Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-05-2013, 04:00 PM
 
Location: Toronto
2,801 posts, read 3,864,874 times
Reputation: 3159

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pdw View Post
Crosses in a public park isn't pushing one religion over the other if we allow other religions to put their own memorials too. Atheists should respect other people's right to their own beliefs like I do. Trying to convert people isn't harmful to society. That's freedom of expression. Would you be against giving the right to atheists to try to convert people to atheism?
Agreed. There are plenty of atheists who are militant about spreading their views and telling spiritual people that they are silly or stupid. Just consider what people have said about "religious" or "spiritual" people in this thread: that they are not as intelligent as atheists; that they are not as civilized as atheists; that they are somehow responsible for the violence and intolerance of some religions during different periods of history. That is outright prejudice, because of our Charter right to freedom of belief. This freedom of thought and belief is also considered a natural right, a concept introduced into Western Civilization by the Medieval Catholic Church as ius naturale, inspired by Christ's teaching, and his affirmation of the innate dignity and sanctity of the individual person. They might have not been very good adherents of their own notion of natural rights, but the entire concept of human rights became part of the West's tradition largely due to a religious institution - The Roman Catholic Church. So don't be so quick to dismiss the positive contributions of religions to our modern civilization, because they have given us some of the greatest thinkers of the last 2500+ years, whose views have moulded the "civilization" that we have today.

Organized religion is not my thing, but if someone wants to be a part of one, that is their right and no one else's business. If they don't bother you, let them be. If their faith gives them strength, why do you care? Is it because you feel it's important to educate religious people their about their tremendous folly? Because the religious proselytizer feels the same about the atheist, so perhaps atheists should stop their prosyletizing themselves, copying those they deride, and live and let live? When a religious proselytizer approaches you and tries to get you to convert, you can do the same to them with atheism. It's your right as it is theirs, just like it's your right to walk away.

Last edited by TOkidd; 06-05-2013 at 04:52 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-05-2013, 04:01 PM
 
103 posts, read 169,912 times
Reputation: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stubblejumper View Post
It is. It's ceding the right to use of public property to a private group at the expense of others. Even if we agree to allow the entire place to become nothing but religious monuments, we're still tacitly ranking religions as we give prime space to some, less desirable space to others.

You're welcome to put up any memorial you like, making as visible to the public as you like - on private property.

You're also welcome to proselytize as much as you please, provided you don't become a nuisance while doing so. Unless you're responding to another post in the same paragraph, I'm not sure, exactly, why you included that - I'd already argued that displays of religious expression were protected by the Charter.
Would you say that about all groups they can't put up a religious monumnent?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2013, 04:04 PM
 
Location: Lethbridge, AB
1,132 posts, read 1,941,366 times
Reputation: 978
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayme2015 View Post
Would you say that about all groups they can't put up a religious monumnent?
Of course. I'm not at all opposed to religious mouments - they just don't belong on publically owned property.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2013, 06:03 PM
pdw
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
2,687 posts, read 3,106,764 times
Reputation: 1842
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stubblejumper View Post
Of course. I'm not at all opposed to religious mouments - they just don't belong on publically owned property.
For religious memorials in public parks: First come, first serve. That is not putting one religion over the other. If you disagree with that, you're obviously concerned with something else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2013, 08:19 PM
 
Location: Toronto, ON
564 posts, read 1,041,751 times
Reputation: 997
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOkidd View Post
Agreed. There are plenty of atheists who are militant about spreading their views and telling spiritual people that they are silly or stupid.
Not the people. Their beliefs. There is a difference. If someone states something that we know to be nonsensical and far from what we know to be true based on our common experience of reality, that claim should be fair game for criticism and, if proven sufficiently misguided and harmful, treated with derision.

