Current State Of The Forum

Christians, atheists, theists and skeptics: make your best case here.
Forum rules
Keep it real, minimal cutting and pasting please: we want to hear what YOU have to say!

Re: Current State Of The Forum

Postby Clare » Tue Sep 12, 2017 5:08 pm

Keep The Reason wrote:But taking the analogy further, if it went to an actual war (we're in a social struggle conflict now, but not a shooting war)? You'd be considered a traitor for doing what hg does. So let's be clear-- we're not at war so it doesn't apply, but try to think about it if we were in a war and someone proclaimed they were one side and yet consistently came down in favor of and in defense of the other side?

Imagine if in WW2 hg was saying, "Those Japanese are fascists and I'm not one of them! But hey, despite them attacking us, let's not confront them-- why don't you just leave them be?"

How do you think that should play out?


I'd think a clearer analogy would be if you were at war, and hg was trying to say there's no need to resort to barbarism and dehumanization, because despite whatever conflict you're in, you've lost the moral high-ground when you start freely committing war crimes.

Keep The Reason wrote:
cleve wrote:And, when did you become the referee for which "side" he seems to be on at any given point in time?


I'm not the referee. I'm just wiling to confront him on his hypocritical quisling actions. He can be on any side he likes. I'd ally with him if he were in sync with my principles and goals, and I would confront him if he weren't. But if he's going to flip flop back and forth? Then he's untrustworthy and an asshole. Those are the worst people of all, because you ally with them, and then find out they have all they need to stab you in the back when they "flip" to the other side. Fuck that. You ally with that sort of scumbag. I'll just categorize him as a hostile and leave him there.


Or, maybe hg's just willing to confront you on your hypocrisy, bigotry, and bullshit. And, you can't handle it. If he's untrustworthy, a flip-flopper, and doesn't align with your principles, then your goals and principles are less about ideology and belief, and more about being a prick to the other side. It's all about fighting the enemy, and all of that shit about truth and integrity is a smokescreen for your real intentions.

Keep The Reason wrote:He especially likes it when Clare blows smoke up his ass. Right after she posted a picture of herself (be it her or not it doesn't matter) some months --or maybe it's more than a year ago now -- he really amped up the flirtations with her.

So in addition to everything else he is -- he's an internet forum creep besides.


That's a lie. Hg never even commented on my appearance. The only forum member who's come the closest to "flirting" with me is Archlich:

"Intelligence definitely does not dictate physical appearance SM. You're absolutely right. Though I'm not gonna turn into a hormonal adolescent and start throwing sexually inspired statements at Clare. That would discourage participation in this thread. Not only that, but it sexually objectifies the person in question."

"I'm sure there are plenty of "hot chicks" here. However, if you'd like proof that I couldn't care less, take a look at the time stamp on Clare's post of her picture in this thread, and then the time stamps on our most recent debating. Then look at the content of the debating. You'll see that the debating continued on after the post of her picture. I do think Clare is beautiful. However, if I wanted something intimate with her, would it be logical for me to continue responding to her in ways that I know will likely displease her?"

Keep The Reason wrote:I don't mind people sticking up for one another at all, even those on opposite sides.


That's another lie because you have taken hg to task when he does.

Keep The Reason wrote:Again, hg's problem is just that he defends Christians, he actively tells us we should not be interested in their beliefs at all. Yes, he's actually said "Why do you care what 'such and such Christian believes?" as if confronting Christians for their beliefs is somehow off limits to us atheists."


Hg asking an atheist why they care about about what a Christian believes is the same as telling them that they "should not be interested in their beliefs at all, and confronting Christians for their beliefs is "off limits"?... Do you ever think that it might not just be the act of confronting, or questioning, a Christian about their beliefs, but might also have something to do with the way an atheist confronts Christians? Or, even their motivations behind it?

Keep The Reason wrote:And, he NEVER says to Christians, "Why don't you just let the atheists believe what they want?" Or if he does, it's painfully rare.


