Is non-belief a thing? (Mormonism, America, atheist, quote)
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.
Why do you need to protect my right to practice my religion when the constitution already provides for it? It is the very first amendment.
Think about the German constitution in 1930. History often repeats itself, you should learn this important lesson.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
These questions have been asked of you many times. And you keep claiming you are protecting my rights somehow. Maybe you can for once answer them directly?
Your ignorance (if genuine) about what is happening in your country is not amusing.
You forgot to preface your statements with “I believe” so you are stating them as facts in which you case you need to provide evidence and if you dont you are evading. Now that is over with,
Now in what way did you, you are in Wales ate you? Did you roll back anything in the US? site a few examples.
Why do you need to protect my right to practice my religion when the constitution already provides for it? It is the very first amendment.
These questions have been asked of you many times. And you keep claiming you are protecting my rights somehow. Maybe you can for once answer them directly?
Of course 'I believe' - on the evidence. What I see going on and what has been said.. And what I 'rolled back' was the inequality of US atheists before the law. The striking down of the science case for ID and kicking into the gutter the right of a public servant not to do the job they are paid to do because of religious convictions.
Not bad going from across the pond, eh? And the next Pew figures on irreligion are still awaited.
And, as said by others, the religious Right, should the gain political power, will Interpret the Constitution to say whatever they like. I know this because they have already done so, but don't have the poliitical power to implement it.
Don't say you weren't warned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabfest
For some, protecting their rights means limiting the rights of others.
60 yr/old (A): I am protecting your rights.
60 yr/old (B): I haven't asked for anything?!
60 yr/old (A): You do not know any better. While I am at it, I'll decide your dinner menu because I do not care for pasta.
That's exactly the interference in your free choice of religion (or not) that you should be helping us (or the Nones in the US) to push back against.
That's exactly the interference in your free choice of religion (or not) that you should be helping us (or the Nones in the US) to push back against.
The person in example (A) is over-bearing.
To tell someone what they should or should not be a part of on a R/S forum is beyond ridiculous. Non-belief has nothing to do with politics and/or personal desires. Another thing, I personally do not want to be a part of anyone's us vs. them campaign(s). When someone uses their belief positions as a Trojan Horse to introduce their heart desires they are in complete opposition of R/S and/or personal enlightenment.
Last edited by gabfest; 03-12-2021 at 02:35 AM..
Reason: grammer
That's exactly the interference in your free choice of religion (or not) that you should be helping us (or the Nones in the US) to push back against.
yes, the middle of the roader should be pushing back against your type of atheism and fundy theism. Equally.
When discussing reality, people basing the evaluations on "stop religion at all cost" are not as reliable as those that base the evaluation on "is it consistent with observation"
"stop religion at all cost" or "is it consistent with observation"
What way will probably end is less sufferings. What way will probably not give the fundy think types a weapon.
To tell someone what they should or should not be a part of on a R/S forum is beyond ridiculous. Non-belief has nothing to do with politics and/or personal desires. Another thing, I personally do not want to be a part of anyone's us vs. them campaign(s). When someone uses their belief positions as a Trojan Horse to introduce their heart desires they are in complete opposition of R/S and/or personal enlightenment.
Then it seems that we are in agreement. One way or the other.
To tell someone what they should or should not be a part of on a R/S forum is beyond ridiculous. Non-belief has nothing to do with politics and/or personal desires. Another thing, I personally do not want to be a part of anyone's us vs. them campaign(s). When someone uses their belief positions as a Trojan Horse to introduce their heart desires they are in complete opposition of R/S and/or personal enlightenment.
Great start. How do we tell? what process can we use to shed light on who is doing what?
Of course 'I believe' - on the evidence. What I see going on and what has been said.. And what I 'rolled back' was the inequality of US atheists before the law. The striking down of the science case for ID and kicking into the gutter the right of a public servant not to do the job they are paid to do because of religious convictions.
Not bad going from across the pond, eh? And the next Pew figures on irreligion are still awaited.
And, as said by others, the religious Right, should the gain political power, will Interpret the Constitution to say whatever they like. I know this because they have already done so, but don't have the poliitical power to implement it.
Don't say you weren't warned.
That's exactly the interference in your free choice of religion (or not) that you should be helping us (or the Nones in the US) to push back against.
I will repeat:
Now in what way did you roll back anything in the US? site a few examples.
Why do you need to protect my right to practice my religion when the constitution already provides for it? It is the very first amendment.
These questions have been asked of you many times. And you keep claiming you are protecting my rights somehow. Maybe you can for once answer them directly?
What “inequality” do atheists suffered that you rolled back? Prayer in school? We still pledge allegiance to the flag “and so help me god”. I have never seen throngs of atheists marching to the capitol to remove those offensive words, or stop the prayer breakfast all presidents attend to get blessings. Where are they? Busy tormenting muslims on the media? Or making poor excuses for sexism and racism, because they are just like regular folks in that matter.
Please give references to the science ID and kicking down public servants. I have no idea what you are talking about.
None of this by the way is about protecting human rights, it all about how offended are atheiests “feelings”.
This question is something I've always wondered about. My thoughts on it have changed over time. The question is essentially:
If you believe that religion is morally wrong, do you have an obligation to fight against it?
If you saw a mugging happening in the street and you had the means to help, I would think you should. In the same way, if you see someone teaching information that you know can lead to dangerous behavior, it seems you may be obligated to do something?
The way my personal views on it have changed over time is I used to spend a lot of time arguing against religion, but the more I did, the more I realized that there's not a single target you're arguing against. Everyone has their own personal religion, and very often their beliefs are pretty benign. For example, they may take the Bible as metaphoric or only take seriously the verses they like. The result being I end up spending a lot of time fighting something that seems relatively inconsequential.
I'm curious what all of your takes on this are.
A sane and important point raised by the poster who seems to have left the place, maybe because he resolved it to himself.
What do atheists “fight” for or against? It seems to me mostly their hurt feelings.
Many of the responses in the original forum for atheists boiled down to atheists have no moral obligation to do anything. Not even protect human rights. Just nurse 5heir hurt feelings.
I will repeat:
Now in what way did you roll back anything in the US? site a few examples.
Why do you need to protect my right to practice my religion when the constitution already provides for it? It is the very first amendment.
These questions have been asked of you many times. And you keep claiming you are protecting my rights somehow. Maybe you can for once answer them directly?
What “inequality” do atheists suffered that you rolled back? Prayer in school? We still pledge allegiance to the flag “and so help me god”. I have never seen throngs of atheists marching to the capitol to remove those offensive words, or stop the prayer breakfast all presidents attend to get blessings. Where are they? Busy tormenting muslims on the media? Or making poor excuses for sexism and racism, because they are just like regular folks in that matter.
Please give references to the science ID and kicking down public servants. I have no idea what you are talking about.
None of this by the way is about protecting human rights, it all about how offended are atheiests “feelings”.
I suggest you go back and read the history of Mormonism to see how well freedom of religion has worked in America. It was in the Constitution back then, too.
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.
And the next Pew figures on irreligion are still awaited.
One way or the other.
