Religious Bigotry

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by usfan, Oct 5, 2017.

  1. delade

    delade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2017
    Messages:
    5,844
    Likes Received:
    317
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    The evidence as in 'things' a person can be 'swayed' by? Such as in the 'evidence' that there is a Law that says you cannot go over the posted speed limit? The evidence being the written 'Law' in the Codes and Ordinances or even in the Law/road books? Would that writing be 'evidence' that there is a speed limit law?

    So if something exists and a person wants 'evidence' to its existence, I guess you would need to find some kind of tangible 'evidence' to present so the other can be satisfied in receiving that tangibility in order to 'believe' any Truth to that thing that exists. But just because there are 'Laws', as in a 'law umbrella', it doesn't mean that everybody adheres to what is written in the law/road books of city and county 'laws'.

    Some States employ 'police discretion' for citations. Other States are straight across the board.

    What happens if you get bad police in the 'police discretion' States? You live under an umbrella that is more prone to 'bribery' and 'oppression'. And let's not forget that police are human beings too with personal preferences and likes.


    Whether this was 'planned' or 'staged' or a real event, it shows things which can turn 'dangerous' if not kept in check.




    The 'victim' must have had a 'spy camera' on his shoulder or something.


    Is this 'foolishness'?
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2018
  2. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,218
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not all that persuades is "evidence", as humans are notoriously bad at separating "not evidence" feom "evidence". Essentially,you are saying some people will never accept a magical spiritual umbrella, no matter what persuasive tactics you use. You are correct, as many people are simply not swayed to accept extraordinary claims by bad evidence, specious arguments, and unproven or false claims.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2018
    tecoyah likes this.
  3. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My bet is that landlords restrict tenancy for business reasons. More people means more wear and tear, more use of utilities that may be part of the rent, etc.. More people can lead to the leaseholder moving away while others continue paying the rent - resulting in financial problems when the arrangement falls apart, as the responsible party is nowhere to be found. In some places, you get rights if you are living somewhere for a period of time - resulting in landlords having renters they never had a chance to vet. Etc.
     
  4. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That is not my point. You were questioning whether someone can be called agnostic (or at least not be a fake agnostic) while still rejecting or arguing against some religions or religious ideas. It seems to me there is a straightforward definition of agnostic (for these purposes at least) which says that an agnostic is a person who has not taken a stance in favour of a particular explanation, which is not to say that they can't have taken a stance against some.

    For instance, if someone rejects Christianity but is unable to commit to the idea that there is no god or, let's for the sake of argument say Hinduism, then that person is still ultimately undecided and therefore agnostic, even if they have rejected Christianity.

    I agree that it is quite possible to for whatever reason argue for positions that one does not hold, but I don't think that's the issue you're clashing with here. Most of the arguments against Christianity are not fundamentally connected to the idea that there is no god, they are equally open to agnostics, ignostics, as well as in many cases other religions.
     
    RiaRaeb, Jonsa and tecoyah like this.
  5. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There is some equivocation around words like "believe", "faith", etc.. People are completely justified in talking about belief in the same way that you might believe that the sun will rise.

    The issue seems more to be the idea that religious people assumes that people's beliefs consist only of a picture of what the world is like and doesn't contain meta-beliefs, such as "I believe that a specific belief is incorrect", which isn't a belief about the world but about a statement about the world.
    I'm not sure I'm following this.
    I use the word failure because some debaters seem to disagree with how I use the word "not". They might say something like "not going left" is the same as "going right", whereas I think the failure to go left can include going right as well as standing still or going somewhere else. That explanation is a bit oversimplified, and I don't want to suggest that my interpretation of their interpretation trumps theirs, I'm just trying to be clear.
     
    Jonsa likes this.
  6. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That may be fair, but I'm not seeing that you did it any less than he did. A fundamental difference of opinion, which is what he suggested, doesn't automatically mean animosity. Likening someone to genocidists does, in my opinion.
     
  7. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes. I'm pointing to the fudging on words such as "belief" and "faith", engineered to make equivalence between scenarios that have no equivalence.

    No Christian "believes" in a lottery ticket like they do concerning the existence of their God. After all, God is a fundamental assumption upon which all else is predicated.

    In science, it would be the same as considering a lottery ticket as no more significant than the fundamental assumption that we may meaningfully observe our universe.

    Even if one tries to take it as a humorous exercise, there really is nothing that can be said that could possibly illuminate the topic.

