Atheism

by avatar 837 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  NewChapter

  BTS---my comments on marriage applies to the US, and was in response to this statement:

  When religion was state enforced, all of its precepts, including marriage, were state regulated. In our society, the government sanctioned institution of marriage is a surviving vestige from before the separation of church and state

  Marriage predates Christianity (shhh, don't tell the fundies), but religion played a major role in how our govt. defines it. Now that we push for separation, the major argument against SSM (thanks for that abbreviation) is still religious.

  I am sure many other scenarios exist around the world, but that is a big subject, and not what I'm focusing on here. My original point was that it IS a concern of mine what people believe, because they DON'T keep it private, and snatch up political power to make their beliefs my problem. They aren't just sitting there all meek and worshipping their god and minding their own business. They are infiltrating our govt with the desire to push their agenda and are constantly trying to wheedle into the schools to keep our children ignorant. If one lurker reads these debates, and is convinced away from certain beliefs, then it will be one less potential person working against secularism. So of course this issue is important, and as important as political issues, especially considering that they are often one and the same.

  NC
• 

  botchtowersociety

  My original point was that it IS a concern of mine what people believe, because they DON'T keep it private, and snatch up political power to make their beliefs my problem.

  It is of little practical concern to me what people believe regarding faith or lack thereof. That we uphold the principles embodied in the US Constitution is. If government is limited to certain basic powers, and all the rest left to the people in their private lives, these things would not be an issue.

  My original point was that it IS a concern of mine what people believe, because they DON'T keep it private, and snatch up political power to make their beliefs my problem. They aren't just sitting there all meek and worshipping their god and minding their own business.

  But that firewall has been continually breached, and the breaches continue to enlarge. Now, everything is politicized, because the government is involved in everything. Every election is a life or death battle for the control of the awesomest power machine the world has ever seen in order to use it to punish and control others. Everything you accuse fundies of, partisans on your own side stand accused of.

  If one lurker reads these debates, and is convinced away from certain beliefs, then it will be one less potential person working against secularism.

  So you are basically a crusader on a holy war. Fascinating. It seems we are all religious creatures by nature (although I only come here to participate in a discussion, not make converts--but I'll tread gently here, I don't want to engage in argumentum ad NewChapterium).
• 

  NewChapter

  So you are basically a crusader on a holy war.

  Uhm, no. I'm about sharing ideas to make this a better world. Why are conservatives so quick to bring out the 'war' label.

  Anyway, it is of no concern to you, so I'm not sure what your stake is in this conversation.

  NC
• 

  talesin

  fine

  t
• 

  james_woods

  Anytime, BTS - anytime.

  Good Night, all fellow
  Wibblers.
• 

  botchtowersociety

  Why are conservatives so quick to bring out the 'war' label

  Speaking past me again (turns around and points, laughing: "AHA! There's the conservative!")

  Anyway, it is of no concern to you, so I'm not sure what your stake is in this conversation.

  Care to review this conversation's history?

  And do I need a stake to converse?

  Seems like just another attempt to dismiss an argument rather than engage it (if "it's not reality" doesn't work, then "you have no stake" might!).

  Hey! You know what? Maybe it will convince a lurker.
• 

  NewChapter

  I don't know BTS. You came onto a thread named atheism and announced from your mountaintop that you don't take part in these conversations because they don't affect you personally. I pointed out that you could maybe tell that to gay couples, and the conversation continued.

  You labeled a comment I made about sharing ideas with lurkers and a 'holy war' and conservatives (you are one) are quick to label many things 'war'. Now the desire to share ideas is suddenly some kind of war. It's nonsensical.

  You don't have to have a stake in the conversation, as you have already said, it was just a question. Why does it matter to you? Just us silly atheists and theists discussing things that don't affect you.

  NC
• 

  botchtowersociety

  I don't know BTS. You came onto a thread named atheism and announced from your mountaintop that you don't take part in these conversations because they don't affect you personally.

  No, I said it is because the conversations "seldom start out as honest and respectful discussions, and if so started, they rarely remain as such beyond the first page."

  I pointed out that you could maybe tell that to gay couples, and the conversation continued.

  That's because you made it political. I even said so: "That's political."

  You labeled a comment I made about sharing ideas with lurkers and a 'holy war' and conservatives (you are one) are quick to label many things 'war'. Now the desire to share ideas is suddenly some kind of war. It's nonsensical.

  You can't operate without labeling people can you?If someone doesn't agree with you, well that makes them "conservative" (and what, for the love of sweet baby cheezits, is conservative about my position on the topic we have discussed?????). Liberal, conservative. Enlightened, ignorant. Sheep, goats. Saved, damned. All or nothing. I am trying really hard to avoid pulling a you know what fallacy here.

  You don't have to have a stake in the conversation, as you have already said, it was just a question. Why does it matter to you? Just us silly atheists and theists discussing things that don't affect you.

  Doesn't mean I don't think it isn't worth talking about. Would you rather I left the thread? Too bad N Drew is no longer here. I am sure she would have kept you busy.
• 

  NewChapter

  Well you labled my desire to share ideas, and possibly even influence those still deciding, as a 'holy war'. So we're even.
• 

  sizemik

  Hi NC . . . glad you're still here.

  I've been laid up with pneumonia for nearly two weeks so had to read this thread from the start, which took almost an hour. If I wasn't in bed, and bored stiff, I'm not sure I could have managed it. At least Godwins, Cofty's and Woods' laws are all now well established.

  I'm not aware of all the history between posters as some appear to be . . . but I've never found your writing style insulting or offensive. Your take on the Atheism debate usually finds agreement with me, and is normally very well presented IMO.

  Maybe therein lies the chafing. It is by nature an emotional interchange, for the believer more than the non-believer, as has been pointed out. The reasons are not surprising. Inject an emotionally charged subject with assertiveness and insightful scrutiny and things are bound to heat up. An intelligent, logical and reasonable counter argument poses the greatest of threats to most believers, at a very emotional level.

  You can't change that . . . and it's the poorest reason in the world not to challenge belief. Theism is not the benign comforter for the believer alone . . . it's regressive and often dangerous IMO, and should be challenged as strongly as it is disseminated.

  rock on.