Parents have let their children die because they believed prayer or God to be a better option than medical intervention. Should that belief be tolerated? Or do you think it should be questioned and challenged? Given what we know, is it a sensible and rational belief?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2013, 12:32 AM
 
Location: Canada
4,865 posts, read 10,539,536 times
Reputation: 5504
Quote:
Originally Posted by weltschmerz View Post
how long ago was that? The niqab was also allowed in government institutions. Not any more.
2006
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2013, 08:32 AM
 
Location: Toronto
2,801 posts, read 3,864,874 times
Reputation: 3159
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthYorkEd View Post
Parents have let their children die because they believed prayer or God to be a better option than medical intervention. Should that belief be tolerated? Or do you think it should be questioned and challenged? Given what we know, is it a sensible and rational belief?
C'mon now...C'mon now, you are taking a very rare occurrence and making it seem like a representative of religiosity, when it is only a few religious extremists who have engaged in this kind of behaviour - and the media is there to report on it every time, making it seem like and every-day occurrence,

If you feel the need to debate with every person who express a belief in God, and try and prove to them how stupid they are and how irrational their beliefs are, then you shouldn't complain when religious proselytizers do the same to you and tell you that you are going to burn in hell for your lack of faith.

Whatever happened to live and let live? I don't engage atheists in arguments about spirituality, and the vast majority of theists do not openly discuss their beliefs. The few evangelicals that feel the need to "share the good news" are harmless. Just ignore them. Why do you feel a need to engage believers in debates about their "irrational belief" in a higher power. Let them have their faith, and you can have your faithlessness unperturbed.

From some of these posts, it seems that some atheists have taken on the traits of evangelicals, spreading their skepticism to anyone who will listen. But I wonder why, in this day and age, atheists feel the need to convert the unenlightened. Just about every person of faith (except for those who are not inclined towards introspection and philosophical thinking) struggles with their belief in a higher power, but their faith gives them strength and there is nothing wrong with that. A world without faith and religion would not be a utopian paradise. A world where people had mutual respect for each other, and an innate understanding and respect for human dignity and the ability to empathize would be as close to utopia as we could hope to achieve. Organized religion has brought the world plenty of death and destruction, but it has also given our civilization many of its best features, including the concept of human rights (ius naturale), which i explained in my earlier post. Many wars and massacres were committed by athiests and agnostics with entirely secular goals (Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, FARC guerillas and right-wing militias in Colombia, and others who have been responsible for the greatest numbers of violent deaths in the last century had no religious motivations, and were all atheists or agnostics). Their intolerance of those who didn't believe in their ideals was no different than the intolerance of modern-day Islamists, and Catholics of earlier days who burned and butchered many people for not believing the right things.

In certain strains of Islam, like Salafism and other literalist interpretations of the Koran that harken back to the Dark Ages, you can find one of the last examples of religions openly persecuting non-believers. This has created plenty of misery for Muslims in many parts of the world, but otherwise, the worst violence of the last 100 years has been unrelated to religion. One must also remember that regardless of the rhetoric coming from Islamist clerics, their violence is mostly used to achieve political goals, not religious ones. Many of them are total hypocrites who do not follow the strict religious regimen they try to impose on others. It is all about achieving political power, and Salafism combined with an Islamic government will allow them to have total power over citizens, using religion as the justification for their power, while the top dogs do whatever they want regardless of what their religious beliefs indicate. It's all a big scam. Just like the right-wing religious conservative politicians in the US who get caught in homosexual affairs, or extramarital affairs, or who want to slash programs that help the poor despite Jesus' unambiguous teachings.

So as I said before, live and let live. If a person's religious beliefs do not advocate harming others, who cares if they believe? Why do you feel the need to tell them they're wrong, and engage in a debate with them? Seems like arrogance. And yet none of us can say that we know even 1% of the truth of the universe and reality, so how can we be so certain that there is no higher power in universe. It doesn't have to be the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God who concerns himself deeply with human affairs, nor does it have to be the non-existent god of the atheists. There is a middle ground in which some force beyond our comprehension can be responsible for the functioning of the cosmos. Remember that many theoretical physicists now believe that we live in but one dimension among potentially billions - so again, science knows so little about the cosmos. Putting your faith in it to make categorical statements like "there is no God" is just as foolish as thinking there is a bearded man in the clouds watching us and judging our actions to decide if we go to heaven or hell.

I consider myself an agnostic, but I will always defend the right of the theist to believe in God, because freedom of belief and religion is a cornerstone of our civilization and is the same right that allows you to be an atheist without being persecuted by religious authorities.

Last edited by TOkidd; 06-06-2013 at 08:50 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2013, 08:34 AM
 
Location: Somewhere flat in Mississippi
10,060 posts, read 12,830,921 times
Reputation: 7168
Note to Quebec Catholics - guard your shrines from sledgehammer-wielding atheists!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2013, 09:07 AM
 
Location: Lethbridge, AB
1,132 posts, read 1,941,366 times
Reputation: 978
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdw View Post
For religious memorials in public parks: First come, first serve. That is not putting one religion over the other. If you disagree with that, you're obviously concerned with something else.
I'm not sure what ulterior motive your alluding to. My concerns are:

a) The use of public, state owned, resources for the promotion of something that ought to be outside their jurisdiction; and,

b) The rights to public use of public space. Building a permanent structure on land that's been reserved for public use deprives others of the use of that land.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2013, 09:29 AM
 
Location: Toronto, ON
564 posts, read 1,041,751 times
Reputation: 997
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOkidd View Post
...you are taking a very rare occurrence and making it seem like a representative of religiosity, when it is only a few religious extremists who have engaged in this kind of behaviour - and the media is there to report on it every time, making it seem like and every-day occurrence...
My point was to illustrate that religious beliefs can be harmful and foolish. We say they should be tolerated, but it is obvious that not all of them can. Not in an advanced society.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TOkidd View Post
Why do you feel a need to engage believers in debates about their "irrational belief" in a higher power. Let them have their faith, and you can have your faithlessness unperturbed.
Let's clarify - I am not "militant", nor do I debate or even discuss my atheism unless asked. From my perspective this is just a simple discussion, and I'm keeping it polite and respectful. Everyone is entitled to express their own opinion. Can't speak for others, but I don't think I've insulted anyone personally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TOkidd View Post
A world where people had mutual respect for each other, and an innate understanding and respect for human dignity and the ability to empathize would be as close to utopia as we could hope to achieve.
Impossible in a world where people act according to superstitious dogma. If you truly believe you represent the "one true God", there is always going to be trouble for everyone else. Religion is a divider, not a uniter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TOkidd View Post
Their intolerance of those who didn't believe in their ideals was no different than the intolerance of modern-day Islamists, and Catholics of earlier days who burned and butchered many people for not believing the right things.
And yet they had religious justification for their actions. All of the Holy Books sanction extreme cruelty and violence. Has God mellowed over the years, or have people evolved beyond ignorant savagery?

Why should anyone tolerate or not challenge a belief system that sanctions things like the oppression of women or slavery? Those concepts are distasteful to our modern sensibilities yet abound in the early scriptures. Any civilized people has to constantly evaluate itself against the times in which it exists. It changes and adapts, or it dies. The Holy Books were written during a time that has very little relation to us in the modern age. Not too many preach it as it was originally laid out (thus, the rise of the more palatable "spirituality" as a way of plugging the increasing gap between organized religion and reality). Why is that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TOkidd View Post
Putting your faith in it to make categorical statements like "there is no God" is just as foolish as thinking there is a bearded man in the clouds watching us and judging our actions to decide if we go to heaven or hell.
You admit the man-in-the-clouds concept is foolish, and yet millions, if not billions, believe it. And to clarify, I do not say "There is no God." I say "There is no reason to believe there is a God."

Quote:
Originally Posted by TOkidd View Post
I consider myself an agnostic, but I will always defend the right of the theist to believe in God, because freedom of belief and religion is a cornerstone of our civilization and is the same right that allows you to be an atheist without being persecuted by religious authorities.
Of course they have the right. But they don't have immunity from being challenged when it is appropriate. Anyone making a statement that they proclaim as truth must be willing and able to defend it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top