• 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!

Do you feel Christians are Discriminated against in America?

Do you feel Christians are Discriminated against in America?


  • Total voters
    73
Status
Not open for further replies.
I wouldn't be insulted at all. I'll admit to being a bit skeptical, however: I'd think that if evidence existed for God I would have heard of it by now. Then again I don't claim to keep up with all the latest scientific quarterlies.

Hm. That's fine. I was just curious. Some people seem to take offense to it.
 
Why is hypocrisy when Christians do it but not others? We setting 2 different standards for some reason?

For example:

Christian mocks Athiest for having different beliefs = them being a dick (and i agree)
Athiest mocks Christan for having different beliefs = Ok, funny, acceptable to some of you.

Why is that?

The only thing I can think of is you think it is wrong for people to be intolerant and mock your beliefs, but it is ok for you to do it to others because you are oh so super special.

(I dont mean you personally since I haven't seen you doing it, I mean that last statement more for those who actively do it on here and there are plenty).

which makes the point about discrimination more clear. Remember Justice Kennedy, a few days ago, as part of his ruling made "human dignity" a protected right. Does it dignify the Christian to mock his belief?
 
That is your argument as a justification for the discrimination. But unless you can show how you apply the same standard to EVERY candidate you vote for--in other words to be wrong about something or inability to prove what they think or believe is an automatic disqualification, I stand on my conviction that you are discriminating against Christians.

I do. I take my own set of values and standards and see which candidates measure up to them. Those that stray too far automatically lose my vote. I'm not discriminating against people who believe other things, I'm just not giving them something that they have to earn.
 
My very simple logic is based on my agreement on these 3 statements:

The universe exists.
For something to exists it must have been created.
If something was created then someone/something created it.

Since I believe that since someone/something created the universe and at its core a God is someone/something who created there universe, I believe there is a God.

It's not real logic, since you don't apply that same logic to God. You're just passing the buck, moving the goal posts, and throwing your hands in the air by attributing everything to God. Saying that 'God did it' is really saying, '**** if I know.'
 
I've bolded the core of your argument.

This is an argument from design, and is an outmoded approach because it worked better in a time when our understanding of the universe determined that if a thing exists, then it has a creator (see Clockmaker's Analogy). However, with the advent of our understanding of evolution we discovered that life could arise and evolve without the guidance of an overt God. Basic chemistry and biology explains it and predicts it. .

Evolution did happen, but everything evolved from something. It didn't just appear. And with evolution, if you accept the possibility of a God (and I do) then it is not a stretch to say that evolution happened by design, or at the very least designed with the possibility of evolution. And even if God created or put in to place the process to create life, and then evolution happened completely independent, that does not exclude the possibility of a God. It just means that life has taken off beyond control of a God. The existence of God as a creator does not even mean that God knows or cares about human choices, morality, or in this case evolution. God may not even still be alive. Our universe could be a toy created in some cosmic factory, bought for some kid who long ago discarded it for all I know. But I believe, and have never seen anything to dispute, that everything that exists was created.

That means that whereas before we had one possible choice for the creation of the universe (god), today we have two: god and, well, hell if I know.

I agree almost completely. But I wouldn't limit it to two. There are probably a countless number of explanations and possibilities that we have not yet evolved enough to yet understand.

So it's not a guaranteed thing that if something exists then it must have been created.

Wasn't guaranteeing anything. Just my logic behind why I believe it. I am very accepting of the possibility that I am wrong.

Occam's Razor, based on what we know today, would lead us to naturally conclude that some other avenue resulted in the creation of the universe.

I would argue that it would lead us to conclude that some other avenue could have resulted in the creation of the universe.
 
It's not real logic, since you don't apply that same logic to God. You're just passing the buck, moving the goal posts, and throwing your hands in the air by attributing everything to God. Saying that 'God did it' is really saying, '**** if I know.'

I am explaining to Cardinal what I believe. It is logical. If you think it is not, explain it.
 
I've bolded the core of your argument.

This is an argument from design, and is an outmoded approach because it worked better in a time when our understanding of the universe determined that if a thing exists, then it has a creator (see Clockmaker's Analogy). However, with the advent of our understanding of evolution we discovered that life could arise and evolve without the guidance of an overt God. Basic chemistry and biology explains it and predicts it. It's why modern medicine even works. That means that whereas before we had one possible choice for the creation of the universe (god), today we have two: god and, well, hell if I know. But basically if we know that life can be created and evolve without a Designer, and were in fact even wrong about this assumption in the first place, then we have to seriously entertain the possibility that the creation of the universe came about without a Designer as well.

So it's not a guaranteed thing that if something exists then it must have been created. And it's absolutely not guaranteed that there is a "someone" in that creation. Occam's Razor, based on what we know today, would lead us to naturally conclude that some other avenue resulted in the creation of the universe.

His argument wasn't "argument from design", it was argument from existence. Answer the questions: Can something come from nothing? If not, is existence eternal? If eternal (an attribute of God), ok. Can there be motion without force? If not, there is eternal force (an attribute of God) ok. Now all we have to determine is if this eternal force is personal or not, that is where faith comes in (on both sides of the question).

BTW: I have read "A Universe From Nothing" they really don't make that point. They define nothing as an alternate universe with an imbalance of mater and antimatter allowing particles to pop into existence into our universe (if memory serves). That is definitely not "nothing"
 
Last edited:
I am explaining to Cardinal what I believe. It is logical. If you think it is not, explain it.

I did. You use logic, and then you stop using logic. If you follow your logic to its conclusion, you have to ask the same question about God's origins. Who created God? If God is immune to logic, then at least stop pretending that you're making a logical argument.
 
Evolution did happen, but everything evolved from something. It didn't just appear. And with evolution, if you accept the possibility of a God (and I do) then it is not a stretch to say that evolution happened by design, or at the very least designed with the possibility of evolution. And even if God created or put in to place the process to create life, and then evolution happened completely independent, that does not exclude the possibility of a God. It just means that life has taken off beyond control of a God. The existence of God as a creator does not even mean that God knows or cares about human choices, morality, or in this case evolution. God may not even still be alive. Our universe could be a toy created in some cosmic factory, bought for some kid who long ago discarded it for all I know. But I believe, and have never seen anything to dispute, that everything that exists was created.

This is a variant of the God of the Gaps argument, where if you accept a natural explanation for one thing, then you push God further back to a place that has yet to provide a natural explanation. There's a really big elephant-in-the-room problem with the God of the Gaps argument, however: if you move God over to the place that we cannot explain, you're essentially ceding ground on the idea that God is omnipresent or omnipotent. If He is no longer required to explain one thing, why assume he is required to explain anything?

I agree almost completely. But I wouldn't limit it to two. There are probably a countless number of explanations and possibilities that we have not yet evolved enough to yet understand.

The two possibilities I entertained were a choice between the supernatural and the natural. Seeing as we understand basic biology in way that doesn't require the supernatural (and again, we can even predict it reliably), then the natural as an avenue for the creation of the universe is plausible. And based on what we have been able to understand to present, it seems even more likely.

Wasn't guaranteeing anything. Just my logic behind why I believe it. I am very accepting of the possibility that I am wrong.

Cool.
I would argue that it would lead us to conclude that some other avenue could have resulted in the creation of the universe.

Based on what we know now, the likelihood of that "could" is diminishing daily.
 
I did. You use logic, and then you stop using logic. If you follow your logic to its conclusion, you have to ask the same question about God's origins. Who created God? If God is immune to logic, then at least stop pretending that you're making a logical argument.

I dont pretend to know the answers to those questions. I am concluding that since our universe exists, it was created.
 
I dont pretend to know the answers to those questions. I am concluding that since our universe exists, it was created.

That's a start. I'm not hating on you because you believe in God, just pointing out that logic has little place in a theological argument. My view is that since reality and physics become less complex the further into subatomia you go, that the ultimate answer to creation is very simple, not infinitely complex.
 
This is a variant of the God of the Gaps argument, where if you accept a natural explanation for one thing, then you push God further back to a place that has yet to provide a natural explanation. There's a really big elephant-in-the-room problem with the God of the Gaps argument, however: if you move God over to the place that we cannot explain, you're essentially ceding ground on the idea that God is omnipresent or omnipotent. If He is no longer required to explain one thing, why assume he is required to explain anything?
.

Me not being able to explain everything doesn't mean someone/something doesn't exist. I am not using the gap argument, only that there are a few branches of argument there. I am not excluding any of them. In one, you have a God and from there either God did or did not have a hand in evolution. Or two, there is not God. Three combinations of possibility with that, all can be believed. Noone knows which is right.

Seeing as we understand basic biology in way that doesn't require the supernatural (and again, we can even predict it reliably),

But we don't. We understand biology from a certain starting point. We don't have a way to comprehend how to get to that point.

then the natural as an avenue for the creation of the universe is plausible

No matter how far you go back to the creation of the universe, it always comes back to supernatural. Different types of supernatural but neither seems natural to me. If there is a God and this God created our universe that is supernatural. If an entire universe created itself from absolutely nothing that is pretty supernatural as well.
 
That's a start. I'm not hating on you because you believe in God, just pointing out that logic has little place in a theological argument. My view is that since reality and physics become less complex the further into subatomia you go, that the ultimate answer to creation is very simple, not infinitely complex.

What is your belief as to the answer to creation?
 
What is your belief as to the answer to creation?

I don't know, but I doubt there's an intelligence behind it. And if there is, it would be such an astronomical intelligence that it couldn't possibly care about what we do.
 
I don't know, but I doubt there's an intelligence behind it. And if there is, it would be such an astronomical intelligence that it couldn't possibly care about what we do.

I wouldn't try to argue that if a God exist that he/she/it would gave a damn about us. I stated that before. I am only expressing why I believe a God (again solely as a creator) exists.

And based on your statement above it would sound like you agree at the very least that the possibility of God (solely as a creator) exists. Regardless of the how unlikely you believe it to be, you are kind of stating above the possibility is there.
 
Is he? Or is he correct that the executive branch and SCOTUS overstepped their constitutional authority in imposing SSM marriage on all the states? Here we have a legitimate debate.

The only reason anyone opposed SSM in the first place was because they wanted to force society to conform to their religious mores. And no, we don't have a legitimate debate. If Loving was constitutional, then so was Obergefell. Huckabee, and many others on the right, think that their religion overrides the law. They are wrong and they have no business holding any public office if they hold allegiance to some other set of rules besides the constitution.
 
The only reason anyone opposed SSM in the first place was because they wanted to force society to conform to their religious mores. And no, we don't have a legitimate debate. If Loving was constitutional, then so was Obergefell. Huckabee, and many others on the right, think that their religion overrides the law. They are wrong and they have no business holding any public office if they hold allegiance to some other set of rules besides the constitution.

Very shallow understanding and a load of red herrings to boot. Did you read Thomas' dissent?
 
Do you think they are?

We're not exactly being fed to the lions anymore, but I still think we are improperly blamed every time Rome proverbially burns.

The venom some have toward something as positive as Christianity is remarkably troubling, at times.
 
The only reason anyone opposed SSM in the first place was because they wanted to force society to conform to their religious mores. And no, we don't have a legitimate debate. If Loving was constitutional, then so was Obergefell. Huckabee, and many others on the right, think that their religion overrides the law. They are wrong and they have no business holding any public office if they hold allegiance to some other set of rules besides the constitution.

Very shallow understanding and a load of red herrings to boot. Did you read Thomas' dissent?

The remarkable thing was the extreme velocity of change to a social convention that had existed for thousands of years, among the religious and non-religious alike.
 
The only reason anyone opposed SSM in the first place was because they wanted to force society to conform to their religious mores. And no, we don't have a legitimate debate. If Loving was constitutional, then so was Obergefell. Huckabee, and many others on the right, think that their religion overrides the law. They are wrong and they have no business holding any public office if they hold allegiance to some other set of rules besides the constitution.

Case in point...
 
The only reason anyone opposed SSM in the first place was because they wanted to force society to conform to their religious mores. And no, we don't have a legitimate debate. If Loving was constitutional, then so was Obergefell. Huckabee, and many others on the right, think that their religion overrides the law. They are wrong and they have no business holding any public office if they hold allegiance to some other set of rules besides the constitution.

I opposed changing the traditional definition of marriage. And it was for reasons that had nothing to do with my religious beliefs.
 
Very shallow understanding and a load of red herrings to boot. Did you read Thomas' dissent?

I did. It was nonsense. It was also a dissent. You know, the side that lost.

I opposed changing the traditional definition of marriage. And it was for reasons that had nothing to do with my religious beliefs.

Did you oppose changing it when it became interracial? Did you oppose changing it when women gained protection against marital rape? What, besides your religious proclivities, makes homosexuality different?

Case in point...

As I said before, there is no discrimination against Christians. There are only repercussions against those who are douchebags about their religion. They are a minority of religious people.

The remarkable thing was the extreme velocity of change to a social convention that had existed for thousands of years, among the religious and non-religious alike.

No, the remarkable thing is that you and others cite that as a negative. You don't seem to have a problem with how quickly this country bucked the idea of having a king, pretty much just on the determination of George Washington. That's an "extreme velocity of change". But it's one that didn't happen in your lifetime, so it doesn't make you uncomfortable.
 
Absolutely Christians are being discriminated against. Look at the Christian bakery, it had to follow the law like any other bakery would. How terrible is that!
 
No matter how far you go back to the creation of the universe, it always comes back to supernatural. Different types of supernatural but neither seems natural to me. If there is a God and this God created our universe that is supernatural. If an entire universe created itself from absolutely nothing that is pretty supernatural as well.
No, here is another pivotal point. Supernatural is by definition outside of reality. If there is a God, and this "god" is outside the universe, it is supernatural. If there is a god, and this god is part of the universe, it's NOT supernatural. (and certainly not the christian god!) Notice that the term supernatural by definition carries the qualification "does not exist". Existing things are by definition, real (Or where evidenced to be part of reality). This is why for every other reasonable claim it all makes sense, it's only when you ponder "god" you are OK making these mistakes. vampires as an immortal human-like creature that turns into a bat and feeds on blood as popularized in Dracula are supernatural. They do not exist. Unicorns, as in the magical horses with rainbows coming out their behinds, are supernatural. They do not exist. Yet strangely you choose to then claim God creating our universe is supernatural-----but real?? Or that the universe itself is supernatural, therefore not in the universe??? Claiming that science as related to the origins of our current universe, are "supernatural", is absurd. And yes, that's god in the gaps. Go back to creation and suddenly it's OK to claim the supernatural is natural and this is somehow logical? No, they are opposites.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom