Oh, and while you’re answering my previous post, can you also post a link to prominent atheists describing minor regulatory decisions in hilariously exaggerated overwrought terms such as “a war on atheism”?
Honestly, that’s stupid. I mean, it really is. If you think something is wrong…if you really think a thing is evil and destructive, you fight against it. What sort of person says, “There’s evil in the world and I’m not going to try to combat it? Well, I’m not a racist, but I don’t care if you discriminate against blacks. I would never oppress the poor, but I don’t see why these Occupy Wall Street people are so upset.”
If you really think there’s an evil in this world, you have a moral duty to try to make it right. And if people really think that abortion or homosexuality are evils on the level of racism or oppressing the poor, then they had better try to do something about it, as misguided and foolish as I think they are.
This! 
It’s just like those people who preach against television and the evils thereof. The problem is, they don’t have to watch it! Unfortunately, that’s not good enough for them-- if they can’t look at it, you can’t either.
You’re a real piece of shit, you know?
How many atheist presidents have there been? House members? Senate members? What is the most mistrusted demographic in America?
Atheists tend to do well because intelligent people tend to atheism.
The difference is that not everything fought against is justifiably evil. Just because someone thinks something is evil does not necessarily make it so if that justification is born out of self-centered arrogance and ignorance. THAT is the evil worth fighting against.
Depending on the reports and how you cook the statistics the same is true of Jews, gays, and Asians. If you really think none of these groups receive “persecution” by form of discrimination, hate crimes, ostracism, being the object of slander and libel by the most prominent demagogues speaking to the masses of asses every day of their life, then you are…
a moment while I check the forum we’re in… ah, yes, the Pit…
too fucking retarded to not require state aid, and while I don’t mind my gay atheist tax dollars being used to help the retarded in general I would begrudge every penny you drain.
Well, duh! But since everyone thinks their idea of evil is right, then it really makes no difference. You don’t get to tell other people what they think is worth fighting against.
Though, of course, in the context of this particular debate, you can do so if the other person’s belief about evil is rooted in Kant instead of Scripture, because moral beliefs that also posit a magical sky being are deserving of special protection.
Can you even imagine the outrage if a prominent Democrat said they’d “fight to the death” to oppose a Republican president’s policy? There’d be screams the next day that “She went on air and outright said she wants to commit treason and kill the president!”
I have a say in it when their beliefs impinge on my life, where those beliefs are grounded in unfalsifiable, brainwashing, religious nonsense.
If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get gay-married. There’s no reason to deny others that privilege – there’s no good argument for justifying it that doesn’t boil down to “I don’t like it.” It doesn’t really matter if you like it or not – it’s not your life. You don’t get to tell other people how to live their lives.
Basically, I echo the earlier poster: Decide which side of the fence you’re on, and conduct your own life accordingly. And shut the fuck up about what other people do.
Uh, no. Everyone’s beliefs start with unfalsifiable axioms*, whether religious derived or not. There is nothing objectively provable about the idea that killing random strangers is evil. Nor is it objectively provable that gays (or anyone) should be able to marry.
*A redundancy, but done on purpose to echo your phrasing.
Nothing is objectively provable. So that’s a pretty feeble cop-out.
Rights don’t exist except by what communities grant. Humans generally agree that the golden rule makes sense. Our government was made with that in mind.
So if your religion tells you to hate homosexuals, you’re a bigot. It doesn’t matter that you think you’re doing the will of the creator of the universe. You’re still being an asshole.
I never took you for a moral relativist, John. Interesting!
Our beliefs and morality come from evolutionary/societal pressures and environmental feedback. There’s nothing “objective” about the notion that killing random strangers is evil, but we define it as evil because our society largely agrees that it’s a bad thing to do. Why? Because if we didn’t, we wouldn’t be here. Stable societies that make it out alive typically evolve the need for certain guidelines and rules.
Even though there’s no such thing as objective morality, it doesn’t mean we can’t gauge the nature of subjectives. We generally think it’s wrong to impinge on one another because we’ve decided that to maximize everyone’s happiness, it’s a good idea for us to have control over our destinies and how we live our own lives. This is because we’re largely unhappy having someone else impose their own beliefs on how we should live our lives, because our belief systems may not match up at all.
