Congratulations, Great Britain! (Baptist, marriage, Savior, brainwashing)

[GldnRule]

Originally Posted by Mercury Cougar

I only go to the christianity board when there is something particularly egregious posted that has popped to the top of the "last posting" list. Can't avoid seeing it then, so sometimes I comment on the really crazy threads in there. The reason I post in the R&P forum is because religion affects my life every day in a negative way, so I have a vested interest in trying to squash the odious tidal wave of religious fecal matter in the world.

If that is your mission...I congratulate you!

You win the award for--"Person that Spent the Most Time and Effort To Accomplish the Least of Their Goal".

THAT is what you are trying to do...and your thousands upon thousands of posts to this site is your way of trying to achieve that?!

WAIT!, no...no way...nobody with any sense what-so-ever, that was trying to do something, would pick a method that foolishly inefficient and ineffective. NOBODY is that clueless.

Naaaaaaah!...you just enjoy busting on people...and this is a way you've found to do it that you like.

[OhioanKid]

Originally Posted by Thomas R.

Well you're not going to do it. Religion, even including extremist forms, is going to exist. It exists even in Sweden. Atheism is also going to exist, even in some place like Mali or Nigeria, so squashing it outright is a fools errand.

If you are really intent on squashing ways of thinking you find irrational or harmful than in many ways you might be the dangerous one. Because the freedom to believe in even dumb things is an important freedom. If Russia hadn't had the Imiaslavie or "Name-Worshippers", and their mystical beliefs even I find a tad strange, certain advances in set theory may not have occurred. Allowing people to think or feel in different ways than oneself can be useful. If you can't tolerate that than I think talking religion at you might be bad, but listening to or supporting you might be equally bad.

You're right. And the thing that annoys me most about his argument is that he's being as broad as possible. I wasn't aware every religion was offending him every single day, which would be mighty hard. And if they're not (which they aren't), then he's just generalizing all religion as bad. Why can't he be a little more specific?

Saying "Baptists hurt me every day" or something along those lines would be better, but even still, does that mean all Baptists are bad and/or that the Baptist religion should not exist? No, hell no.

Maybe I should start saying I'm anti-atheist because I disagreed with one or one insulted/hurt me, and claim my purpose on this board is to eradicate them. I wouldn't do that, though, because not only would it be immensely stupid-sounding, and not only am I not "anti-atheist" although I disagree with them, it would be invariably unsuccessful, as you said.

[Mercury Cougar]

Originally Posted by OhioanKid

You're right. And the thing that annoys me most about his argument is that he's being as broad as possible.

First off, I'm female.

Secondly, religion does hurt people every day. Perhaps not me specifically, every minute of every day, but I see the negative effects of it on my friends all the time. I have a dear friend who is gay. She can't marry her mate of over 20 years because it's against the law. This hurts my friend, in more ways than many can conceive, and that's only one example of religion hurting someone every day.

[OhioanKid]

Originally Posted by Mercury Cougar

First off, I'm female.

Sorry! Come to think of it, I've heard you say before you are not male, but I keep forgetting.

Secondly, religion does hurt people every day. Perhaps not me specifically, every minute of every day, but I see the negative effects of it on my friends all the time. I have a dear friend who is gay. She can't marry her mate of over 20 years because it's against the law. This hurts my friend, in more ways than many can conceive, and that's only one example of religion hurting someone every day.

And that is why civil unions should be allowed.

[Boxcar Overkill]

Originally Posted by Thomas R.

If you are really intent on squashing ways of thinking you find irrational or harmful than in many ways you might be the dangerous one. Because the freedom to believe in even dumb things is an important freedom. If Russia hadn't had the Imiaslavie or "Name-Worshippers", and their mystical beliefs even I find a tad strange, certain advances in set theory may not have occurred. Allowing people to think or feel in different ways than oneself can be useful. If you can't tolerate that than I think talking religion at you might be bad, but listening to or supporting you might be equally bad.

You seem to imply that irrational arguments should be accorded equal status to rational arguments, and that illogical ideas should be as influential as logical ideas.

[OhioanKid]

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

You seem to imply that irrational arguments should be accorded equal status to rational arguments, and that illogical ideas should be as influential as logical ideas.

Well, I'm hoping what he means is non-empirical thought, not outright irrational thought. I share the view that speculation should be regarded as possible, not "It is not proven so it is invalid."

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by OhioanKid

Sorry! Come to think of it, I've heard you say before you are not male, but I keep forgetting.



And that is why civil unions should be allowed.

Many marriages are civil unions in that there is no religious service involved...Why can't gay people marry in a church if they are so inclined? Many do here in Canada, but others opt for a civil wedding....Marriage is not owned by the religious ya know.

[OhioanKid]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

Many marriages are civil unions in that there is no religious service involved...Why can't gay people marry in a church if they are so inclined? Many do here in Canada, but others opt for a civil wedding....Marriage is not owned by the religious ya know.

Why shouldn't it be the church's choice, since it owns the darn place?

There are churches that allow it, and there are certainly governments that allow it. Why a gay couple wants to marry in a church that specifically says they do not believe it is a true marriage and will not host it seems rude.

From the perspective of the gay couple, the only reason I can see they'd want to marry in the church is that it's the "perfect place" for them or something, but even still, they shouldn't be imposing their definition of marriage on the church's owner. That would be rude, yes? Just as a religious person shouldn't force an atheist to take part in prayer, especially if the two are in the atheist's home.

[sanspeur]

Nobody is saying that any church should be forced to marry gays, but some churches are not so bigoted and accept gays as equal human beings, even in the US.

[Thomas R.]

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

You seem to imply that irrational arguments should be accorded equal status to rational arguments, and that illogical ideas should be as influential as logical ideas.

I don't think I said that. I thought I was referring to a right to exist, not equal airtime. Can you find where I said "equal" in all that? All I see is "allow" and "tolerate" which is not the same thing at all.