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.
Location: Pittsburgh (via Chicago, via Pittsburgh)
3,887 posts, read 5,519,793 times
Reputation: 3107
Advertisements
No, religion will not solve a single thing...somehow, though, atheists are trusted as much as pedophiles in America today. Hopefully only a few more decades, and reason will prevail in America.
15% of whites were religiously unaffiliated in 2007, which rose to 20% in 2012 (+5).
13% of blacks were religiously unaffiliated in 2007, which rose to 15% in 2012 (+2).
16% of hispanics were religiously unaffiliated in 2007, which remained at 16% in 2012 (=).
How many blacks and hispanics in the U.S. identify with some form religion? Many still do, so why do people continue to blame "a lack of religion" for the array of social issues that black and hispanic communities experience?
Whites are becoming less religious at a much faster rate, and people aren't answering the question. No one has been able to precisely argue that there would be less social issues if secularism wasn't growing.
The cause of America's issues is not secularism, but people continue to act as though it is.
15% of whites were religiously unaffiliated in 2007, which rose to 20% in 2012 (+5).
13% of blacks were religiously unaffiliated in 2007, which rose to 15% in 2012 (+2).
16% of hispanics were religiously unaffiliated in 2007, which remained at 16% in 2012 (=).
How many blacks and hispanics in the U.S. identify with some form religion? Many still do, so why do people continue to blame "a lack of religion" for the array of social issues that black and hispanic communities experience?
Whites are becoming less religious at a much faster rate, and people aren't answering the question. No one has been able to precisely argue that there would be less social issues if secularism wasn't growing.
The cause of America's issues is not secularism, but people continue to act as though it is.
It's not secular nor religious based. Read through the posts and I think you'll find the answer.
However, people can view history through their own filter. Often that filter is shaped from socio-political viewpoints. It's pointless to debate.
History is history and while there can be nuanced differences the story is essentially the same if you stick with the facts. I entered this conversation when El Nox stated that the Founding Fathers came to American colonies seeking religious freedom. As I pointed out this was factually false and no amount of socio-political viewpoint can alter that fact.
You then interjected a pretty pointless observation that descendants are shaped by their antecedents. Ok, consider the point acknowledged.
My next point was to factually point out that the majority of American colonies were chartered as commercial ventures, not the commonly held mythology that the nation was founded by people seeking religious freedom, particularly in light of the historical fact that for many of the religious colonies the only religion that they believed should be freely observed was the religion of their particular colony. That is simply an unassailable historical fact.
So if fact based debates are pointless because of a paucity of historical facts to the contrary, I suppose the debate is indeed pointless.
15% of whites were religiously unaffiliated in 2007, which rose to 20% in 2012 (+5).
13% of blacks were religiously unaffiliated in 2007, which rose to 15% in 2012 (+2).
16% of hispanics were religiously unaffiliated in 2007, which remained at 16% in 2012 (=).
How many blacks and hispanics in the U.S. identify with some form religion? Many still do, so why do people continue to blame "a lack of religion" for the array of social issues that black and hispanic communities experience?
Whites are becoming less religious at a much faster rate, and people aren't answering the question. No one has been able to precisely argue that there would be less social issues if secularism wasn't growing.
The cause of America's issues is not secularism, but people continue to act as though it is.
No, it is quite relevant. The homicide rate in Scandinavia is lower than the USA primarily due to demographics that have nothing to do with religion. However, now that diversity has hit Sweden their homicide rate is on the rise.
History is history and while there can be nuanced differences the story is essentially the same if you stick with the facts. I entered this conversation when El Nox stated that the Founding Fathers came to American colonies seeking religious freedom. As I pointed out this was factually false and no amount of socio-political viewpoint can alter that fact.
You then interjected a pretty pointless observation that descendants are shaped by their antecedents. Ok, consider the point acknowledged.
My next point was to factually point out that the majority of American colonies were chartered as commercial ventures, not the commonly held mythology that the nation was founded by people seeking religious freedom, particularly in light of the historical fact that for many of the religious colonies the only religion that they believed should be freely observed was the religion of their particular colony. That is simply an unassailable historical fact.
So if fact based debates are pointless because of a paucity of historical facts to the contrary, I suppose the debate is indeed pointless.
My point in this thread was made earlier. I agree that history is history (as a historian). Only qualification is there are lots of 'historical sources' written from modern ideological viewpoints. Most call that revisionist. I call most history incomplete because of literacy rates at the time and semantics do to vernacular.
In this type of discourse, minds are seldom changed. Points aren't often conveyed. I'm lazy with typing so I don't write scholarly papers in this type of communication.
You seem well thought out. Would you concede there is some religious tradition intertwined with English common law, which is the basis of much of American common law (except Louisiana which is napoleanic)? That was my original statement way back on the thread. Religion can never be 100% divorced from our 'law' because of a long line of history?
No, it is quite relevant. The homicide rate in Scandinavia is lower than the USA primarily due to demographics that have nothing to do with religion. However, now that diversity has hit Sweden their homicide rate is on the rise.
Yes, if it weren't for those dusky fellows all would be right in the world.
For the "I don`t need religion to explain what I don`t yet understand" crowd, it takes a lot of faith to believe that everything came from nothing and the reason it did is "just because".
Smugness is not an answer to any question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWiseWino
I would argue that it take a hell of a lot of smugness to constant repeat that "god did it" for everything you don't have answer for. The more intelligent and mature answer is there are something which we simply don't know or understand.
