Hey American Homophobes

[JeffTD]

Originally Posted by JHA

According to Wikipedia the population of North Carolina is ~9.6 million. 85%, that's a lot of Christians, about 8.16 million. Did they all vote against gay marriage? I think someone mentioned it was 1 million which would be ~12%.

What points should I respond to? You mean this: "We can talk once you present a reasonable secular argument against marriage equality."? Why the hell should I do such a thing? I'm not a "Christian" from North Carolina. I don't think my "argument" is ridiculous at all. You are being a hypocrite if you despise people by their religion just because they don't agree with you. It's essentially the same thing you blame them for.

Only 40% of the registered voters actually voted in the most recent election, so of course the numbers aren't going to pan out there.

I asked for a reasonable secular argument against marriage equality because you made the statement "Just asking because I think this issue has nothing to do with religions and more to do how people think in general." It has everything to do with religion and how it influences people to think - without religion, there's no argument against marriage equality.

I don't despise people by their religion; I despise their religion (which I'm totally entitled to do; I respect their right to have it, but that doesn't mean I have to respect it in/of itself). It's not because they don't agree with me, it's because they actively seek to limit the rights of others based on their beliefs. I do nothing of the sort.

[DanLights]

Originally Posted by JeffTD

Only 40% of the registered voters actually voted in the most recent election, so of course the numbers aren't going to pan out there.

I asked for a reasonable secular argument against marriage equality because you made the statement "Just asking because I think this issue has nothing to do with religions and more to do how people think in general." It has everything to do with religion and how it influences people to think - without religion, there's no argument against marriage equality.

I don't despise people by their religion; I despise their religion (which I'm totally entitled to do; I respect their right to have it, but that doesn't mean I have to respect it in/of itself). It's not because they don't agree with me, it's because they actively seek to limit the rights of others based on their beliefs. I do nothing of the sort.

I can agree with that last statement so much I couldn't have said it better myself.

[JHA]

Originally Posted by JeffTD

Only 40% of the registered voters actually voted in the most recent election, so of course the numbers aren't going to pan out there.

I asked for a reasonable secular argument against marriage equality because you made the statement "Just asking because I think this issue has nothing to do with religions and more to do how people think in general." It has everything to do with religion and how it influences people to think - without religion, there's no argument against marriage equality.

I don't despise people by their religion; I despise their religion (which I'm totally entitled to do; I respect their right to have it, but that doesn't mean I have to respect it in/of itself). It's not because they don't agree with me, it's because they actively seek to limit the rights of others based on their beliefs. I do nothing of the sort.

I'm not making a statement against equal marriage and I'm not even trying to argue against it. You are reading my post wrong. You are basically saying Christians can't think themselves without the church, which is a huge generalization. How can you say the result is because of them if only 40% of the population voted? How many of those were Christians? You have no idea how the rest would have voted and according to this page http://www.city-data.com/states/Nort...Religions.html 54.6% of NC population are atheists. Though it seems to be from 2000 so I don't know how accurate it's in this day. And if it so happens to be that the religious people are the majority in NC isn't that just how the world runs, the majority decides what to do.

Since you're not a religious person and don't go to church why do you even care what they think?

[JHA]

I would also like to comment on this:

Originally Posted by JeffTD

This is an absolute horseshit statistic. I'm technically counted as a Catholic, and subsequently a Christian. It would be quite difficult for me to remove my name from that registry; same goes for anyone else who was raised in a specific parish or baptized at all.

Does the above statement not apply to this:

Originally Posted by JeffTD

85% of the people in NC are Christian, and all denominations of Christianity have the same teachings about gays - what aren't you understanding about this?

Yes, most people, if not raised as Christians (AKA diverged from their churches), would have nothing against homosexuality. Again; there is no rational secular argument against it.

How do you know that they in fact aren't Christians at all but raised and taught atheists who are being counted as Christians and are just struggling to get their names removed from the registry. The real number could be a third of that.

Isn't that 85% an "absolute horseshit statistic" too or is there a different rule for North Carolina?

[DanLights]

Originally Posted by JHA

Since you're not a religious person and don't go to church why do you even care what they think?

