• 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.
The answer to this thread is very simple. It's not asking if Christians are discriminated against, or if there is any evidence of such a thing happening. It's asking if anyone feels like they are. Christians love to feel discriminated against. It's part of their history. Their origin is steeped in it. It's part of their identity. Of course, nobody has actually been discriminating against them for a millennium and a half, but they love to feel discriminated against, even while they're trampling on everyone else.

That's how not being able to strip gay people of their rights feels like discrimination to them. That's how privilege can twist a person's perception. Equality is a step down, and wanting to feel oppressed makes it even farther out of whack.

You cannot disprove the existence of God any more than anyone can prove it. It is a belief. Asking someone to prove something that is by definition un-provable is pathetic. You really seem to have this complex about you that whatever you believe and cannot prove is right and fact, and everyone who believes differently is stupid and should be mocked. Not much more pathetic of an argument than the one you put forth.

And before you cry about Christians again, yes it is just as pathetic when they mock your beliefs too. But that doesn't make you any less pathetic.

It would be astoundingly easy to prove the existence of a god. Literally any evidence of divine intervention would suffice. Intercessory prayer working, actual spontaneous creation of life, natural disasters actually being linked with adherence to biblical rules, sightings of angels, prophets publicly performing miracles, you name it...
 
You are correct in that the concept of God by definition cannot be demonstrated. That means, without qualification, that it is fiction, or as related to reality, false.

I agree with the first part. God cannot be proven or disproven. However you cannot assume that if something cannot be proven that it is then false. Big bang cannot be proven for example, doesn't make it fiction. Many things that are accepted cannot be proven. To draw the line here. You have beliefs, which beliefs cannot or have not been proven, and you have facts, which can be proven.

The existence of God, either way in the argument is a belief. People on both sides argue their point like it is fact, both sides attempt to defer the burden of proof like this Cephus guy does. They do that because they know that they cannot prove their belief and in trying to do so they'd be forced to admit that their argument is just as weak as the opposite argument.

To Christianity though, doesn't it teach that non-believers are sinners and will burn for eternity in hell? That's by definition, teaching discrimination as a core belief

No, I don't think it is. Christianity does teach that, but it does not force people to act on it. Now, for the sake of argument, let's say God does exist and agree on that. And Christians get into heaven, all others burn in hell, you'd could make an argument that God is discriminating based on our laws. But a Christian believing that non-believers burn in hell and does not act on those beliefs is not discriminating.

You are the first Christian I have seen on these forums that has so succinctly agreed to that.

I'm not Christian. I just believe in tolerance. I don't think Christians should be mocking or be intolerant of people with different beliefs, and I don't agree with it when people do it to them.

Go one level deeper as to WHY the behavior was engaged in, and there you may find good vs bad.

I'd like you to go further with this.
 
It would be astoundingly easy to prove the existence of a god. Literally any evidence of divine intervention would suffice. Intercessory prayer working, actual spontaneous creation of life, natural disasters actually being linked with adherence to biblical rules, sightings of angels, prophets publicly performing miracles, you name it...

People who want to believe in God do see proof all over and see that it fits with their beliefs. Those who don't, don't see or acknowledge it or explain it another way. Perception is a big part of beliefs. But beliefs are just that. Beliefs. If you believe that there is no God, it is still a belief.
 
You're missing it. It's not about subjective morality. It's any being consistent with your own beliefs. Atheists are not violating any self professed beliefs of tolerance, acceptance, turn the other cheek etc... For Christians it is..

Again, it's hypocrisy when tested against your own beliefs for Christians, atheists don't have a central dogma, so there is no conflict or hypocrisy.

I see what you are saying. But I don't hold Christians to any different standard than anyone else. I expect tolerance from everyone whether it is written in a book or not.
 
I see what you are saying. But I don't hold Christians to any different standard than anyone else. I expect tolerance from everyone whether it is written in a book or not.

The only person I hold to any standard is myself. Anything more is just a guarantee of disappointment.
 
I didn't read every page of the thread but read enough to get the gist of how the discussion is going.

A good definition of 'discrimination' comes from the Business Dictionary:
1.Bias or prejudice resulting in denial of opportunity, or unfair treatment regarding selection, promotion, or transfer. Discrimination is practiced commonly on the grounds of age, disability, ethnicity, origin, political belief, race, religion, sex, etc. factors which are irrelevant to a person's competence or suitability.

2.Unequal treatment provided to one or more parties on the basis of a mutual accord or some other logical or illogical reason.

3.Differences in two rates not explainable or justifiable by economic considerations such as costs.