If he did would you say he's telling us Christians that we "should not be interested in their beliefs at all", and confronting atheists is "off limits"? Would you criticize him for it? If you did, by sticking up for us would you accept the labels "quisling" and "enabler" from your cronies? And, he hasn't asked a Christian that from what I've seen because most of the Christians on this forum don't attack the atheists here or their views in the same way, or as often.

Keep The Reason wrote:And look don't just go by me. I'm not the only one saying it. Everyone knows it about hg.


Yet you and your kiss-ass chorus still haven't given sufficient examples of exactly how hg "enables" and is "defending" Christians. Shocker.

Keep The Reason wrote:I make it a point to say to people that I do not have to show their beliefs a teardrop of respect.


No shit. But, it's about how you generalize, assume, hate, and lack basic human decency towards most, if not all, religious people simply because there's certain ones who hold beliefs you abhor. It's to the point where it seems you see most, if not all, religious people as having the same beliefs. That makes it just about impossible to communicate with you because you're trying to tell me what I or someone else believes.

Archlich wrote:If there's one thing KTR has always been in my years on this forum, it's reasonable. If you gave a legitimate argument against what he considers to be a reasonable principle, KTR would be the one person I'd expect would listen and respond with objectivity, fairness and reason.


You're funny.
Clare
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3205
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 2:23 pm
Affiliation: Catholic

Re: Current State Of The Forum

Postby humanguy » Tue Sep 12, 2017 5:49 pm

humanguy wrote:I know what you're talking about. You said you'd "ally" with me if I shared your principles and goals, and that you'd confront me if I didn't. I take it that anyone who doesn't share those things are Nazis, members of the KKK, rapists and "traitors" (to the true atheism, perhaps?)

Where does it say that you have the authority to decide what true atheism means, and that you get to impose your standards on anyone who doesn't conform to your ideas?


Keep The Reason wrote:Who said anything about atheism? You're conflating your failings.

One. As an atheist, you defend theists consistently by attacking atheists for daring to confront them in their beliefs, while you rarely or never confront theists for trying to force their beliefs (or defend their beliefs) here on this forum..


humanguy wrote:It looks like you're the one talking about atheism here. This whole damn thing is about your narrow-minded views about what atheism means, and who is and who isn't a true atheist. Do you deny this?


Keep The Reason wrote:Now put that one aside for a moment.

Two. In this discussion right here, as a responsible member of a society I have an obligation to work towards a free, liberal democracy and to defend against the mistreatment of minorities from the larger majority if they are so mistreating them.

Basic decency gives me, and everyone else, that "authority". Generally speaking, the US constitution defines those rights through the application of law.

You are equally obligated to work tiwards those goals but you are a lazy loser who has chosen apathy rather than worry.


humanguy wrote:I'm certainly not lazy, you can't be lazy and apathetic in the music business if you intend to keep working. And you still don't understand: I am an individual, I think for myself and I'm not obligated to do anything anyone says I should do, and you don't get to tell me what I'm supposed to be doing in my life. I say what I'm supposed to do in my life.


Keep The Reason wrote:Fine. I don't care what you do.


humanguy wrote:My impression is that you very much care what I do here.


Keep The Reason wrote:But when you dismiss, demean, or one worse yet try to deflect people from also doing what I do, I get to tell you to go pound sand and I get to point out that you're an asshole.


humanguy wrote:You're going to have to show me where I have dismissed, demeaned, or " one worse yet" tried to deflect people from "doing what you do." And it is noted that it matters to you that people do what you do.


Keep The Reason wrote:And let's make another prediction. You will consistently misread, twist and try to subvert the very clear and obvious things I am saying. It's what you do.


The clear and obvious things you say here can't help but lead one to the conclusion that you're yet another of those tiresome Dawkins fanboys who hate religion and harbor the most ramped-up vituperative hatred for Christians, and are just bursting at the seams to vent their righteous spleen on discussion forums. Whoop-de-do, isn't he original. It isn't very hard to work that one out, you know.
Most of us, just about all of us, have the capacity to be rock and rolled by a feeling of pure ecstatic raw joy. You do, don't you? We should respect each other for that.
User avatar
humanguy
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3885
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:50 pm
Location: Lumpen Post-Industrial District
Affiliation: Human

Re: Current State Of The Forum

Postby Keep The Reason » Tue Sep 12, 2017 8:15 pm

At one time I cared. I don't any more; this thread is simply a rewinding of why I consider you an asshole. But rest assured I give no fucks at all for you. Which is why I've said many times, you aren't needed.
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10413
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: Current State Of The Forum

Postby humanguy » Tue Sep 12, 2017 8:18 pm

Keep The Reason wrote:At one time I cared. I don't any more; this thread is simply a rewinding of why I consider you an asshole. But rest assured I give no fucks at all for you. Which is why I've said many times, you aren't needed.


Bravely spoken.
Most of us, just about all of us, have the capacity to be rock and rolled by a feeling of pure ecstatic raw joy. You do, don't you? We should respect each other for that.
User avatar
humanguy
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3885
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:50 pm
Location: Lumpen Post-Industrial District
Affiliation: Human

Re: Current State Of The Forum

Postby ArchLich » Tue Sep 12, 2017 8:20 pm

Keep The Reason wrote:At one time I cared. I don't any more; this thread is simply a rewinding of why I consider you an asshole. But rest assured I give no fucks at all for you. Which is why I've said many times, you aren't needed.


I don't think it's very realistic to say he's an asshole. In fact, much of the problem he seems to suffer from is an unhealthy and perpetual LACK of assholery, as is typical of pacifistic hippies.
Knowledge is power, and is also limited to empirical perception. Irony.
ArchLich
veteran
veteran
 
Posts: 838
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2015 2:44 am
Location: Florida
Affiliation: Agnostic, Atheist

Re: Current State Of The Forum

Postby Rian » Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:14 pm

marcuspnw wrote:The podcasts drew people to the forum and without any new ones being made, sometimes the experience is similar to watching paint dry.

I think I only listened to one podcast. What drew me was the mature, interesting, thoughtful and adult-level discussion going on on the threads. For the past few years, though, a few people on both sides have been throwing so much hateful and brainless crap around during the discussions that I just get tired of wading through it, so I don't post very often.

Also between poor health and recently moving to California, I have even less time and energy. But mainly it's just fatigue from all the crap-slinging going on.

Anyway, it's so nice to see you back here, marcuspnw! Maybe I'll start a topic or two in the CL - I've had some things that I've wanted to discuss with some of the atheists. Now that you're back - our original atheist mod! - maybe we can get some good conversation going again.
"Aurë entuluva! Auta i lómë!" ("Day shall come again! The night is passing!") -- from JRR Tolkien's The Silmarillion

Christianity is the red pill - go for it! Seek the truth, wherever it leads you.
User avatar
Rian
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 6210
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:36 pm
Location: Arizona, USA ... for now ...
Affiliation: Christian/truth-seeker

Re: Current State Of The Forum

Postby Keep The Reason » Tue Sep 12, 2017 10:04 pm

humanguy wrote:Bravely spoken.


Good comeback.
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10413
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: Current State Of The Forum

Postby cleve » Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:00 am

Keep The Reason wrote:
humanguy wrote:Bravely spoken.


Good comeback.

Where do you want Humanguy to come back to? :(
Affiliated with no religious group. Most people label me as a dispensationalist (sometimes preceded with ultra-) .
User avatar
cleve
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1785
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:55 am
Location: Wash.
Affiliation: Individual believer in Christ

Re: Current State Of The Forum

Postby marcuspnw » Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:04 pm

Rian wrote:
marcuspnw wrote:The podcasts drew people to the forum and without any new ones being made, sometimes the experience is similar to watching paint dry.

I think I only listened to one podcast. What drew me was the mature, interesting, thoughtful and adult-level discussion going on on the threads. For the past few years, though, a few people on both sides have been throwing so much hateful and brainless crap around during the discussions that I just get tired of wading through it, so I don't post very often.

Also between poor health and recently moving to California, I have even less time and energy. But mainly it's just fatigue from all the crap-slinging going on.

Anyway, it's so nice to see you back here, marcuspnw! Maybe I'll start a topic or two in the CL - I've had some things that I've wanted to discuss with some of the atheists. Now that you're back - our original atheist mod! - maybe we can get some good conversation going again.


Great! I am looking forward to that. :smt038
Another day, another step closer to the answer. How many more steps do I have I wonder?
User avatar
marcuspnw
veteran
veteran
 
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:50 pm
Location: 'Hamster, WA
Affiliation: Atheist

Re: Current State Of The Forum

Postby Particles » Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:49 pm

The State of the Forum is STRONG! :smt041

Particles
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: USA
Affiliation: Gnostic atheist

Re: Current State Of The Forum

Postby Patrick Star » Wed Sep 13, 2017 1:34 pm

ArchLich wrote:Freedom, from a political viewpoint, is generally defined as being free to do as you please, so long as what you do does not impede the freedoms of others. If they force their belief systems into governmental law, they impede upon the freedoms of those who do not accept their belief systems, which a libertarian society would frown upon.


This is what my position is based on. It is the responsibility of non-believers to lobby and participate in government enough to ensure our liberties are not over run. Beyond that there's no justification to go any farther if you want to keep a Libertarian society. The next step, limiting one's ability to choose and participate in religion, is Fascism.

In the case of children: A child's mind is extremely impressionable due to its tendency not to question or test information given to them in the context of a truth or fact. This is why children can easily be fooled into thinking Santa Claus, and the Easter bunny exist. My argument against that insists that children not be swayed to believe in anything that cannot be demonstrably proven to be true/factual, as it is the same thing as brainwashing. That includes atheists who are delusional enough to believe they can know that a god doesn't exist. A human cannot prove a negative, therefore proving that something does not exist is humanly impossible. I hold that children should never be exposed to these things, rather they should be introduced to it once they've reached an age where their minds are more prone to critical thought, and at that time be allowed to choose what they want to believe. Brainwashing children impedes upon their freedom of thought, thus a libertarian society would frown upon it.


The problem with this proposal is that there's simply no precedent for it. In the short history of the US, parents have almost never been restricted in what they could expose their children to except for the obvious dangers of things like drugs, violence and sex. And even violence gets a pass in current times. The only true limitations were on blacks during the slavery era. I don't know how society could ever expect to enforce such a limitation on parents even if it was possible to get an actual consensus on what those limitations might be. In our current social climate, your ideas would be little more than a death sentence for an politician who advocated them. We can't even get a significant portion of families to put their children in public school because of these sort of disagreements. This seems like a hopeless goal at this point. Perhaps another hundred years from now things might be different.
User avatar
Patrick Star
resident
resident
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 5:54 pm
Affiliation: undisclosed

Re: Current State Of The Forum

Postby Keep The Reason » Wed Sep 13, 2017 2:06 pm

Patrick Star wrote:This is what my position is based on. It is the responsibility of non-believers to lobby and participate in government enough to ensure our liberties are not over run. Beyond that there's no justification to go any farther if you want to keep a Libertarian society. The next step, limiting one's ability to choose and participate in religion, is Fascism.


Agreed, but it's a bit more complicated than just saying non-believers should be involved, because a) many non- believers are isolated and unable to expose themselves thanks to bigotries against non-believers, and b) politicians so far haven't realized the huge voter-base they effectively ignore, and c) fully one half of our political landscape here is thoroughly overrun, taken over, hijacked, and held for ransom by religious right wingers.

