Secularism and atheism has no place in the public sector, only spirituality

Koke · Feb 16, 2017

Kobie said:
Yeah, and you also said that's the biggest problem with atheism. That is a really dumb argument.

For starters, anyone with half a brain would support "the state," as in the idea that we should have a government and not be running around like it's Mad Max: Fury Road in real life.

Secondly, support for "bigger government" -- which, I've found, "rightists" tend to define rather nebulously -- does not equate to "replacing god with the state." That's some of the dumbest twaddle I've ever read in my life.

Find an argument that isn't peurile idiocy designed to slam "leftists" for once.

Of course it does. Many religious folk believe that abortion should be illegal, for example. Most of this comes from a moral code which says that any life, even life in the womb, is a life which is deserving of individual rights. They say to abort a baby is equal to murder which is a sin in god's eyes.

The left overwhelmingly however believes that a woman is "control of her own body" and use the state (as opposed to god) to implement or reinforce there views. There are other examples, some of which that are probably better, but this one came to me off the top of my head.

Kobie · Feb 16, 2017

Koke said:
Of course it does. Many religious folk believe that abortion should be illegal, for example. Most of this comes from a moral code which says that any life, even life in the womb, is a life which is deserving of individual rights. They say to abort a baby is equal to murder which is a sin in god's eyes.

The left overwhelmingly however believes that a woman is "control of her own body" and use the state (as opposed to god) to implement or reinforce there views. There are other examples, some of which that are probably better, but this one came to me off the top of my head.

Doesn't religious people claiming abortion should be illegal mean using the state to implement or reinforce their views?

Koke · Feb 16, 2017

Kobie said:
Doesn't religious people claiming abortion should be illegal mean using the state to implement or reinforce their views?

No. It is the act of not being an aggressor towards a human life because abortion, in their eyes, is morally reprehensible.

Kobie · Feb 16, 2017

Koke said:
No. It is the act of not being an aggressor towards a human life because abortion, in their eyes, is morally reprehensible.

Oh, so using the law -- i.e. "the state" -- to reinforce their views is different for them.

But "leftists" believing that "the state" using the law to control women's reproductive freedom is "replacing god with the state."

I don't think you thought this out very well.

Koke · Feb 16, 2017

Kobie said:
Oh, so using the law -- i.e. "the state" -- to reinforce their views is different for them.

But "leftists" believing that "the state" using the law to control women's reproductive freedom is "replacing god with the state."

I don't think you thought this out very well.

It is not using the state to control women reproductive freedom. Women have full autonomy over their body and whom/when they have sex with.

The state is used when force is allowed to be used against an individual who has rights.

Kobie · Feb 16, 2017

Koke said:
It is not using the state to control women reproductive freedom. Women have full autonomy over their body and whom/when they have sex with.

Until they become pregnant, at which point it's forced-incubation time!

Koke said:
The state is used when force is allowed to be used against an individual who has rights.

So, in other words, replacing god with the state. After all, if god intends for the woman to carry her pregnancy to term, He will make sure it comes to pass. After all, He is god -- all-powerful.

However, you're missing the point.

According to you, making abortion illegal would just be religious folks using the power of the state to enforce their beliefs, but that's just how the cookie crumbles.

Keeping abortion legal is leftist atheists using the power of the state to enforce their beliefs, thereby replacing god with the state. Ergo, atheism is bad because leftists!

Do you even comprehend the utter contradiction of your own statements?

sangha · Feb 16, 2017

Kobie said:
Oh, so using the law -- i.e. "the state" -- to reinforce their views is different for them.

But "leftists" believing that "the state" using the law to control women's reproductive freedom is "replacing god with the state."

I don't think you thought this out very well.

Damn, that was some awesome pwnage! Good work!

And Koke does not even seem to realize how pwned he is

D_NATURED · Feb 16, 2017

Koke said:
The fundamental problem with Atheism is that it is mostly practiced by the left. The reason this is a problem is that the left simply replaces god with the state. I can elaborate on why an invisible sky fairy is much less dangerous than the state in the modern day, but I don't think I would need to.

I say this speaking as an atheist who is disgusted at the hypocrisy of many atheists in replacing a Christian god (or any other) with a god named the state.

I find that perspective naïve. Please understand that "the state" is not a certain thing, even if the idea HAS been made into a conservative boogieman, the state is really what we make it. Furthermore, I'd rather physically and financially support a real state than an imaginary kingdom. One has empirical results in terms of human happiness and the other does not. In fact, it is when the state is deliberately neutral with regard to invisible kingdoms that the institutions of man begin to consistently function.

The US constitution is a good example. If it were littered with religious mumbo jumbo, it would be meaningless as a document designed to serve humans on a specific part of the land mass of North America. If the founders had allowed the founding document to become just another platitudinous declaration of Yahweh's favorite ice cream flavor or what a wonderful creation that kittens were, this wouldn't be a country, it would be Afghanistan, a tribal **** hole where a state is sorely needed to elevate them out of the stone age and into the contemporary world.

As for the state being more dangerous I find that laughable. The Christian god has never been shy about demanding His place in the chairs of state. Where god exists, He exists politically and his followers regularly disregard rational governance in favor of some expression of dogma or another, to the detriment of us all.

No, the state, with all its potential to transcend silly gods and serve humans HERE, is the only hope we have. If humanity can't organize around their own shared need and must, instead, outsource their priorities to mystics and charlatans, we have a big problem. How ironic that religious opinion is the one human need that all others must stand in line behind. No doubt the entitlement of cosmic certainty has a huge cost to human progress. The only question is, how much more we and our children must pay?

D_NATURED · Feb 17, 2017

Koke said:
It is not using the state to control women reproductive freedom. Women have full autonomy over their body and whom/when they have sex with.

The state is used when force is allowed to be used against an individual who has rights.

Do you believe a fetus is an "individual"? And, if so, WTF do you think the word individual means? I only ask because the anti abortion crowd are fond of using the word individual but don't appear to see the contradiction in the idea of an "individual" who dwells within, draws nourishment from and excretes waste into the bloodstream of an ACTUAL rights-endowed individual.

It is this creative redefining of what a person is that is the foundation of pro-life idiocy.

Koke · Feb 17, 2017

Kobie said:
Until they become pregnant, at which point it's forced-incubation time!

So, in other words, replacing god with the state. After all, if god intends for the woman to carry her pregnancy to term, He will make sure it comes to pass. After all, He is god -- all-powerful.

However, you're missing the point.

According to you, making abortion illegal would just be religious folks using the power of the state to enforce their beliefs, but that's just how the cookie crumbles.

Keeping abortion legal is leftist atheists using the power of the state to enforce their beliefs, thereby replacing god with the state. Ergo, atheism is bad because leftists!

Do you even comprehend the utter contradiction of your own statements?

Right so clearly the fundamental difference in thinking is whether or not a fetus has individual rights and of course you don't believe this so I'm not going to sway your opinion.

Koke · Feb 17, 2017

D_NATURED said:
Do you believe a fetus is an "individual"? And, if so, WTF do you think the word individual means? I only ask because the anti abortion crowd are fond of using the word individual but don't appear to see the contradiction in the idea of an "individual" who dwells within, draws nourishment from and excretes waste into the bloodstream of an ACTUAL rights-endowed individual.

It is this creative redefining of what a person is that is the foundation of pro-life idiocy.

There are many people who dwell within, draw nourishment, and exert waste into our society (filled with ACTUAL rights-endowed individuals).

Are the people who collect government aid and are massive burdens and parasites to society not individuals or human beings?

Please do clarify for me.

pinqy · Feb 17, 2017

Koke said:
Right so clearly the fundamental difference in thinking is whether or not a fetus has individual rights and of course you don't believe this so I'm not going to sway your opinion.

Does the concept of having individual rights have any meaning IF the individual is in no way able to exercise those rights?

Koke · Feb 17, 2017

pinqy said:
Does the concept of having individual rights have any meaning IF the individual is in no way able to exercise those rights?

Would a fully paralyzed mute have no rights?

pinqy · Feb 17, 2017

Koke said:
Would a fully paralyzed mute have no rights?

Can a fully paralyzed mute exercise any of his rights?

Tanngrisnir · Feb 17, 2017

Koke said:
The fundamental problem with Atheism is that it is mostly practiced by the left.

No, that's not a problem.

The reason this is a problem is that the left simply replaces god with the state.

No, it doesn't. Simply stating that that's so won't magically make it so. The old bromide that 'the left' worships the state is absurd and not moored in reality.

I can elaborate on why an invisible sky fairy is much less dangerous than the state in the modern day, but I don't think I would need to.

I say this speaking as an atheist who is disgusted at the hypocrisy of many atheists in replacing a Christian god (or any other) with a god named the state.

Except that that's only happening in your imagination.

Koke · Feb 17, 2017

pinqy said:
Can a fully paralyzed mute exercise any of his rights?

I'd argue they're still a human being but that's just me. I'm asking you for what your opinion is.

Koke · Feb 17, 2017

Tanngrisnir said:
No, that's not a problem.

No, it doesn't. Simply stating that that's so won't magically make it so. The old bromide that 'the left' worships the state is absurd and not moored in reality.

Except that that's only happening in your imagination.

Not really an argument but I'll bite.

Of course I'm not saying you have this altar that is literally dedicated to "the state" and of course there is variety all across the leftist spectrum about how much government there should be. The point was that the left overwhelmingly supports bigger government which I disagree with. I'm not an anarchist and I believe there is some role for government but they've overstepped their borders.

Tanngrisnir · Feb 17, 2017

Koke said:
Not really an argument but I'll bite.

Of course I'm not saying you have this altar that is literally dedicated to "the state" and of course there is variety all across the leftist spectrum about how much government there should be. The point was that the left overwhelmingly supports bigger government which I disagree with. I'm not an anarchist and I believe there is some role for government but they've overstepped their borders.

OK, now you're saying something different, albeit more clarifying. Some of the left may be, in fact, for a bigger gov't, but certainly not all, and the same thing applies to the right.

Endless nonsense about smaller gov't, spending and personal responsibility and the exact opposite occurring when the right gains power.

IMO it's simply a debunked canard when people claim that 'the left' has replaced god with the state.

Koke · Feb 17, 2017

Tanngrisnir said:
OK, now you're saying something different, albeit more clarifying. Some of the left may be, in fact, for a bigger gov't, but certainly not all, and the same thing applies to the right.

Endless nonsense about smaller gov't, spending and personal responsibility and the exact opposite occurring when the right gains power.

IMO it's simply a debunked canard when people claim that 'the left' has replaced god with the state.

Yes the right is as much for smaller government as much as the left is for bigger government (this doesn't include piece-of-garbage neocons).

I don't think so. People on the religious right use god and religion as the pinnacle of most moral arguments. (Abortion, crime, social issues etc...). On the other side, the large government left believes that the government can solve many of the mentioned problems either through force, redistribution of resources, etc...

My argument is that (at least in the modern age) the state is MUCH more dangerous than god. If I had made this argument back when priests had the power and churches were super powerful, I would understand the blowback. This, however, is not the case today.

pinqy · Feb 17, 2017

Koke said:
I'd argue they're still a human being but that's just me. I'm asking you for what your opinion is.

You didn't ask me for my opinion about whether they were still a human being. You asked if they had rights.

Let's take 2 fully paralyzed, mute, people. John has the right to vote. Mike does not. What difference does it make that John has the right to vote? what is the point of saying John has any right he cannot exercise?

D_NATURED · Feb 17, 2017

Koke said:
There are many people who dwell within, draw nourishment, and exert waste into our society (filled with ACTUAL rights-endowed individuals).

Are the people who collect government aid and are massive burdens and parasites to society not individuals or human beings?

Please do clarify for me.

What a ridiculously insulting equivocation. Are we going to have an adult conversation or not? I've never known ANYONE who died from signing someone up for public assistance but I've known two women who died in childbirth.

Your response was profoundly ignorant, treating public charity as if it is ever fatal to tax payers. I see you are not honest or mature enough for me to waste my time further. It seems like the fetus is your Jesus if you can't even respond to valid concerns without invoking some juvenile red herring of an argument.

No matter where their dogma originates, it's obvious that zealots hate facts and you are no different. You also have a distaste for the poor that comes through loud and clear. What a disgusting display of wilful ignorance and apathy for the living. Dismissed!

Koke · Feb 17, 2017

D_NATURED said:
What a ridiculously insulting equivocation. Are we going to have an adult conversation or not? I've never known ANYONE who died from signing someone up for public assistance but I've known two women who died in childbirth.

Your response was profoundly ignorant, treating public charity as if it is ever fatal to tax payers. I see you are not honest or mature enough for me to waste my time further. It seems like the fetus is your Jesus if you can't even respond to valid concerns without invoking some juvenile red herring of an argument.

No matter where their dogma originates, it's obvious that zealots hate facts and you are no different. You also have a distaste for the poor that comes through loud and clear. What a disgusting display of wilful ignorance and apathy for the living. Dismissed!

Lol. I'm not religious, in fact I'm atheist. I'm being the devil's advocate for some of these arguments but then there are others that I actually agree with.

I never said there shouldn't be exceptions where abortion is acceptable.

Public charity IS not equal to social programs.

Continue to assume and ad-hominem while at the same time accusing me of the same. not an argument.

Additionally -- are you inferring that some people who collect government aid are not complete burdens on society? In that they contribute little to nothing but consume a lot. This really is no different from a fetus or even a child.

D_NATURED · Feb 18, 2017

Koke said:
Lol. I'm not religious, in fact I'm atheist. I'm being the devil's advocate for some of these arguments but then there are others that I actually agree with.

I never said there shouldn't be exceptions where abortion is acceptable.

Public charity IS not equal to social programs.

Continue to assume and ad-hominem while at the same time accusing me of the same. not an argument.

Additionally -- are you inferring that some people who collect government aid are not complete burdens on society? In that they contribute little to nothing but consume a lot. This really is no different from a fetus or even a child.

I don't care if you're an atheist, your words have been spoken. You are trying to create some absurd parallel between the actual existential risk of pregnancy and the butthurt of tax-o-phobes. I can't even imagine what kind of being is dumber than one who is aware of its own country's deficit and then simultaneously opposes taxation. I guess it would be the kind that prefers to treat poverty like a self-imposed condition so that they can feel good about feeling nothing for them. My disgust remains intact.

Incredibly, in our actual reality, there are some who would fight poverty with tax cuts for the rich. They cherish life by ignoring those of women. At every turn they contradict morality and common sense. I cannot wrap my mind around the level of blind apathy that dominates conservative rhetoric and, unfortunately, actions.