This is possibly the worst argument EVER against active anti-theism. Surely religion has never affected anyone who didn't share their same beliefs throughout history, yeah, it's simply a "thought". I've never used the ignore list before, but I just might.

[colonel kurtz]

Since you're not a religious person and don't go to church why do you even care what they think?

maybe because those self-loathing, closet queer, cousin fuckers insist on imposing their anarchaic biblical rule on every facet of american life?

[SocialNumb]

WTF is this guy going on about?

Get it through your head man.

Church's says = no poo poo love
Magic Book of horse shit tales = backs up no poo poo love
People in church think = poo poo love bad
People from said churches go vote = poo poo love NO!

(Same people go home and fap = to poo poo love porn)

Hence a law that shouldn't even be an issue gets passed affecting everyone within reach of that law.

So what happen here and why is it wrong?

Separation of church and state bitch. So yes, one can generalize and say: "Damn Christians!"

[TesticleMilkshake]

Originally Posted by SocialNumb

WTF is this guy going on about?

Get it through your head man.

Church's says = no poo poo love
Magic Book of horse shit tales = backs up no poo poo love
People in church think = poo poo love bad
People from said churches go vote = poo poo love NO!

(Same people go home and fap = to poo poo love porn)

Hence a law that shouldn't even be an issue gets passed affecting everyone within reach of that law.

So what happen here and why is it wrong?

Separation of church and state bitch. So yes, one can generalize and say: "Damn Christians!"

Separation of Church and State = Awesome, but unfortunately a lot of conservative wing-nuts are trying challenging that (more on a local, state level vs federal)

Also, not all churches are against poo-poo love: Liberal, Mainline Protestants and Unitarians are cool with poo-poo love. Catholics, Orthodox Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Protestants who accept the SBC are not cool with poo-poo love. Regional differences factor, in as well.

There are huuuuuuugge differences in church doctrine and leadership; the manner of services are conducted; how outreach, missions, and religious education are approached. Even points of affirming faith are treated differently (baptism, first communion, confirmation, etc.)

I agree with most of the points being brought up in this thread, but just be careful about lumping certain groups of Christians together, because they are definitely not all the same, from points of theological, cultural structure as well as political structure.

[JeffTD]

Originally Posted by JHA

I'm not making a statement against equal marriage and I'm not even trying to argue against it. You are reading my post wrong. You are basically saying Christians can't think themselves without the church, which is a huge generalization. How can you say the result is because of them if only 40% of the population voted? How many of those were Christians? You have no idea how the rest would have voted and according to this page http://www.city-data.com/states/Nort...Religions.html 54.6% of NC population are atheists. Though it seems to be from 2000 so I don't know how accurate it's in this day. And if it so happens to be that the religious people are the majority in NC isn't that just how the world runs, the majority decides what to do.

Since you're not a religious person and don't go to church why do you even care what they think?

No, I'm saying their political values are greatly influenced by the church.

I can't say with certainty, but if you look at the ages of the people who voted and the precincts from which they came from, it was overwhelmingly Christians who voted 'yes' on Amendment One. The fact that we're having this argument is ridiculous - you're going to tell me that a ton of secular atheists in North Carolina voted against marriage equality? Get real.

The 54.6% you're citing as atheists isn't accurate - 54.6% weren't listed as having a religion, which means they either declined to state or simply aren't religious. Areligious and atheist are two totally different things.

Now, I didn't believe that number so I did a bit more research... according to the Pew Forum research group, it's more like this:

Percent who say religion is very important in their lives: 69

Percent who say they attend religious services at least once a week: 49

Percent who say they pray at least once a day: 68

Percent who say they believe in God with absolute certainty: 81

Not to mention this directly backs up the 85% Christian claim:

http://www.pewforum.org/religion08/s...orth-carolina/

Let's also take into consideration that NC still has a law on the books preventing atheists from holding public office... it's safe to say the state is very religious, and very Christian.

Your statement about "if that's the majority..." is pure insanity. A democracy has a responsibility to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

I care what they think because that influences how they vote on laws that affect my friends, my family, my community, and me.

Originally Posted by JHA

How do you know that they in fact aren't Christians at all but raised and taught atheists who are being counted as Christians and are just struggling to get their names removed from the registry. The real number could be a third of that.