A and B and slowly changing but C is almost certainly another generation , possibly farther, away. And in the timeframe, we'll lose more SCOTUS judges to religious theocratic persuasions, gerrymandering will intensify to rob groups of their rights to even vote (or make it simply moot when they vote that the right winger wins nonetheless--anyone recall the 65 vs 63 million Clinton wins popular vote but loses presidency to Trump event?), women will lose more rights and access to reproductive freedom, gays will lose their hard won rights and minorities (both racial and other-religions) will suffer huge setbacks as well. This will likely be the case even as nones grow exponentially because once you seat a SCOTUS judge, he or she is sat for LIFE and if you add amendments to the US constitution, it becomes drastically harder to reverse them.

This will affect everyone across the board, including religious people who are not so fanatic, but who are made to live under these ever growing inequities as time goes on. If you are a moderate Protestant married mother of three woman with an unwanted or genetically-mutated pregnancy and you live in North Dakota, good luck finding a clinic who will help you with it (and good luck if you need mammary scans and so on because all those services went south thanks to religious loonies as well). No, you just get to die, effectively orphaning your other kids, or give birth to something that might reduce you to beggary and live in deep, unendurable suffering because some pious imbecile decided his or her Jaysus doesn't want you to make common sense decisions.

This is why it's a real, present, immediate fight despite some very uneducated individuals ridiculing it or pretending it doesn't even exist. It's literally a turning point for the next few decades. Anyone with 1/4 a brain can see how the victories go to the religious right wingers even when the votes go centrist (the US has zero effective left wing despite the fear mongering of it. There is no left wing of any real impact here; it's all centrist, and centrist-right.)

This is really no laughing matter, if there is to be a free USA with its wealth and military might not under the command of religious fanatics. Such a world affects everyone on the planet. No exceptions, anywhere.
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10413
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: Current State Of The Forum

Postby Patrick Star » Wed Sep 13, 2017 2:26 pm

humanguy wrote:I don't defend theists, I just don't have any problem with them; I know that people will think and believe as they will, whether or not I may like it. But as I've said here before, I don't like bullying, and KTR is one of the most self-righteous bullies I've seen on a discussion forum, self-righteous, close minded, sanctimonious and hypocritical when it comes to standards that he holds Christians to but that he doesn't think also apply to himself. When a Christian member expresses his belief in god, "Keep the Reason" becomes apoplectic that there's no proof to be seen of that god existing while time after time he allows himself to make claims that suit his own agenda without having any proof to back them up, which I consider to be hypocritical.


Actually I have seen you defend some Christians (next paragraph), but I wouldn't hold that against you. I will defend whomever I believe is correct in a disagreement and sometimes that person is a Christian. I agree with your distaste of bullying. It is despicable in all its forms and there's no need for it. However, there have been occasions where I've seen a person (Christian or atheist) who is behaving just badly enough that they are clearly just below the threshold for civil conversation, and that often tips another into outright hostility. Maybe that's not a real justification but it certainly is a persuasive argument. I believe the member Clare is one of these who has done this and I do not engage in any conversation with her any longer because of it. That's my technique for avoiding bullying; just avoid those who can't or won't behave themselves.

So I guess I agree that outright bullying behavior is bad, though I have seen you react to comments that come no where near that. Just recently you were quick to chastise others who commented on Aarons OP that was directed at Moon. That's your prerogative of course but you must realize that people do that literally all the time here. They do that on every forum I've ever seen. Some comments are just derisive while others are downright mean, but If Aaron wanted a private conversation there are actually very useful options for that. Your appeals to privacy was rather silly, just Aaron's actual comment was incredibly silly, enough to make me laugh out loud. Whether you realize it or not, that was a defense of a Christian. Basically it amounted to you arguing that he has the right to believe any silly nonsense he wants to believe. Sure, no argument there, but then everyone here knows that. I guess the upshot is if you don't want to be laughed at, you shouldn't make public statements that you have to know are going to be laughed at.

I like living life as an atheist, but I reject the notion that as an atheist I'm supposed to toe some party line to be accepted as a "true" atheist by KTR. "You're not a real atheist" he says, because I don't hate Christians like he does.


This is something I was trying to highlight. Atheists are not typically an adhesive group and I don't believe it is reasonable to expect them to suddenly be that. That's pretty much the only commonality I find with "us" other than the rejection of religious adherence. It is sort of confounding because I'm pretty sure KTR would say that he doesn't hate Christians either, but of course you perceive that he does based on his behavior. From my standpoint this appears to be more a difference of perception of what "hating Christians" means. You may not take as much offense at the behavior of Christians that KTR does and reacts to. I agree with him that there are many areas where Christians have overstepped their bounds and encroached on others and I agree that action is needed to change that. We can't stop people from being Christians but we should defend our own rights if we value them because no one else will.

BTW, this makes me wonder what you think about Christians who advocate against Muslims and "Sharia Law". There arguments are much the same as mine here, but from what I can see they are all imagined. There is no danger of Sharia Law currently yet many Christians behave as if it is an impending doom.

I think KTR is one of these angry atheists who cast atheists in a negative light. He accuses me of empowering Christians, when it's actually him and his ilk who empower Christians by behaving so petulantly, heaping scorn and verbal abuse on any who don't conform 100% to his way of thinking. Why does being an atheist mean you must hate religion? I don't see anything positive coming from hating and insulting Christians at every turn. Why hate anyone? I just don't see that as a viable way to live.


I think you are mistaken that anything KTR does is empowering Christians. Any atheist who pushes back on their political and social power is doing the opposite. That may cause some Christians to become more determined to push their beliefs on society, but then the reaction of some atheists will be to work even harder. If atheists never spoke up at all, Christians would merely be free to do as they please and have done so for ages. This is sort of like what I've heard some slavery apologists say that slavery was dying in the South before the Civil war. Well, this is preposterous because there is simply no evidence of that and plenty to oppose it. Had abolitionists not pushed against slavery, it would have continued for at least another 50 years and perhaps another 50 beyond that (that would be 1950!!!). The resultant push of both sides climaxed in war, of course, but that did ultimately end the practice of slavery. So from KTR's perspective, the war was horrible but necessary to end this practice. Would you have been on the other end of the spectrum and advocated a slow decay of the practice? I see this as a reasonable analogy.
User avatar
Patrick Star
resident
resident
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 5:54 pm
Affiliation: undisclosed

Re: Current State Of The Forum

Postby Patrick Star » Wed Sep 13, 2017 2:42 pm

Keep The Reason wrote:
Patrick Star wrote:This is what my position is based on. It is the responsibility of non-believers to lobby and participate in government enough to ensure our liberties are not over run. Beyond that there's no justification to go any farther if you want to keep a Libertarian society. The next step, limiting one's ability to choose and participate in religion, is Fascism.


Agreed, but it's a bit more complicated than just saying non-believers should be involved, because a) many non- believers are isolated and unable to expose themselves thanks to bigotries against non-believers, and b) politicians so far haven't realized the huge voter-base they effectively ignore, and c) fully one half of our political landscape here is thoroughly overrun, taken over, hijacked, and held for ransom by religious right wingers.

A and B and slowly changing but C is almost certainly another generation , possibly farther, away. And in the timeframe, we'll lose more SCOTUS judges to religious theocratic persuasions, gerrymandering will intensify to rob groups of their rights to even vote (or make it simply moot when they vote that the right winger wins nonetheless--anyone recall the 65 vs 63 million Clinton wins popular vote but loses presidency to Trump event?), women will lose more rights and access to reproductive freedom, gays will lose their hard won rights and minorities (both racial and other-religions) will suffer huge setbacks as well. This will likely be the case even as nones grow exponentially because once you seat a SCOTUS judge, he or she is sat for LIFE and if you add amendments to the US constitution, it becomes drastically harder to reverse them.