    I think this kind of fudging goes on regularly on this religious segment of PF, so my reaction is augmented due to repeated abrasion.
     
    Jonsa likes this.
  8. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree, the fudging of wordings is the source of a lot of dubious interpretations and conclusions.

    That being said, communication is two way. I blame the non-religious almost as harshly due to them not calling them out on it as it happens. A lot of non-religious people are so focused on their own arguments that they won't attempt to understand the religious arguments, which means they don't notice those subtleties. The result is that a lot of non-religious arguments are just as incomprehensible to the religious as religious arguments are to the non-religious.

    The solution should be either agreeing on what we mean by certain words, or abandon them in favour of better understood words or phrases. Then again, from experience, that can mean pretty dull debates.
     
  9. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Unfortunately it seems to me the heavily religious make up their own versions of terminology on purpose to make an argument and once they do so this is now the reality to them and is imbedded to an extent that discussion or rational debate become all but impossible. The "Atheism is Religion" argument is a prime example and has spread to an extent that is is now Dogma....thus the debate is now over in their minds and the Atheist simple does not care enough to argue it anymore.
     
    RiaRaeb likes this.
  10. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It goes both ways. They can be as surprised at our definitions as we are at theirs, and that shouldn't come as a surprise to us. People have had conflicting terminology in all kinds of contexts forever. In areas where explanations matter more than talking points, like logic, science, business (well, depends), etc., you won't find anyone adamantly saying that their definition is the most valid one, if there is an ambiguous concept, you explain what you mean, and when others use other definitions, you read their definitions and understand what they are saying. You understand when they are different, but you're not paralysed by it.

    In essence, I don't care whether "Atheism is a religion" comes out as true or false, because I know it is a semantic point rather than a logical one.
     
  11. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good points. I certainly don't mean to imply the problem is only on one side.

    I see people demanding "proof", for example.
     
  12. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's fair.

    I usually attack "my own" side more than the other when I can. It makes debates less about winning, and saves me at least from the bias of assuming that whoever I'm debating is an incurable idiot.
     
    WillReadmore likes this.
  13. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I would never say that about my debating opponent. There is always a cure..
    :roflol:
     
  14. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    An expression of religious bigotry is demeaning and ridiculing other's beliefs. Killing those who differ is an obvious one, but so is ostracizing, mocking, and denigrating the beliefs of others.

    It has become so common, in the progressive public narrative, to treat Christianity with contempt, that it is accepted, and sometimes encouraged by the leaders of the institutions.

    All other forms of religious expression are ok, allowed, and supported, but anything, 'Christian!', is recoiled from in horror, and immediately attacked and disparaged.

    We are in a time of post Christian decline, and a former majority belief is often reacted to with hostility, when a new worldview begins to dominate the culture.
     
  15. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you claiming that you don't denigrate the beliefs of others?

    The Christian "world view" has never been so wonderfully perfect that improvement isn't needed.

    Yet, when improvement comes it is all too often ridiculed by religion, or members spend their time on the sidelines as injustice is carried out. In general, religion has a far harder time with meaningful change, regardless of the change.
     
  16. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Exactly, it saves me from thinking it, so I don't actually think they are incurable idiots.
     
  17. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    1. I'm pretty sensitive to that.. so i don't think you'll find me doing that.. but i cannot say i never do or have.. I'll leave it to you, to find examples.. :)
    2. 'Improvement' is not the issue, nor the job of critics or bigots. An historical worldview, based on events and persons in history, cannot really change its foundational beliefs. You can go away from the original, or evolve to something else, but then it is something else.
    3. 'Religion' covers ALL worldviews, beliefs, and opinions about the Big Mysteries, in this thread. Injustice is not something that only certain religions do.
    4. It is incumbent on the accuser of a worldview to show that it is inherent IN the worldview to commit the accused 'injustice!' Otherwise, the perpetrator is going against the ideals.
    5. Accusations of injustice, hate, etc, are just expressions of bigotry, from a competing worldview, trying to smear the opposition.
     
  18. AlifQadr

    AlifQadr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2016
    Messages:
    3,077
    Likes Received:
    899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    usfan,
    Many of the premises you present, I agree with in and on basic principle. Where I differ is that there is nothing in the entire universe of thought and physical existence, that is unknown or mystery.
    On the subject of going backwards in regards to religion, this is brought about because of two realities that I can think of:
    1. Fear - not in the sense of fright but in the sense of uncertainty about ones our beliefs.
    2. Covetousness - Being in a position of majority, tends to cause people to become covetous of said position, which leads back to fear.
     
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2018
  19. AlifQadr

    AlifQadr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2016
    Messages:
    3,077
    Likes Received:
    899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    :applause::applause:
    Well said. As I have stated, when people have "the prevailing" view on numerous topics, those same people think that what they have is proper, when it could not be furthest from truth. When books that those of "prevailing" view are studied, those same books patently disagree with what they espouse.
     
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2018
  20. AlifQadr

    AlifQadr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2016
    Messages:
    3,077
    Likes Received:
    899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Also, and just as important . . .
    3. Mystery - In life, there is no such thing as a mystery, in the common usage and sense of the term being that everything in existence is already know; such may be unknown to you, me or others, but someone somewhere has knowledge of what we lack.
     
  21. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Religion as it applies to a society definitely does change.

    We have divorce. We don't accept slavery. We have a very different view of women than what's presented in the bible. We accept the fact that a percent of any human population is same sex oriented. We don't restrict to fish on Friday. The concept of hell gets varying degrees of "intensity". The age of ensoulment changes. We allow pedophile priests to roam free. And, let's remember that there are hundreds if not thousands of variants of Christianity, let alone the other major faiths that are based on the Bible.

    I agree that Christianity isn't the only religion that has issues.

    I don't agree with your 4. It's not on ME that pedophile priests are shuttled around to hide them from view. World wide tolerance for that behavior IS a reflection on Christianity. That is, there is no direction to commit the crime, but what we're seeing is direct support for that criminality. I don't see a way to suggest that doesn't directly reflect on the religion.

    I know there are irrational comments, and my guess is that is what motivates your 5. I DO work against that. However, the smear of non Christians by Christians is truly gigantic. What do Christians say about Muslims (when they're not advocating killing them)? How many times to we hear that if you aren't a believer in God then you can't possibly have a moral compass? How easy is it to get elected to public office if you don't claim acceptable religious credentials? JFK had a problem by simply being Catholic and Mitt Romney being Mormon - yet TRUMP gets a pass, by making claims that are so unbelievably nonsensical as to be late night comedy fodder.

    I'd add that the attack on science and even higher education by Christianity is a clear outfall of the Christian "world view".
     
    RiaRaeb likes this.
  22. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Its not on you, but the perpetrators of the crimes, and/or anti-christian behavior. How does the existence of lawbreakers vilify the law?

    I submit that it is NOT a fair judgement, to condemn an ideology for actions taken by individuals that are opposed by the ideology. The corporate structure is open to scrutiny, in any human collective, but that does not reflect the overriding ideology, that the structure claims allegiance to.

    Failures of humanity, to achieve some altruistic ideal, does not make the ideal a failure, or complicit with it. It only reveals the fallibility of man, and his propensity toward evil.
     
  23. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I see a lot of caricatures, and indoctrinated narratives (which are at the root of much of anti-christian bigotry), but not much in the way of facts.

    Fish on friday? Pedophile priests? You think those things are 'commanded!' in the bible?

    Both women's suffrage and abolitionism were Christian issues, driven by pious (and zealous!) Christians, by and large.. as well as temperance. The justifications of these, and other classic liberal issues were bible based. Christian activists were the primary drivers for these issues.. only recently hijacked by Progressivism.

    Civil rights? A 'religious' driven issue. These were not atheist causes, organized and volunteered by anti-christian skeptics. That is just more of the anti-christian narrative, promoted by the competing religion of Progressivism.
     
  24. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ..more of the anti-christian propaganda.. constantly pounding phony narratives, to build a caricature of Christianity, presumably to make it easier to kill them, in the future.

    Hitler did that with the jews.. demonizing them and constructing a demeaning, sub human caricature, so you are in modern company...

    ..right..

    'Christians hate science!' :eekeyes:

    :disbelief:
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2018
  25. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I observe that there are many things, completely shrouded in mystery, from a human perspective.

    Objectively, there IS a true explanation for every mystery man has pondered, but that does not mean that we are not mystified, and unaware of the truth.

    I'm not following the logical progression, attributing 'going backward' to 'fear and covetousness'. That can also be smear labels, to discredit an opposing worldview.
     

Share This Page