• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why couldn't I speak out against churches if I wanted to?

LoopyPaladin said:
Then my point is lost to you.
Click to expand...

There was little point involved. If you want to say something and/or ask a question, be direct. Nobody likes bug hunts.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Perhaps it has a bit to do with our Constitution; read the first amendment and get back to us.
Click to expand...

I continue to find it very bizarre, how the First Amendment has been perverted into an excuse for censorship and suppression of certain religious beliefs and practices. The clear intent of the First Amendment is to prohibit exactly this sort of censorship and suppression; and to protect the rights that are being so suppressed.
 
spanky said:
77% of Canadians are Christian.
Click to expand...

I figured that many were christian but I never got the impression that there were a lot of overzealous Christians there especially when they wouldn't let the koran burner into their country.
 
tessaesque said:
I am an atheist, but I do not condemn the existence of faith. Everybody copes with life in the method they find most successful for them. Religious faith (not religious institutions) is much less harmful than many other coping methods people choose to utilize. As such, I see no reason to ambush or castigate the religious merely for existing and living the life they feel best embodies the dictates of their chosen religion. That doesn't mean I must refrain from condemning those who act harmfully in the name of religion...but I hardly see a free standing church or a nativity scene as an inherently harmful action. Nor do I think that a religious person remarking that they will pray for me to be an act of forceful indoctrination. Hell, I don't even feel particularly violated by my grandmother's mandate that we say grace before a family meal.
Click to expand...

Why do you say people must cope? Reality is just there, it just is. There is no "coping."

Atheists are gonna have to accept that they are a significant minority as this point in time and understand that they're not going to "convert" 94% of the world population to anti-theism overnight.
Click to expand...

Doesn't hurt to try, right?
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Why do you say people must cope? Reality is just there, it just is. There is no "coping."



Doesn't hurt to try, right?
Click to expand...

Everybody copes. Saying "it just is" is a means of coping.
 
LoopyPaladin said:
First and foremost, I want to clarify that I really have no problem with Religion, this is just a hypothetical question.

So, if other religions are allowed to ban the saying of "Merry Christmas", and make it so that "Christmas trees" are now "Holiday trees", then why can't I ban churches and open religious service? Why am I not allowed to, as an Atheist, gather a whole wad of Atheists and claim that the presentation of churches and the church's message boards are against what I believe and have them removed from that plot of land?

I just think it's ridiculous how much power those who believe in a God have over those who don't.

Opinions?
Click to expand...

I'm actually gonna respond to this...probably the beginning of my downfall, but, how about because the churches own that land.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
There is no coping - just go on throughout life.
Click to expand...

You can post existential or nihilist nonsense all day, but coping is a natural psychological process and is often subconscious. You can discount it by using some sort of abstract "what is 'is'" argument, but it doesn't discount what is psychologically true. As I said, saying, "what is, is" is a means of coping, whether you accept it as that or not. That's how the brain works.

Even nihilists can support science.
 
tessaesque said:
You can post existential or nihilist nonsense all day, but coping is a natural psychological process and is often subconscious. You can discount it by using some sort of abstract "what is 'is'" argument, but it doesn't discount what is psychologically true. As I said, saying, "what is, is" is a means of coping, whether you accept it as that or not. That's how the brain works.

Even nihilists can support science.
Click to expand...

I'm asking why "cope?" Why not just go on anyway. There is no purpose in "coping." Whether or not you "cope" has no bearing on your existence.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
I'm asking why "cope?" Why not just go on anyway. There is no purpose in "coping." Whether or not you "cope" has no bearing on your existence.
Click to expand...

It has definite bearing on the quality of one's existence.
 
spanky said:
There was little point involved. If you want to say something and/or ask a question, be direct. Nobody likes bug hunts.
Click to expand...

I thought it was fairly direct, but that's most likely because I know what I wanted to say, and I can't seem to convey it to some.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom