? I do not see your replies applying to my points. I am NOT trying to convince the truth of the reformation ideals, but to follow the line of religious freedom, or 'freedom of conscience', as it was described then. The truth or falsehood of the bible is irrelevant, in this examination. This is about religious freedom, and the 'ruling elite', who oppose this freedom expose themselves as religious bigots.
Exposing ad hom and bigotry is not ad hom and bigotry. Of course you did. And now you try to backtrack and accuse me of what you actually did. I do NOT see a mental, psychological, biological, or even anthropological difference between people of different beliefs. There are subjective, cultural, peer, family, and Indoctrination reasons for beliefs, but that is external, not internal, as you asserted. I am promoting tolerance and freedom of conscience, not selective bigotry. That is your schtick, not mine. Absurd. Plenty of theists do not believe in a particular 'scripture!' That is an irrelevant deflection to cover your bias. Making a straw man caricature of those you despise, ideologically, is only evidence of bigotry. It is NOT ideological tolerance. Again, you deflect with a tu quoque fallacy. I have not disparaged ANYONE'S beliefs. You have. You seem to be deflecting to cover your own bigotry, by accusing me of the same. Believe whatever you want. I don't care. But why stoop to ridicule, caricatures, and demeaning attacks on beliefs of other's? It is not justified, by any rational explanation. It is just the age old practice of religious bigotry inserting itself into the human experience.
This 'stance' is just human bigotry, trying to dehumanize others with pseudo science justifications. Human beings are the same, at the core levels. To pretend there is a biological, psychological, or genetic reason for a particular belief, is to harken back to despots and genocidists throughout history, who sought to purge humanity from these defects, based on ideological differences. If you could establish this as 'fact', you could justify reeducation camps for religious outliers, who do not toe the line with the official state belief, whatever it is. But this is merely an example of religious bigotry, expressed as your opinion of the mentally inferior Christians. Good example of bias. You merely dehumanize, or disparage others as inferior for not believing as you do. This is not a statement of fact, but of bigotry.. propaganda for some anti Christian narrative. If you claim agnosticism, you pretend you do not know. How can you accuse anyone of 'ignorance!' when you are wallowing in it, pretending it is a virtue? It is fake Agnosticism anyway, as your beliefs and assertions are clearly expressed.
Seeing religios bigotry, or any bigotry, is uncomfortable. And if a mirror is held up to see it in ourselves, it is even more so. That SHOULD give us pause, and cause us to reflect, but i have seen that bigotry, and ESPECIALLY, religious bigotry, is not an easy mindset to break. Especially when the culture justifies it, or cheers it as 'fun!' Even in this thread, where bigotry is defined clearly, and examples given, some are unable to resist expressing their own bigotry, but see it as justified, somehow. They can't even pretend tolerance, because the intolerance of an alternate belief has been pounded in to them on all sides, and it oozes out, uncontrollably. It is evidence, imo, of the ideological shift from the American ideals of freedom.. of conscience, expression, open inquiry, and other tenets of the American Experiment, vs the progressive, marxist based ideology of elitism, mandated conformity, and memorized dogma. It is a step backwards, toward dark ages practices. It will not produce happy results for the common man.
Okay then, as Atheism is apparently considered a Religion and you regularly attack it...where is your mirror?
The internet provides anonymity, which makes it easier for bigots to express themselves. But they have been around since time immemorial. I have encountered hysterical bigots on college campuses, seminaries, public demonstrations, and anywhere ideologies meet and clash. In the 70s, there was more face to face confrontation, and now it is online more. But the ideological differences still divide, and erupt in displays of intolerance, bigotry, and censorship. Now, more than ever before, this bigotry and intolerance for minority opinions spills out into the public discourse. It is a symptom of progressive ideology dominating the public consciousness. Welcome to Progresso world.
It is important to note rather than ignore the reasons an Atheist ever bothers to comment in this forum. We seldom if ever begin an "Attack on Religion" thread but react to the many "Attack on Atheism" threads or claims of impossibility as truth. Still Christians in particular display a persecution complex and say they are being attacked....don't dish it out if you cannot take it little melting ice crystals.
Well that is what happens in the realm of magical religiois nonsense, as there is no good way to determine the truth of two opposing ideas.
i wonder how good christians can also be nationalists who reject the stranger? That sure as hell ain't what the bible teaches, but as other posters have pointed out, dogma adjusts to contemporary socio/political/economic conditions. I suspect today's types of christianity would be only vaguely recognized by the early believers.
Christianity has (always was) become a buffet religion in that you get to pick and choose what looks good for dinner.
You seem to equate 'open borders' as some Christian belief. There is a principle from the reformation known as separation of church and state. It was expanded on in the Enlightenment, and codified into law in the American Experiment. Abolition of slavery was something that Christians could rally behind, based on the dignity and equality of man. But that would not compel a conclusion of open borders and lawless anarchy as immigration policy. That is an absurd extrapolation of human equality. How is it that anti-christian critics can presume to tell everyone how Christians should vote, or believe? Why this phony caricature of Christians as bleeding heart, anguished liberals, agonizing over everyone's survival needs and political activism? Christians are not a homogeneous voting block. They are just fodder for bigot's caricatures. You have caricatures and false narratives to promote, which make good diversions in uncomfortable threads. But all it really does is expose underlying bigotry, attempting to caricaturise all Christians with some narrative.
However you want to see it. I have no control of your interpretive prowess.. What are atheist beliefs, regarding socio/political issues? Hindus? New age goddesses? Do people's religious beliefs automatically convert to politically correct (and consistent) political views? I think not. And i would not expect, or predict, that all believers in a particular worldview to be completely homogeneous with everyone else in that worldview. There are generalities, but not enough to accuse 'hypocrisy!', if some do not toe the line with some artificial, self appointed spokesman of the worldview. That is for lemmings, or indoctrinees, not individually thinking people. I also observe diversity of opinion, especially within the 'Christian' label. So i see no justification for an accusation or innuendo of hypocrisy or conflict. Everyone has to work out their worldview for themselves.
Actually it was uou not me that started conflating religios and political views. To me that is unjustified unless religion is used as the justification for a particular belief.
I didn't mention "open borders" at all. And I am aware of separation of church and state - what is that about In god we trust? Public School prayer? Abortion? The issue is that a christian is supposed to lead a christian life, abiding by the teachings of their lord and savior. Turning their backs on desperate women and their innocent children isn't abiding. Increasing the suffering of the suffering, isn't abiding. Sadly such situational selectivity of application of dogma is a feature of most religions. It is true I am a bigot, but when it comes to religion the only people I am bigoted against are violent religious fanatics of all flavors. A very small % of the "religious" demographic. I just dislike the hypocrisy of selective practice.
Oh i see the underlying basis of a 'religious' view impacting the political opinions. Our opinions about EVERYTHING are influenced by our most core beliefs about life and the universe.. even if we don't correlate them. But when it comes to individuals, there is not always a consistency in application of the internal core beliefs.
Agnosticism is not necessarily the state of pure, neutral ignorance. It is the failure to commit to any solution fully, it is not necessarily the idea that all solutions are on equal grounds. Consider the idea of the 5000 ticket lottery with someone claiming that 7935 is the right number. A person who knows there are 5000 tickets but not which ticket is the winner is (or can be) the equivalent of an agnostic, in that he does not have one favoured solution (5 is as plausible as 500 is to him), but being an agnostic does not commit him to thinking that 7935 is believable. They are not incapable of making arguments, they simply haven't made one which singles out any specific explanation. There is nothing about my argument which limits the example to the 5000 number being arbitrary, or not being based on some rational argument. In my example, you could consider the idea that the agnostic asked the lottery maker how many tickets were printed. In that scenario, there most certainly is empirical evidence. However, since he doesn't favour 4 over 40 or 400, his agnosticism is not fake. Consider a person who says "I have come up with a theology which requires you to give me all of your belongings and not question it, oh and also 1+1=3". An agnostic doesn't become a fake agnostic for rejecting that idea.
I mean, I would say he's not doing it to any greater extent than you are when you liken him to genocidists. In my eyes, that certain seems to me a harsher judgement than the one ARDY suggested, which was merely an albeit overzealous commitment to truth.
And that's the rub. The agnostic may BELIEVE there are only 5000 to choose from, but there is nothing empirical to exclude higher possibilities. If he then defends or promotes that belief, he has lost the pure agnostic ignorance he claimed, and is now promoting a stance.
Let's rehash the posts These are just dogmatic beliefs.. slamming the opposition, and portraying his own in glowing terms, with a soft filter to view them. I saw through the religious bigotry, and exposed it. And it SHOULD be a matter of concern, to a free, diverse people. The dangers of genocide are always there, and doing it for ideological reasons are as common as man's beliefs. I correlated religious bigotry as a major justification for genocide. It should not be winked at or minimized.. unless those winking are doing the ideological cleansing.
One part of his argument that I see in other people on this board, too, relates to: This appears to me as major league fudging. In 1 above, Christians don't consider their faith in God as being an "opinion". They accept it as an immutable assumption - the very foundation of their religion. If this "Christian" in 3 can use the word "believe" in a way that equates a lottery choice with the very foundation of the Christian religion then we as observers can't consider that person as a representative of what "Christianity" means. In other words, if "Christian" used the word "believe" in a way that has NOTHING AT ALL to do with religion, then fine. But, if "Christian" used that word in a way comparable to his/her religious belief, then he/she certainly does not represent the Christian religion. Imho, atheists don't have anything similar to the foundational assumptions of the Christian religion. And, I would probably accept your comments about agnosticism, though I don't see my personal views on religion as qualifying as "failure" - LOL!
One does not lose one's agnosticism by holding any stance, one loses it by believing an answer to the question of whether there is a god. Rejecting one religion out of thousands does not mean you are left with one preferred answer, so you can reject one answer and remain unconvinced as to the actual answer, i.e. remaining an agnostic. The person who has rejected every number above 5000 is still undecided as to what the true winning number is, which is (the equivalent of) the definition of an agnostic. The fact that there are notions that have been rejected and others that are not have no impact on that.
I suppose.. if the person is just being argumentative, or taking a 'stance' that he doesn't really believe, then you could remain agnostic. But, if one argues like an atheist, defends atheist positions, always 'likes' atheists posts, and exudes the same disdain toward theists, i would be hard pressed to conclude, 'agnostic!', based on all the evidence. But a person's words often belie their beliefs, so whatever one says should be taken on face value, AND with a grain of salt. I try to focus on the arguments, rather than the labels.. and find that maddening enough..
I am not talking about how dogmatic people are, regarding their beliefs, but the objective reality, from a philosopher's perspective, of ALL beliefs concerning the mysteries of the universe. They are opinions. Plenty of theists and atheists have varying degrees of certainty and dogmatism, regarding their beliefs, but they are still just subjective opinions. I leave the dogmatism to others, as they present their opinions with dogmatic intolerance.