Read more: What is discrimination? definition and meaning

And most comprehensive definitions add:
4. Choice between good and evil, right and wrong, negative and positive, or choices made via preference as to what is appropriate, proper, aesthetically pleasing, etc.

And I think is in Number 1 or Number 4 that most discrimination against Christians occurs. Christians are much maligned on message boards and characterized as stupid or fanatics or delusional etc. etc. etc. but that is just insulting and not discriminatory to the extent that Christians are denied anything other than respect for their views.

Christian candidates for office can definitely be discriminated against as a Mike Huckabee or a Ben Carson will be deemed unsuitable for high office because of their Christian views and studies or research done by some organizations will be dismissed as prejudiced or irrelevant because the organizations are founded on Christian values.
 
People who want to believe in God do see proof all over and see that it fits with their beliefs. Those who don't, don't see or acknowledge it or explain it another way. Perception is a big part of beliefs. But beliefs are just that. Beliefs. If you believe that there is no God, it is still a belief.

And perception is not a big part of reality. I don't "believe that there is no god". It's not a belief, not anymore than "believing" that JFK is dead. It's real. He was shot in the head. And gods are obviously made up. If they were real, then we would see proof all over even if it didn't fit with a belief someone already held. But we don't.

Christian candidates for office can definitely be discriminated against as a Mike Huckabee or a Ben Carson will be deemed unsuitable for high office because of their Christian views and studies or research done by some organizations will be dismissed as prejudiced or irrelevant because the organizations are founded on Christian values.

No, they're unsuitable for high office because they hold more loyalty to those beliefs than they do to the laws of this country, and because they would seek to impose those beliefs on the rest of us, in direct defiance of the constitution. They're unsuitable for an office where they swear to uphold and defend the constitution, because they make it very clear that they won't.
 
I agree with the first part. God cannot be proven or disproven. However you cannot assume that if something cannot be proven that it is then false.
:( you are almost there! No, it is not an assumption. The only thing that we can know, that cannot be proven or disproven, by definition is something false, i.e. made up. If it were real, you CANNOT claim to know it cannot be proven...because that would be contradictory. So it cannot be real. That's just logic. I can break it down in simple form if you like.

Big bang cannot be proven for example, doesn't make it fiction. Many things that are accepted cannot be proven. To draw the line here. You have beliefs, which beliefs cannot or have not been proven, and you have facts, which can be proven.
No, big bang is a scientific theory, that has evidence to support it. It is by definition a claim about REALITY. God as you point out, CANNOT have evidence to support it. There are only two buckets you can put it in. real things - which all have evidence in reality. Non-real things, which are by definition NOT real, and thus any claim about "evidence in reality" is contradictory. There can be no evidence.
There are not other buckets we can put God in.

The existence of God, either way in the argument is a belief.
Existence, in reality, is by definition not equal to "a belief". These are two different concepts, and we have different words to describe them, and they have demonstrably different meanings.
Existence logically comes before belief. You cannot believe if you do not exist. And you cannot rationally believe something exists, when there is no evidence by your own admission, to support that claim.

No, I don't think it is. Christianity does teach that,
Yes, you agree Christianity teaches discrimination. Of course it doesn't force people to act on it. It just encourages them to.

I'm not Christian. I just believe in tolerance. I don't think Christians should be mocking or be intolerant of people with different beliefs, and I don't agree with it when people do it to them.
You believe false beliefs should be toelrated in science?
How about schools, should we tolerate teachers teaching demonstrably false things?
what about hospitals, should they refuse treating someone who is dying because of their "religion"?
Should you tolerate a christian bomber who blows up clinic where your daughters husband worked?

Tolerance is neither good nor bad. Tolerance is justifiable in certain situations, and unjustifiable in others. It's good in some situations, and bad in others.

If you're just "tolerant" always, I don't believe that's a good thing. It's kind of nice to be around I bet though :) I'm quite tolerant too, but only in situations where I don't think it really matters or in public space. Remember, Christians who push faith-based laws don't just discriminate in the public square though, they go way, way beyond that into the legal square. You tolerate that? For shame.


I'd like you to go further with this.[/QUOTE]
 
Then it would fall on you to prove your belief is true. You can talk all day about what you have to do or don't have to do. I don't have to prove my beliefs. Neither do you. Neither does anyone. They are beliefs. The fact that two people believe 2 different things doesn't make one except from proving or put burden on the other.

However, if you are going to call someone else's beliefs idiotic and all the hate you spew about Christians, you are making a definitive statement and then I would ask you to defend your position. You call people idiots and mock their beliefs and I ask you why they are idiots and why you attack them for believing differently than you and all you have is "i don't have to". We are right back to pathetic. Learn a little about tolerance. You cannot prove yoru beliefs any more than I can prove my. Which by your own logic, if you cannot prove your beliefs, then you are calling yourself an idiot.

