Forums | MacLife

everlong205 wrote:

But not all of them indefensible or wrong either. The point is society has to hash these things out.

Again, I don't understand why you are wasting so many paragraphs stating the very obvious.  Yes, society does things.

If we had a separate-but-equal scheme for interracial unions, would you have anything to say about it beyond shrugging it off as the way society is?'  Yes, I'm stating my opinion.  This is about opinions. 

If you can't restrict then polygamy couldn't' be restricted and child marriages couldn't be  restricted. So I don't buy your all encompassing argument.

I'm making an "all encompassing" argument?  And what is that, exactly?  The only reason I've mentioned interracial marriage is because you keep invoking "TRADITION."  Do you follow?

If you were to argue that society CAN restrict marriage BUT shouldn't in the case of gay marriage because of x,y,z then thats really a separate and more legitimate argument. But its not the one you're making.

I think you're confused...

I'm arguing  with your argument NOT that you can't have  gay marriage but that society can't restrict marriage. It can and does (and should be able to).

Where did I say that "society can't restrict marriage?"  Where are you getting this? 

First off I have no actual say over whether marriages are legal or otherwise, so its not like  I'm actually preventing you from  marrying.

OK....

I agree its something of a semantic argument. My concept of civil unions would be different, in  certain ways in name only. It would be a relationship  that  allows for gays to have benefits that they are deprived of currently, but for example, wouldnt requirethat say priests perform ceremonies that they don't agree with, and wouldn't change  the idea of marriage for everyone else.

Are you under the impression that "priests" today are "required" to perform ceremonies that they don't agree with?  Really?

Sarcastic exaggerations?
So I'm imagining these people?

Did I invent soulcrusher?
Did I make up any of the posts here or elsewhere all over the internets that say that only atheism will move the world forward?
Did I hallucinate the interview with Sam Harris about his book, where he claims that Stalinism was a religious movement in order to back his claim that all of history's problems were caused by religion?

Last edited by Tallgeese (2008-01-21 3:29 pm)

user wrote:

Wow, so you found someone on teh internet talking about evan atheism. Looks like he's all by his lonesome there, too.

Soulcrusher? Hell, that's my point...he's one guy in Costa Rica (or is it PR?) that has a tough attitude to religion and makes posts accordingly. Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I don't. Personally, I do think that we would be better off approaching the world rationally. Religion depends on the emotions and that means things can get really sticky really fast. But I'm just this guy, you know?

And Sam Harris and all the internet atheists who quote him any time a news site with a comments section mentions religion?

Just like evangelical Christians, it's a small but obnoxiously loud minority.

Sam's got some good things to say. I like how he gets attention and I like how he holds the moderate theists for enabling the actions of the extremists. I didn't make it all the way through "End of Faith", though.

user wrote:

Sam's got some good things to say. I like how he gets attention and I like how he holds the moderate theists for enabling the actions of the extremists. I didn't make it all the way through "End of Faith", though.

I don't find it a productive or useful thing to declare all people of faith "the enemy" and hold that rational dialog is impossible and unwanted.

jerwin wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

Oh wait. It's Open Access. Never mind.

Such a fascinatingly bizarre assertion.

You really need to keep better track of your flippancies

Yes, that would be the fascinatingly bizarre assertion that just because a journal is cited more often that means its more authoratative than others., especially when it comes from a freely available source.

Last edited by Steyr AUG (2008-01-21 5:03 pm)

Tallgeese wrote:

user wrote:

Sam's got some good things to say. I like how he gets attention and I like how he holds the moderate theists for enabling the actions of the extremists. I didn't make it all the way through "End of Faith", though.

I don't find it a productive or useful thing to declare all people of faith "the enemy" and hold that rational dialog is impossible and unwanted.

I don't think most people here thing "people of faith" are the problem. I would say fundamentalist literalism is the problem being that it is inherently hostile to other faiths. Frankly there is the same problem with the evangelical atheists here.
Faiths that do not contain a concept of humility that allows them to interact with those of other beliefs are the problem.
The way I express it is that a "faith" is a problem if it generates more "I believe thus so you must behave thusly" statements and few "I believe thus so I behave thusly" statements. The latter is an opening to a discussion, the former the start of a war.

resedit wrote:

The way I express it is that a "faith" is a problem if it generates more "I believe thus so you must behave thusly" statements

Everyone is guilty of that. Everyone.
For example, those who disagree with same sex marriage are called bigots.

Either agree with the PC crowd or you are a bigot.
That was made quite clear in this thread.

How is that any different?

Believing in fairness and equality of opportunity should be the correct thinking of everyone regardless of political persuasion.

Not enforcing a thing, just telling it like I see it.

resedit wrote:

Either agree with the PC crowd or you are a bigot.
That was made quite clear in this thread.

People defend same-sex marriage in order to appear "PC?"



And yes, "bigotry"--intolerance--of homosexuals or the 'homosexual lifestyle' or 'homosexual behavior' is often behind the push to keep homosexuals from being able to marry.

jerwin wrote:

I don't mind politicians who are religiously inspired. I do mind politicians who are incapable of expressing the results of that inspiration without reference to religious texts.

Torquemada and Martin Luther King were both pious individuals. But if God did not exist, King's ideas would still make sense. And Torquemada would be regarded as a evil man.

So then its not really the religion thats at issue, its that you disagree with the sentiment. Thus if its a religious sentiment you can get behind, preached by a preacher even, but which appeals to your values, then its ok. Whereas, if it doesn't appeal to your values, its evil, or its an imposition of religion, and church and state separation applies.
As to Huckabee he certainly is no MLK. But then, neither is he Torquemada.

Ok, maybe I've been primed. I grew up in the same sort of denomination as Barak Obama-- the United Church of Christ. I find the arguments posed by Jesus to be somewhat thought provoking. And I've enjoyed reading obsolete religious texts for smurfs and giggles, and theology for the hell of it. But I don't believe in the supernatural. I'm an atheist, or an agnostic, depending on what you press.

I find your opinion of my reading material to be somewhat insulting, really. When I  read, I like to be entertained. I like to learn something. I like to taste each delicate    premise contributing it's unique flavour to the feast of the imagination. And once in a great while, I will be persuaded.

everlong205 wrote:

But then, neither is he Torquemada.

Oh, really?

Wikipedia wrote:

After mediocre service as a monk and monastery cook, Torquemada grew close to the rulers—Ferdinand and Isabella—and was appointed Inquisitor General in 1483.

Just goes to show ya it's not who ya know, it's who ya blow. Sounds like somewhat humbler beginnings than U.S. Presidential candidate.