt and pity for such people to myself. If the opportunity presents itself to express it, I do it, politely and respectfully. But I have no problem telling a delussional type how I feel, telling them with all due respect of course.
In my case respect has more to do with how people treat each other. I do not show of feel disrespect because I believe they are ignorant or want to believe in things I do not think have any logic. I also have no contempt for them either. I look between the lines and I venture to guess that the polite strategy you claim does not shield your true contempt and that can reflect and be seen or sense by others. Look at your "puerile" and "delusional" comment. I can sense your disdain for them simply because they believe the way they do. I base my respect towards others by the way they treat other people, not by what they believe. We differ on our approach when it comes to respect others, take care.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