Isn't that 85% an "absolute horseshit statistic" too or is there a different rule for North Carolina?

Only if that rule is called "logic and reasoning."

You cited a number that would've been gathered from Church/parish registry data; the 85% statistic is from a survey taken directly from the people. If they didn't consider themselves to be religious, they would have answered as such.

[TesticleMilkshake]

Originally Posted by DanLights

Testiclemilkshake: so you're Jewish then? May I ask why? I mean, why have you chosen this religion over any other?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Buddhist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewitch (aka Semitic Neopaganism)

I always kind of felt "Jewish" and was drawn towards the culture and manner of which life is structured. If you're from the Tri-State area, you can relate to the culture thing Keeping a structured life is key, also study and personal interpretation of scripture, religious literature is vital in order to achieve a sense of enlightenment. People tend to lump together on what they've been raised in or how they interpret Jewish law. Even though there is intense sectarianism between some groups on integrating non-Jewish concepts, conflicting passages in Torah or views on Talmudic law, I just accept this as part of life. While I may disagree with the validity of specific beliefs or commandments, I acknowledge their presence and try to move on focus on more important issues, like helping others in need regardless of faith.

There will always be conflict with institutionalized religion, but I try to focus on doing the best I can for myself and humanity, and growing through Jewish spirituality so I can be a productive and loving member of society. The more I learn about Judaism, the more I kind of equate it to mystical Earth-based religions or Eastern philosophies like Zen Buddhism, Taoism or sects of Paganism, except being monotheistic.

Reading scripture has really changed my views on G-d, I view Him as an all encompassing being, being both male and female and nothing and everything, something that humans may never be capable of fully understanding on a philosophical or scientific level, because He is so advanced and beyond our human capacity to comprehend. This is another reason why I choose Judaism, because I can have a direct and personal relationship with G-d. I don't have to go through the Trinity or Jesus to obtain Divine revelation.

My views on Judaism is constantly evolving as a I study and learn more. I've actually become a lot less frum then what I was a year or two ago (keeping kosher, family purity laws, lighting candles for Shabbat) For ten years before I converted, I read Tarot cards (and actually got really good at it ) Recently, I've started doing that again. (Actually just bought a new deck, so if anyone wants a reading, message me) Maybe my views are more humanistic? I don't know, I just want to live a peaceful existence, do good in life, and have a happy family; I'm down with any faith that is cool with that and doesn't impose its will on others

[SocialNumb]

Originally Posted by TesticleMilkshake

Separation of Church and State = Awesome, but unfortunately a lot of conservative wing-nuts are trying challenging that (more on a local, state level vs federal)

Also, not all churches are against poo-poo love: Liberal, Mainline Protestants and Unitarians are cool with poo-poo love. Catholics, Orthodox Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Protestants who accept the SBC are not cool with poo-poo love. Regional differences factor, in as well.

There are huuuuuuugge differences in church doctrine and leadership; the manner of services are conducted; how outreach, missions, and religious education are approached. Even points of affirming faith are treated differently (baptism, first communion, confirmation, etc.)

I agree with most of the points being brought up in this thread, but just be careful about lumping certain groups of Christians together, because they are definitely not all the same, from points of theological, cultural structure as well as political structure.

I can't touch on all your points right now (must buy beer and get stoned for music, fun times) but I want to say this now:

Christian's (yes, I'm generalizing) have a foot hold in our government. (I thought it was supposed to be secular)

People, for some anti-evolutional reason, (imo) vote with a faith driven mentality. The church/religion bonds social groups, becomes the majority, and forces into law a religious belief.

Sorry, but to me there is a huge problem with that and I hope you agree.

Off topic:

You seem like a smart person, (I'm pretty much a dummy most of the time) why do you pick a religion at all? I'm not implying religious people aren't smart, far from it. I'm just curious about your reasoning. If you care to share.

[DanLights]

So you "view" god however you interpret it, and you're convinced that's the right view? So all the others have got it wrong? Have you seen any actual evidence that leads to believe there really is a "god"? Studying scriptures is important for enlightenment? What does that even mean?

And saying he's far beyond human comprehension is a silly bailout argument, if he's beyond my comprehension then he surely can't expect me to comprehend at all, can he?

[JeffTD]

Experiment: wipe out all religion and all science from the face of the Earth. Let humans do what they will for appx 4000 years; they will inevitably establish both religion and science again in their cultures; which will bear the most resemblance to what we have now?

[Terminus]

You Tube

[MarcusGHedwig]

Originally Posted by DanLights

So you "view" god however you interpret it, and you're convinced that's the right view? So all the others have got it wrong? Have you seen any actual evidence that leads to believe there really is a "god"? Studying scriptures is important for enlightenment? What does that even mean?

And saying he's far beyond human comprehension is a silly bailout argument, if he's beyond my comprehension then he surely can't expect me to comprehend at all, can he?

Be nice Dan - why don't you ask her if she likes The Mars Volta?

[TesticleMilkshake]

Originally Posted by SocialNumb

I can't touch on all your points right now (must buy beer and get stoned for music, fun times) but I want to say this now:

Christian's (yes, I'm generalizing) have a foot hold in our government. (I thought it was supposed to be secular)

People, for some anti-evolutional reason, (imo) vote with a faith driven mentality. The church/religion bonds social groups, becomes the majority, and forces into law a religious belief.

Sorry, but to me there is a huge problem with that and I hope you agree.

Off topic:

You seem like a smart person, (I'm pretty much a dummy most of the time) why do you pick a religion at all? I'm not implying religious people aren't smart, far from it. I'm just curious about your reasoning. If you care to share.

Hahaha! Awesome! I hope you have a good time tonight, I'm going to a bon fire in a bit

Yes, I definitely agree with you on that about Christians having a foothold in our government. I kind of wish in some ways we would adopt laws that France has to avoid religious bias (One being no religious wear in secular, public institutions, like crosses, kippahs, hijabs, etc.)

Law, to one degree, shares its foundations with religious thought. But, then again, much modern law derives from rational, philosophical means, from Greek philosophers and works from the Age of Enlightenment. Sometimes, they cross over. In the US, it proposes a tough problem, because our laws contain a Judeo-Christian foundation, being established by Puritans. However, later adapted laws touched more on ideals from the Enlightenment period and Age of Reason. Just for fun reference, the roots of Evangelicalism in the US starts in the late 1700s, around The First Great Awakening. Modern Evangelicalism, as we know it today, started to take shape in the mid to late 1800s and took off in the 1920s and 1930s. Then you have dorks like Bill Gothard and the Quiverfull movement by the 1970s, sort of a reactionary protest to Free-Love and the Sex Revolution, the anti-Hippie if you will. Similar movements occurred within conservative sects of Judaism and Islam as well.

While the issues with conservative Christianity have been brewing for 50-60 years, what really caused it to take off and actively infiltrate the political sphere was when Clinton allowed religious organizations to be tax-free. Without being taxed, Christian hard-liners (almost all church-leaders) were able to fund campaigns and enter the political sphere. Or at least that's part of my take on it.

If you haven't watched Jesus Camp, you need to. In some Evangelical churches, politics basically becomes religion. Same thing happens in Hasidic shuls (voting block in Rockland, Orange Counties) and FLDS communities (Colorado City) Youtube it, shit is crazy,

The faith-driven mentality scares me as well, and in some cases (like abortion) it's difficult to identify whether an issue is driven by a moral/ethical cause (devoid of faith) or by spiritual backing. It's a problem our generation is going to have to address in order to preserve certain freedoms. Sorry, I wish I could provide a better solution to this mounting problem :/

I have to go, for now, but I will post about my religious reasoning later. Maybe we should make a new thread to discuss religion and faith?

[TesticleMilkshake]

Originally Posted by DanLights

So you "view" god however you interpret it, and you're convinced that's the right view? So all the others have got it wrong? Have you seen any actual evidence that leads to believe there really is a "god"? Studying scriptures is important for enlightenment? What does that even mean?

And saying he's far beyond human comprehension is a silly bailout argument, if he's beyond my comprehension then he surely can't expect me to comprehend at all, can he?