This will affect everyone across the board, including religious people who are not so fanatic, but who are made to live under these ever growing inequities as time goes on. If you are a moderate Protestant married mother of three woman with an unwanted or genetically-mutated pregnancy and you live in North Dakota, good luck finding a clinic who will help you with it (and good luck if you need mammary scans and so on because all those services went south thanks to religious loonies as well). No, you just get to die, effectively orphaning your other kids, or give birth to something that might reduce you to beggary and live in deep, unendurable suffering because some pious imbecile decided his or her Jaysus doesn't want you to make common sense decisions.

This is why it's a real, present, immediate fight despite some very uneducated individuals ridiculing it or pretending it doesn't even exist. It's literally a turning point for the next few decades. Anyone with 1/4 a brain can see how the victories go to the religious right wingers even when the votes go centrist (the US has zero effective left wing despite the fear mongering of it. There is no left wing of any real impact here; it's all centrist, and centrist-right.)

This is really no laughing matter, if there is to be a free USA with its wealth and military might not under the command of religious fanatics. Such a world affects everyone on the planet. No exceptions, anywhere.


I don't disagree with your assessment of our current state of politics, but how does that relate to my comment that we cannot limit people's practice of religion? Everything you said regarding political participation is valid, but that should never, ever include limiting one's practice of religion, lest it lead to just a different form of totalitarian government. There's a reason Christians fear the idea of atheists in control of government. They have 50 years of the Soviet Union, China and North Korea as evidence that the right kind of government could and would oppress them. So that has to be front and center when we address these kinds of issues. Oppression of religion is not the end goal here; it has to be liberty for all, which is nothing the Constitution doesn't already guarantee us all.

And I have to point out that saying politicians are ignoring a voter base is looking through the eyeglass in reverse. It is the voter base who has to ensure that politicians are not ignoring them. I would argue that the Trump people did exactly that last November. There are 16 or so Republicans who didn't win and it's because they ignored the wrong people. I hate Trump as much as any Liberal, but I can't argue with the votes. He won the right states and that is impossible to ignore.
User avatar
Patrick Star
resident
resident
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 5:54 pm
Affiliation: undisclosed

Re: Current State Of The Forum

Postby ArchLich » Wed Sep 13, 2017 3:02 pm

Patrick Star wrote:I don't disagree with your assessment of our current state of politics, but how does that relate to my comment that we cannot limit people's practice of religion? Everything you said regarding political participation is valid, but that should never, ever include limiting one's practice of religion, lest it lead to just a different form of totalitarian government. There's a reason Christians fear the idea of atheists in control of government. They have 50 years of the Soviet Union, China and North Korea as evidence that the right kind of government could and would oppress them. So that has to be front and center when we address these kinds of issues. Oppression of religion is not the end goal here; it has to be liberty for all, which is nothing the Constitution doesn't already guarantee us all.

And I have to point out that saying politicians are ignoring a voter base is looking through the eyeglass in reverse. It is the voter base who has to ensure that politicians are not ignoring them. I would argue that the Trump people did exactly that last November. There are 16 or so Republicans who didn't win and it's because they ignored the wrong people. I hate Trump as much as any Liberal, but I can't argue with the votes. He won the right states and that is impossible to ignore.


There was never an argument made for a limitation of religious practice. In a free society, each individual can do as they please, so long as they don't impede upon the freedoms of others. That includes religious practice.
Knowledge is power, and is also limited to empirical perception. Irony.
ArchLich
veteran
veteran
 
Posts: 838
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2015 2:44 am
Location: Florida
Affiliation: Agnostic, Atheist

PreviousNext

Return to General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aaron, Baidu [Spider], Keep The Reason and 4 guests