Who is trying to shout people down and limit debate? No one in this thread.
If, as the southern governors did, someone justifies excluding someone from equal access to schools because that type of person would pollute the womenfolk, is too stupid to compete, and would somehow dirty the school by their presence, what would you call it? That Wallace apologized a long time later doesn’t hack it. I’ll grant that him getting shot might have changed his point of view a bit.
BTW, even non-enemies were censored in China. And still are. The other China also. A colleague of mine from Taiwan said that she had never seen a picture of Chairman Mao before she came to the US.
But we were talking about SSM. I’m all for letting people spout their ludicrous positions, like SSM somehow harming heterosexual marriage. I only object to implementing ludicrous positions as the law. I also object to people claiming that their religious views don’t drive their opposition, and making up absurd secular reasons. They could at least be honest.
But in any case, if you wish to argue about SSM, a new thread might be best. On the other hand, it is hard to imagine you would get much of an argument on the SDMB. Oddly enough, and despite theories stated here, the majority seems to be eager to extend the rights of the minority.
The Bible cannot be known as God’s word, only believed that it is God’s word. It was written, said to be inspired by God ,and called God’s word by human’s. So it is a work of humans and Many believe those humans.
Some use their religions for good others to bind others to their beliefs. Religion can be used for good and some use it for evil. It is not the Bible that is bad or good but how it is used, just as some Muslims use the Koran for evil purpose. Religion can be a tool for good or evil (or like a Medicine) depending on how it is used.
No. First, there’s the separation of church and state. Second, religion asserts, it does not reason; it’s based on faith, not facts or logic. Third, there’s the fact that religions contradict each other about everything. And two & three leads directly to four; you can’t rationally use religion as an argument for anything, since religious claims being baseless and mutally contradictory means anyone can assert anything with equal validity. Some homophobic poster can claim that God hates same sex marriage; I can claim that the God I don’t believe in supports gay marriage, and that he likes atheists better than believers as well - and I have exactly as much evidence for that claim as they do for theirs.
They seldom admit to their “religious reasoning” in the first place ( at least in a forum like this ), because they know that outside of an audience of yes men doing so means they’ve lost.
I’m not; THEY are. Because they are in the wrong; factually, morally, logically. They can’t be honest without destroying their own position, unless they are talking to their fellow homophobes.
Stop twisting what I am saying. I ( clearly! ) didn’t say anything about stopping them; I’m saying they stop themselves. Because they are in the wrong, and on many levels; so being honest and forthright only hurts them. Except among their fellow True Believers, who will accept their incoherent, indefensible claims without poking holes in it.
Ok, but if they disagree with you they are dishonest? (As per your last line in post 206.) There is no possibility they simply disagree with you? There can be no honest disagreement?
Sincerely, everyone does their reasoning with a certain amount of personal bias and that’s just human but hopefully we don’t simply deny facts in order to bolster our argument and then call it reasoning and “our right to an opinion”
If someone says “I oppose SSM because it violates God’s law and I believe it’s bad for the moral fabric of society” or some variant of that theme that’s an honest opinion and they have every right to express it and vote accordingly.
The problem arises when the discussion goes further and people are asked for anything other than religious reasons , something in the way of actual facts or any evidence to support their view. There are no facts or evidence to support that opinion. When folks try to bolster their opinion by pretending there is evidence or they have good reasons other than personal opinion and/or religious views they fail. Just as you demonstrated here when you willfully distorted history to support your implication that the majority should be allowed to deny rights to a minority.
**
No, the Buy-bull is not His word as He cannot exist, and the anthology is replete with contradictions to itself and to reality, full of false history,and endorsing of evil as with the Deluge, the commands for genocide and the notion of Hell.
Mere misanthropic men made it up out mainly out of their imaginations.
What good in it one can find in secular literature.
No scriptures of any faith, the we just say so of gullibility, can be true.**
I skimmed through this thread. I was in love with a **BIG **“believer”. There are times where I’ve potty mouthed the Judeo-Christian God on these boards, but if religion helped shape this young lady into what she is today, then I wouldn’t/couldn’t say that she hasn’t benefited from her beliefs. Many of her moral beliefs I’ve adopted for myself – Like trying not to talk about people when they aren’t around, for an example.
We often get into spirited discussions, and I’m as easy on her as I can be. I don’t think she would take me as seriously if I was too aggressive. I don’t think she would even talk to me if she knew I often call her God a “terrorist”. The biggest problem she has is that she believes the ‘truth’ is what she learns in *HER *church, and *their *interpretation of the Bible.
I don’t understand why believers would fight over specifics of the Bible. If I was a believer, and I wasn’t willing to part with my faith, I would just have to make it work for me. I would rationalize everything I could, admit that I don’t understand ALL of God’s intentions, and let other people read into the book however they want/need to in order to live a happy life.
If I were the cosmosdan, I wouldn’t read into the Bible too literally because you WILL find conflict. I think if your God is a great as everyone thinks he is, he *MUST *understand that all you can do is try to live a good life. If I were you, I would run with the things that you KNOW a God like him, her, or it, would want from you. Let go of the crap you can’t work with because you’ll be in limbo your whole life.
Or you could join the dark side.
Also, I wouldn’t pretend I have answers over anyone else. This is more of a suggestion than it is an answer to the OP’s question.
Der Thris, sir or ma’am, you exhume all scriptures and religions.
Some theists demean us as they think that they own the public square as segregationists thought so, so, they find us threatening, and rightly so , as we exhume the truth about this scam of the ages, the supernatural, which along with the paranormal, that twin scam, Paul Kurtz calls '" The Transcendent Temptation."
" God is in a worse way than the ten man, the latter, at least, has a body to which mind could enter, but He has neither."
’ God is that married bachelor, and so , cannot exist. No wonder He is ineffable."
'Religion is mythinformation."
"Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning."
Know God=no God
Ignostic Morgan
Goodwill and blessings to all!
Folks, it does no good to Bible-thump as that argues in a circle. As it is unworthy of us naturalists, we contemn it. One cannot validate it.:eek:
Its prophecies either are so general to mean anything, after the matter at hand or just wrong. There was no Egyptian Sojourn and no Exodus. The Gospels so contradict each other and add to Paul the Sophist’s writings such that one hazards to maintain that their writers made up matters.:dubious:
Yeshua has silly and dangerous platitudes. And he is still dead!:smack:
There can be no successful disagreement on a matter in which they are simply blatantly wrong. Again, you are distorting what I am saying; I am pointing out that their actual reasons for believing what they do would get them laughed or sneered at outside of an audience that is already as bigoted and irrational. So, in ( for example ) a forum like this one where people disagree with them and the moderators won’t just ban anyone who argues with them, they lie.
You really like distorting what people are saying, don’t you? You are pretty much exemplifying what I am talking about; in order to defend the indefensible, you are wildly distorting what people are saying. “They lie because their arguments are stupid” and “they are simply flat out wrong” do not remotely mean “Silence them!”
Well, not successfully. You appear to be trying to shame people in not uttering the dread words “Those guys are wrong”, by equating saying that with a censorship campaign. It’s not working, but you are trying.