I'm convinced my views on G-d are the "right" views for myself, not necessarily for everyone. A good friend of mine happens to be a deacon for an African American Baptist church, and even as a religious leader, he feels (and I agree) that all world religions are like spokes in a wheel: while each spoke represents a different path (Atheism and Agnosticism I include in here too) and some are even related, they all come to a center which is G-d. My G-d, I see as the same as the Christian God, Jesus, Allah, Ganesh, the Goddess, Baphomet, Odin, Zeus, etc. He can even hold lesser gods, like Freya, Athena, saints that have maybe ascended into His Being. He is in everything, but because he is everything, he is also nothing. This is where things kind of crossover into the philosophical realm. I know this concept is a bit outlandish and is explored in Kabbalah, in Jewish mysticism, and recently by metaphysicians. I'm finding too that I am still learning to define my idea of G-d (actually going to pick up some books on the physics of G-d) All of this is a learning process, who knows, maybe in two or three months I will say there is no God, hence why I am a religious scholar But for now, I'm a Jew!

But for myself though, I believe there is an all-encompassing G-d. And I'm now 100% tolerant and accepting of people who may not believe there is such an entity (though I wasn't always), because I realize that I am only human, and I may not have all the answers, if ever. I could be wrong, and I accept that as a possibility, too. In addition, I put a lot of faith too in humanity, and I think in some ways it's more important to honor and love people regardless of religion (my last two serious relationships were with atheists/agonistics). We are in this lifetime together and we might as well make the best off it, why argue over trivial things like faith? It may mean something in my life, but it may not mean something in your life, because your life experience is totally different from mine. I can't make a true judgement or assessment of your nature, because I am not you. Faith and religion really is about personal preference and experience.

Reading religious texts, studying scripture is important for a sense of personal enlightenment; you can't truly believe things by having someone preach it to you. You need to explore it one your own and draw conclusions as well as examine views of others for counterpoint or for comparison. If you have something totally off the charts, then cool! Maybe you have a perspective which no one has explored yet! Or maybe you are totally batshit insane? Meh, anyway, I feel religion needs to be treated on a scholarly level in order for someone to make a definite connection or disconnection with faith. Because faith is personal, it should be a conclusion which someone comes to one their own through their own life experiences and understandings. You come to it, you decide you need it in your life. I think this thinking maybe part of the reason why Jews do not have any equivalent to baptism (other than Jesus.) You have to decide what you believe and what you want out of life going by your best judgement. This is why I do not proselytize others, this is why Jews are told not proselytize outside the group (Chabad is an example of trying to get non-observant Jews to pick up certain mitzvot)

And being beyond comprehension is basically (for me) accepting that there are feasible limits to the human mind and body in the here and now. We can't be everywhere at once, you can't be a person and a tree at the same time. We aren't omnipresent mentally, physically, etc. There are phenomenon in the world which we don't have complete understanding of and may never. Doesn't mean we can't think about it and explore. It's cool, we can definitely comprehend, but we have limits at the present time.

Sorry, I feel like I may not have answered everything, but does this make sense?

[TesticleMilkshake]

Originally Posted by MarcusGHedwig

Be nice Dan - why don't you ask her if she likes The Mars Volta?

thanks Marcus :P. I like some math rock and a lot of progressive rock, but I've had limited experience with Mars Volta.

[TesticleMilkshake]

Originally Posted by JeffTD

Experiment: wipe out all religion and all science from the face of the Earth. Let humans do what they will for appx 4000 years; they will inevitably establish both religion and science again in their cultures; which will bear the most resemblance to what we have now?

I say we just worship boobs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheela_na_gig (Vagina worship)

[TesticleMilkshake]

Also, this is sort of my views on G-d and the afterlife.

[colonel kurtz]

Originally Posted by JeffTD

Experiment: wipe out all religion and all science from the face of the Earth. Let humans do what they will for appx 4000 years; they will inevitably establish both religion and science again in their cultures; which will bear the most resemblance to what we have now?

i guess it isn't really relevant to your post, but this made me think of what thomas payne said in "the age of reason" - which i somehow just read for the 1st time a few months back - when he stated that he considered his personal religious faith to be deism, in which he believed that there's a single all-powerful creator of the universe, but that "he" exists on a level that is impossible for the human mind to comprehend.

this is after dedicating most of the publication to denouncing the bible, at which point he states that the true and UNIVERSAL word of god is the creation of the universe itself, which by logical extension defines science as the only "religion" which is dedicated to studying god's word. he then goes on to state that the arts are thus the truest manner in which man can mimic god, since all human creative expression has followed along the lines of our expanding knowledge of the world around us.