That being said, some things are necessary evils. I don’t like the fact that I have to go to work every day, but I do it because I value the ability to take advantage of America’s infrastructure and everything it has to offer.
Is prohibiting gay marriage necessarily helping anyone? No. It’s not the same as going to work because we have a society to uphold that we enjoy using, and it’s not the same as deciding that it’s a bad idea to kill people because that renders society unstable. Gay marriage hurts nobody. It’s about allowing people to have the same rights as anyone else under reasonably comparable contexts, because, obviously, we enjoy having rights because it makes our lives better. Is a straight person’s life made worse by allowing gay people to marry? No.
It’s just about allowing two people to marry regardless of their sexual orientation, as prohibiting rights based on sexual orientation has no real justification with respect to utilitarian metrics for society at large.
There are logical, rational, and demonstrable reasons we can point to to justify why killing is wrong or why human rights are a good thing and so on and so forth. There are no reasonable arguments for preventing gay people to marry.
That’s why it’s denoted as “oppression.” When you are trying to keep someone else’s happiness down for no real reason than your own selfish benefit, when that benefit won’t be lost in absence of that oppression, that is evil. And that is most certainly easier to justify as worth fighting against.
I don’t do this enough, but that is a wonderful post.
I have to agree with Captain Amazing here. I support gay marriage, and am pro-choice. But I don’t think I can dismiss the pro-life argument simply by saying “if you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one”, any more than I can say “if you don’t think murder should be legal, don’t murder people”. The pro-life argument is that a fetus is a person and that thus abortion is murder. I strongly disagree with that position, because I do not believe a fetus is a person, but I don’t think it’s a position that is morally bankrupt, or illogical, or instantly-handwaveable-away.
(Gay marriage, on the other hand, does fall, for me, into the “you don’t like it? don’t do it” category…)
Myself, at least as much instinct as reason, I do not like abortion. But it is not my call to make, not my body. Pretty much settles it, far as I am concerned.
I agree that abortion isn’t nearly as clear-cut and definitely has room for justifiable debate on both sides.
While I am personally pro-choice, I do respect pro-life arguments as long as they are not merely appeals to religious nonsense.
Things like gay marriage, though… there’s just no excuse. There’s no reason to outlaw it. The point, though, is that it’s not a strong position to argue for impinging on others simply because you don’t like how they live their life. There are obvious exception cases (at what point is a fetus/etc considered a person and therefore someone you can impinge upon?).
As you can probably guess, I argue from the base of utility. Life-prevention arguments are not persuasive because, well, any action we take can be argued to be preventing future life (hell, even masturbation). Impingement is only a problem when the entity being affected is experiencing a sentient, known, realized decrease in utility. If they can’t do that in any way, they aren’t a person yet.
I’ve wondered if Obama’s least scrupulous campaign handlers are going to start a “There is a war on religion… but it’s on Protestantism!” meme among the foilhat Fundies. The Supreme Court is already Protestant free (6 Catholics and 3 Jews) and not one of the 3 GOP frontrunners is a Protestant (1 Mormon and 2 Catholics), and Santorum is on record as saying Protestantism has slipped off of the Christian spectrum. Obviously Gingrich and Santorum are both parts of a Papist plot that by November could put 2/3 of the government under the direct control of the Vatican. (“Initiate Order LXVI!”) Or, you can go with the Mormon, which is a whole other ball of crazywax, but really, you’ll have plenty of time to Mormonate when you’re dead.
Or, you can go with good ol’ Protestant Barry from Chi-town.
In a way I’d be very disappointed if they tried this and in a way I’d be very disappointed if they didn’t (considering logic sure as hell isn’t going to reach these people).
The same logic that says that Christians aren’t persecuted says that atheists aren’t persecuted. You are not for fear of your life as an atheist. You are not in fear of losing your freedom as an atheist.
Of course, you could be using persecution less than literally, but then you’d have to allow Christians to do the same thing. Saying that Christians aren’t persecuted when people treat them badly, but atheists are when they are treated badly just doesn’t make sense.
Very, very few people in the U.S. are persecuted. Deal with it. Or make fun of a little kid for pointing out that you do the same shit you hate in others.
I mean, there are people in this thread seriously arguing that never having been president means you are persecuted. Puh-lease.