"Does it mean, if you don’t understand something, and the community of physicists don’t understand it, that means God did it? Is that how you want to play this game? Because if it is, here’s a list of things in the past that the physicists at the time didn’t understand [and now we do understand] [...]. If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on - so just be ready for that to happen, if that’s how you want to come at the problem."
Niel DeGrasse-Tyson.
"I would argue that it take a hell of a lot of smugness to constant repeat that "god did it" for everything you don't have answer for."
That`s probably true.
My argument was that believing the ordered Universe suddenly emerged from nothing and that it did this without a cause (i.e., a creator) requires a tremendous deal of faith that spectacular physical phenomena, like the Big Bang, happen without being caused to do so.
Such a belief (space and time self-created) is far too superstitious for me.
“Raffiniert ist der Herr Gott, aber boshaft ist er nicht.”
You do not think the left does the same thing with their positive rights agenda? You do not think a "right" to health care is expressing someones personal moral stand on the issue? You do not think pro-choice is a moral stand? You do not believe the whole welfare state is based on a moral belief? Do you believe that atheists have morals too? Don't we all express our personal moral beliefs and vote based on those? My belief ,as a libertarian, that I should not coerce others into behaving as I wish unless there is a substantial state interest (primarily to protect life, liberty and property) is a moral belief that I take into the voting booth. I find the left is just as willing as the right, and more successful, at pushing their moral beliefs on others.
In general, I find there are two types of libertarians. Those who rant...I have a neighbor who is that type. And those who can participate in a conversation and carefully dissect what the other person is saying and present cogent counterpoints. I don't find the cogency in your response.
Let me emphasize the key sentence in my previous post: "And the problem with the right is that they believe they have to align what is a personal morality system with a government morality system. Christianity is appropriate as a personal belief system between a person and God/god/gods. It is not appropriate for a nation to run itself on such a belief system unless 100% of the people in that nation are of the same faith-system, which is not true of America, and is not even true among people who identify as Christians in this nation."
Now let me break my point down for you:
1. Religion should be a personal conversation between an individual and God/god/gods.
2. When one expresses a stand on the "right" of health care, that -- again -- is a personal action. That stand may be based on personal religious beliefs.
3. When one expresses a stand on pro-choice, that is a personal action. That stand may be based on personal religious beliefs.
4. When one expresses a stand on the "welfare state" (which I think is a misnomer), that is a personal action. That stand may be based on personal religious beliefs.
5. A nation is not an individual. A nation should operate based on nobody's personal God/god/gods...again, unless that nation is 100% unified in religious beliefs. And our nation is not. Our nation should operate based only on laws. Gay marriage, for example, should not be allowed or disallowed based on anyone's religion. Abortion should not be allowed or disallowed based on anyone's religion.
6. Why would you think that I think that atheists don't have morals, too? I have stated in a couple of posts that many non-Christian cultures have the same values that some here seem to think only come from the Ten Commandments. Check out the 5 Precepts in Buddhism, for example. Atheism is, in a sense, a culture. Of course atheists can be moral people.
In general, I find there are two types of libertarians. Those who rant...I have a neighbor who is that type. And those who can participate in a conversation and carefully dissect what the other person is saying and present cogent counterpoints. I don't find the cogency in your response.
Let me emphasize the key sentence in my previous post: "And the problem with the right is that they believe they have to align what is a personal morality system with a government morality system. Christianity is appropriate as a personal belief system between a person and God/god/gods. It is not appropriate for a nation to run itself on such a belief system unless 100% of the people in that nation are of the same faith-system, which is not true of America, and is not even true among people who identify as Christians in this nation."
Now let me break my point down for you:
1. Religion should be a personal conversation between an individual and God/god/gods.
2. When one expresses a stand on the "right" of health care, that -- again -- is a personal action. That stand may be based on personal religious beliefs.
3. When one expresses a stand on pro-choice, that is a personal action. That stand may be based on personal religious beliefs.
4. When one expresses a stand on the "welfare state" (which I think is a misnomer), that is a personal action. That stand may be based on personal religious beliefs.
5. A nation is not an individual. A nation should operate based on nobody's personal God/god/gods...again, unless that nation is 100% unified in religious beliefs. And our nation is not. Our nation should operate based only on laws. Gay marriage, for example, should not be allowed or disallowed based on anyone's religion. Abortion should not be allowed or disallowed based on anyone's religion.
6. Why would you think that I think that atheists don't have morals, too? I have stated in a couple of posts that many non-Christian cultures have the same values that some here seem to think only come from the Ten Commandments. Check out the 5 Precepts in Buddhism, for example. Atheism is, in a sense, a culture. Of course atheists can be moral people.
Let me requote you. Since ya seem to have forgotten what you posted.
Quote:
And the problem with the right is that they believe they have to align what is a personal morality system with a government morality system.
The left does the same damn thing, and so do us libertarians. We take our personal moral beliefs and try to get government to enact them. The difference between libertarians and liberals and conservatives is the libertarian personal morality tends to dislike government coercion while the left and right struggle to see who can get the most power to coerce individuals to act in a fashion they would not willingly do without coercion from the state.
I think abortion is wrong. Do I try to coerce women to bear children they wish not to bear? No, instead I contribute 25 bucks a month to the Maternal Assistance Center at St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Parish in Houston, Texas. I also contribute to St. Judes Hospital and send money to one of the wife's impoverished relatives in the Philippines. I don't try to get the American taxpayer to send my wife's relative money. Liberals are very generous...with other peoples money. At least the left in Europe favors broad based taxes and do not whine about the 1% all the time.
Last edited by whogo; 03-11-2016 at 10:51 PM..
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.