[SentencedToBurn]

You Tube

[JeffTD]

Originally Posted by TesticleMilkshake

I say we just worship boobs

Holy shit, that sculpture is going to be on my Art midterm on Monday.

Originally Posted by colonel kurtz

i guess it isn't really relevant to your post, but this made me think of what thomas payne said in "the age of reason" - which i somehow just read for the 1st time a few months back - when he stated that he considered his personal religious faith to be deism, in which he believed that there's a single all-powerful creator of the universe, but that "he" exists on a level that is impossible for the human mind to comprehend.

this is after dedicating most of the publication to denouncing the bible, at which point he states that the true and UNIVERSAL word of god is the creation of the universe itself, which by logical extension defines science as the only "religion" which is dedicated to studying god's word. he then goes on to state that the arts are thus the truest manner in which man can mimic god, since all human creative expression has followed along the lines of our expanding knowledge of the world around us.

Yeah, Deism is a really interesting concept. Amusingly enough, almost every single one of the founding fathers was a deist. My only problem with it is that it posits a "you can't prove it wrong"-style argument similar to other beliefs in a deity. It reminds me of another quote I've heard said a few different ways, but the one that stuck with me (I wish I remembered who said it) was:

"Imagine trying to explain concepts like geometry, trigonometry, physics, theology, string theory, chemistry, literature, and art to an ant. You could spend your entire life explaining these concepts to the ant, and it's not clear whether or not the ant would even know whether or not you were there. Perhaps we are that ant."

[sprack]

I think you have to judge it in a historical context that 1) imagining a universe without a universal creator and a heaven by extension was a far leap for most people in western society. 2) openly embracing atheism was still generally worse than pedophilia. This was as close to that precipice as most people would safely step.

Originally Posted by JeffTD

Yeah, Deism is a really interesting concept. Amusingly enough, almost every single one of the founding fathers was a deist. My only problem with it is that it posits a "you can't prove it wrong"-style argument similar to other beliefs in a deity.

[LeSedna]

What I don't get with religion, is why people are searching for a meaning to life ? It's a natural reaction of course, because we don't like "void". But my "faith" is that there is no "meaning" to life, it just happens, in a technical way, and that's why there is no answer to most questions (i'm talking about religion, not science, because in science, there is always an answer, wether it will be possible to find it, or wether we will never do because statistically we have to disappear in a too short time, because of the way it is designed and the process of problem solving).

When I see a rock roll, I don't ask myself what is the meaning of it rolling.

As much as our life is complicated and surprising, I don't see why I - should - think differently when I see an animated being, a sentient, a human. "It" is just more complicated than a rock, to me we are an association of cells living in symbiosis to ensure their survivance, and its complication gave it the ability to sense and interact with the world, but what about if it's just meaningful and it just happened because it did and that's all ? That's why my vision of things is that what people call "God" is "fear of the void". And the fact that we are trying to survive and procreate doesn't necessarily have a meaning. If we do, it's also because if we didn't, we wouldn't be there to talk about it, probabilities would have eliminated us, but we are the "lucky" ones, children of basic entities which particularity was to split and procreate. It's a simplified view on the Human, yes, but sometimes I like to think about it, as much as I think humanity, consciousness, illogism, art, like that, is awesome and has just no price... because why would it need it to be more complicated than "it just happened" ? It's not because it's highly, incredibly, terrifyingly improbable to happen randomly, that it didn't happen randomly.

I have always liked the "ant" example because it is very true. This is an example of "superiority in consciousness" (safely assuming an ant can't create conceived ideas and think about us) happening in our environment, so why not another one on a "bigger" (or "out-of-our-frame") scale ?

The absence of proof or counter - proof leaves it open to personal belief, and it's good to ask oneself the question. But I always see people asking themselves what if the meaning of life, without even asking themselves if there is even one, and too many people using it as a (semi) proof I should trust in a god.