If I had a belief, I would. I don't. I just reject your belief based on lack of evidence. I'm not the one making the claim here, the theist is. I'm the one saying I'm unconvinced by their claim.

Do try again though.
 
Are you saying its ok for you to be an intolerant, idiotic, douchebag (by your own words) just because you've been doing it for 8 years?

No, I'm saying that it's entirely fine to point out stupid positions and unsupported beliefs, in fact, that's what everyone ought to be doing. If everyone cared more about reality and less about their own personal emotional comfort, the world would be a better place.
 
And perception is not a big part of reality. I don't "believe that there is no god". It's not a belief, not anymore than "believing" that JFK is dead. It's real. He was shot in the head. And gods are obviously made up. If they were real, then we would see proof all over even if it didn't fit with a belief someone already held. But we don't.


No, they're unsuitable for high office because they hold more loyalty to those beliefs than they do to the laws of this country, and because they would seek to impose those beliefs on the rest of us, in direct defiance of the constitution. They're unsuitable for an office where they swear to uphold and defend the constitution, because they make it very clear that they won't.

And that's when the discrimination comes in because you have no evidence - zero - nada - zip - that they would impose those beliefs on the rest of us or that they would use their religious beliefs to override the Constitution.
 
And that's when the discrimination comes in because you have no evidence - zero - nada - zip - that they would impose those beliefs on the rest of us or that they would use their religious beliefs to override the Constitution.

But we don't need evidence they are wrong, they need evidence they are right and barring that evidence, their beliefs are not worth taking seriously. There's no discrimination involved.
 
And perception is not a big part of reality. I don't "believe that there is no god".
.

Yes you do believe there is no God. You cannot prove it, therefore it is a belief. It is something you believe.

It's not a belief, not anymore than "believing" that JFK is dead. It's real. He was shot in the head.

You can prove JFK was shot. You can prove JFK is dead. That is not a belief.

nd gods are obviously made up.

And that is your belief. To you it is obvious. But you cannot prove you are right, and anyone else is wrong.

If they were real, then we would see proof all over even if it didn't fit with a belief someone already held. But we don't.

Many people do see proof. You don't. It is a matter of perception. What someone sees as proof, you do not.
 
:( you are almost there! No, it is not an assumption. The only thing that we can know, that cannot be proven or disproven, by definition is something false, i.e. made up. If it were real, you CANNOT claim to know it cannot be proven...because that would be contradictory. So it cannot be real. That's just logic. I can break it down in simple form if you like.


No, big bang is a scientific theory, that has evidence to support it. It is by definition a claim about REALITY. God as you point out, CANNOT have evidence to support it. There are only two buckets you can put it in. real things - which all have evidence in reality. Non-real things, which are by definition NOT real, and thus any claim about "evidence in reality" is contradictory. There can be no evidence.
There are not other buckets we can put God in.


Existence, in reality, is by definition not equal to "a belief". These are two different concepts, and we have different words to describe them, and they have demonstrably different meanings.
Existence logically comes before belief. You cannot believe if you do not exist. And you cannot rationally believe something exists, when there is no evidence by your own admission, to support that claim.


Yes, you agree Christianity teaches discrimination. Of course it doesn't force people to act on it. It just encourages them to.


You believe false beliefs should be toelrated in science?
How about schools, should we tolerate teachers teaching demonstrably false things?
what about hospitals, should they refuse treating someone who is dying because of their "religion"?
Should you tolerate a christian bomber who blows up clinic where your daughters husband worked?

Tolerance is neither good nor bad. Tolerance is justifiable in certain situations, and unjustifiable in others. It's good in some situations, and bad in others.

If you're just "tolerant" always, I don't believe that's a good thing. It's kind of nice to be around I bet though :) I'm quite tolerant too, but only in situations where I don't think it really matters or in public space. Remember, Christians who push faith-based laws don't just discriminate in the public square though, they go way, way beyond that into the legal square. You tolerate that? For shame.


I'd like you to go further with this.
[/QUOTE]

I would like to as well, but we are probably on the verge of getting warned for derailing the thread. I would suggest we open this in another place. Would make a for a good discussion.
 
Yes you do believe there is no God. You cannot prove it, therefore it is a belief. It is something you believe.

It's so nice that we have you to tell us all what we believe, especially right after we tell you that we don't. :roll:
 
If I had a belief, I would. I don't. I just reject your belief based on lack of evidence. I'm not the one making the claim here, the theist is. I'm the one saying I'm unconvinced by their claim.

Do try again though.

You do have a belief. You express it often and mock those who believe differently. By that logic, I reject your belief based on a lack of evidence. And you are making a claim. For instance:

I don't believe God exists. That is what you are claiming to believe. That is fine and I respect that.

God does not exist and anyone who believes differently is an idiot and a douchebag. That is a statement of fact. And as a statement of fact, it is not unreasonable for me to ask you to prove it.
 
But we don't need evidence they are wrong, they need evidence they are right and barring that evidence, their beliefs are not worth taking seriously. There's no discrimination involved.

And by that logic, you should prove your beliefs.

Tell me this. How is the universe here? Where did it come from? How did life get created? Can you answer those questions definitively and prove what you answer and questions I will have about it?
 
But we don't need evidence they are wrong, they need evidence they are right and barring that evidence, their beliefs are not worth taking seriously. There's no discrimination involved.

Why? If I think you are wrong in your opinion about a lot of things, should you have to be able to convince me you are right and I am wrong before you can be considered suitable to be elected to something? The Huckabees and Carsons are taken very seriously in their beliefs by anti-Christian, anti-religious types and they are declared unsuitable for high office because of those beliefs. Not because they can't prove they are right. They are dismissed or denigrated because they hold the beliefs.
 
You do have a belief. You express it often and mock those who believe differently. By that logic, I reject your belief based on a lack of evidence. And you are making a claim. For instance:

I don't believe God exists. That is what you are claiming to believe. That is fine and I respect that.

God does not exist and anyone who believes differently is an idiot and a douchebag. That is a statement of fact. And as a statement of fact, it is not unreasonable for me to ask you to prove it.

You're so close, yet so clueless. You just said it and then screwed it all up. I don't believe God exists. That isn't a belief, it's a lack of a belief. Learn the difference.
 
You're so close, yet so clueless. You just said it and then screwed it all up. I don't believe God exists. That isn't a belief, it's a lack of a belief. Learn the difference.

You believe God doesn't exist. Lack of belief would be saying I don't know or not taking any stance at all. But you have taken a stance. You have stated a belief. A belief that God does not exist.
 
Do you think they are?

No. But I'm willing to bet the pendulum WILL reverse.

I see people constantly making bigoted comments towards Christians. But I'm willing to bet they go completely unnoticed by their peers. So I doubt it will be non existent in person.
 
Why? If I think you are wrong in your opinion about a lot of things, should you have to be able to convince me you are right and I am wrong before you can be considered suitable to be elected to something? The Huckabees and Carsons are taken very seriously in their beliefs by anti-Christian, anti-religious types and they are declared unsuitable for high office because of those beliefs. Not because they can't prove they are right. They are dismissed or denigrated because they hold the beliefs.

We can certainly have a conversation about it, but whereas we can discuss specifics and present evidence, the religious can't do that, they have no evidence, they only have blind faith. They believe they're right because they get an emotional high out of believing it. They didn't objectively evaluate the evidence and reach a conclusion based on research, if they did, they'd have no use for faith. As such, they have earned no respect for their critical thinking skills.

I accept that the Huckabees and Carsons of the world really do believe what they believe. I also think that what they believe is absurd and ridiculous. They cannot defend their views rationally. Until they can, why should anyone give them what they have not earned?
 
You do have a belief. You express it often and mock those who believe differently. By that logic, I reject your belief based on a lack of evidence. And you are making a claim. For instance:

I don't believe God exists. That is what you are claiming to believe. That is fine and I respect that.

God does not exist and anyone who believes differently is an idiot and a douchebag. That is a statement of fact. And as a statement of fact, it is not unreasonable for me to ask you to prove it.

Until God's existence is proven, then at best it's moot, but it doesn't even reach that level of evidence.
 
We can certainly have a conversation about it, but whereas we can discuss specifics and present evidence, the religious can't do that, they have no evidence, they only have blind faith. They believe they're right because they get an emotional high out of believing it. They didn't objectively evaluate the evidence and reach a conclusion based on research, if they did, they'd have no use for faith. As such, they have earned no respect for their critical thinking skills.

I accept that the Huckabees and Carsons of the world really do believe what they believe. I also think that what they believe is absurd and ridiculous. They cannot defend their views rationally. Until they can, why should anyone give them what they have not earned?

Countless people have looked at the evidence and still come to believe objectively that God exists. You came to a different conclusion. No one on Earth, no one in the history of mankind, knows the answers to questions that religion attempts to answer. You can take the smartest men of all time, give them unlimited resources, hell they can even stay at a holiday inn express, and in the end they wont come up with anything but a theory.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom