Why Do Athiests

onelongsong

soulsinging wrote:

im not praying to win the lottery or anything. i pray in the morning for the ability to play the hand the best i can and every night in gratitude that i had the chance to play another round. that's it. but my point was, this is not just an atheist thing. i am definitely not an atheist (in fact, i find many of their contentions utterly ridiculous), but i am still angry and annoyed at religious people much of the time for the reasons outlined so well by dogloyal here:



and hippiemom in her discussion of religious legislation.

i understand. as far as religious legislation; all laws are based on the 619 commandments whether that was the first thought or not considered at all. the 619 laws for living as a peaceful people was written in the 619 commandments thousands of years ago.

hippiemom

surferdude wrote:

Please provide a scientifically proveable definition of morality. Some people think homosexuality is immoral. Does this mean you back laws outlawing homosexuality based on this morality?

If someone wants to force someone to do something, or prevent them doing something, the burden is on them to show us why. I don't give a rat's ass who anyone has sex with, so I don't have to prove anything. I just want to leave you alone. If you (and I don't mean you personally here) want to prevent homosexuals from enjoying the same rights as heterosexuals, then you've got to show us why it's to our benefit ... to the benefit of EVERYONE, including those who don't believe in your god.

soulsinging

surferdude wrote:

No, but I wouldn't base my opposition to the idea based on your religion, philosophy or where the idea stemmed from. I'd try to stick to the merits of the legislation only.

it's not that easy in practice. when the people selling it are selling it as part of the religion, you have to tackle them both at the same time. if a pastor says "vote to ban gay marriage or you'll burn in hell" you can't stand up and say "well, let's look at the numbers." they're just not listening. you have to show them how ridiculous it is to base their vote entirely on such nonsense.

surferdude

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

How would homosexuality be immoral?

I wouldn't know. You're the one wanting laws based on morality though. Don't you know what you're asking for? Whose morality do we use? Many posters here want to rule out the morality of the majority of Americans (christians) for laws. So you seem to want to base legislation based on the morality of the minorty. Is this what you really want?

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

i understand. as far as religious legislation; all laws are based on the 619 commandments whether that was the first thought or not considered at all. the 619 laws for living as a peaceful people was written in the 619 commandments thousands of years ago.

hammurabi's code predates the bible. and the ideas for peaceful living existed long before the wandering jews orally passed them down, then later wrote them down, then later lost them, then later had them reinterpreted by jesus, then later had them re-written in light of jesus' teaching, then later were translated into english... you ever play the game telephone?

soulsinging

surferdude wrote:

I wouldn't know. You're the one wanting laws based on morality though. Don't you know what you're asking for? Whose morality do we use? Many posters here want to rule out the morality of the majority of Americans (christians) for laws. So you seem to want to base legislation based on the morality of the minorty. Is this what you really want?

no, democracy is rule by majority with protections for the minority. you use the majority views to guide society, but you do not allow mob rule to take over and so you protect certain fundamental rights. the right to control your own sexual conduct, form your own family, and associate with whoever you please is fundamental. thus, no amount of moral majoritarianism makes it ok to outlaw homosexuality and gay marriage.

Abookamongstthemany

surferdude wrote:

I wouldn't know. You're the one wanting laws based on morality though. Don't you know what you're asking for? Whose morality do we use? Many posters here want to rule out the morality of the majority of Americans (christians) for laws. So you seem to want to base legislation based on the morality of the minorty. Is this what you really want?

I want laws based on problems that affect us and our world through out life. There has to reasons why something is a problem other than the bible tells you so.

surferdude

soulsinging wrote:

no, democracy is rule by majority with protections for the minority. you use the majority views to guide society, but you do not allow mob rule to take over and so you protect certain fundamental rights. the right to control your own sexual conduct, form your own family, and associate with whoever you please is fundamental. thus, no amount of moral majoritarianism makes it ok to outlaw homosexuality and gay marriage.

I'd say the principal of seperation of church and state makes it very easy to outlaw gay marriage. Marriage is a religious construct. One of the few government documents you can have signed by a religious leader. But I'd also outlaw heterosexual marriage as well for the same reason.

Now to get to your first point. As long as legislation does not violate the Bill of Rights or the Constitution it should not matter where the idea for the law originates.

crittables

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I want laws based on problems that affect us and our world through life. There has to reasons why something is a problem other than the bible tells you so.

ditto. and i do NOT see a problem with gay people getting married. when ohio passed the gay marriage ban a couple years ago it was called the "protection of marriage act" or something ridiculous like that. if gay people marrying effects straight marriages in some way, i would like to know what the hell kind of marriages these people have.

Cosmo

surferdude wrote:

I wouldn't know. You're the one wanting laws based on morality though. Don't you know what you're asking for? Whose morality do we use? Many posters here want to rule out the morality of the majority of Americans (christians) for laws. So you seem to want to base legislation based on the morality of the minorty. Is this what you really want?

...
Example... laws phohibiting smoking in public buildings... nothing to do with morality. Laws keeping the Ten Commandments out of State/Government buildings... nothing to do with morality. Smoking is a health issue... the Ten Commandments thing is not. But, personally... I don't want my publicly funded buildings to get crowded with Ten Commandments, Minoras, Stupas, Islamic Ramadan thingies and Scientology Spaceships... just as i don't want to breathe in someone else's cancer smoke. Keep that fucking shit in your own buildings and have your congregations pay for it.

Dog Loyal

surferdude wrote:

Marriage is a religious construct.

Nope. Marriage is a social construct.

Cosmo

surferdude wrote:

I'd say the principal of seperation of church and state makes it very easy to outlaw gay marriage. Marriage is a religious construct. One of the few government documents you can have signed by a religious leader. But I'd also outlaw heterosexual marriage as well for the same reason.

Now to get to your first point. As long as legislation does not violate the Bill of Rights or the Constitution it should not matter where the idea for the law originates.

...
Judges are religious leaders? How about the guy dressed as Elvis in Las Vegas?

Dog Loyal

Cosmo wrote:

...
Judges are religious leaders? How about the guy dressed as Elvis in Las Vegas?

Right. And you can have a marriage legally validated without a religious leader's signature, but you cannot have a marriage legally validated without GOVERNMENT documentation.

So if your local pastor marries you but you've not filed for a marriage license with the County Clerk's office, you're not legally married.

seanw1010

learn to spell atheist before you start off at us....

onelongsong

surferdude wrote:

And statistics completely forget about the individual. basing laws on this is legislating both of stereotyping and discrimination.

i agree. statistics show that in general; blacks are lazy and more prone to criminal activity. so do we make laws based on those statistics?

onelongsong

soulsinging wrote:

hammurabi's code predates the bible. and the ideas for peaceful living existed long before the wandering jews orally passed them down, then later wrote them down, then later lost them, then later had them reinterpreted by jesus, then later had them re-written in light of jesus' teaching, then later were translated into english... you ever play the game telephone?

i have no idea what you're talking about.

soulsinging

surferdude wrote:

I'd say the principal of seperation of church and state makes it very easy to outlaw gay marriage. Marriage is a religious construct. One of the few government documents you can have signed by a religious leader. But I'd also outlaw heterosexual marriage as well for the same reason.

Now to get to your first point. As long as legislation does not violate the Bill of Rights or the Constitution it should not matter where the idea for the law originates.

id agree with that. id rather see civil unions than marriage and have it simply be a domestic parntership.

anyway, that was my point. gay marriage bans violate the constitution and bill of rights.

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

i have no idea what you're talking about.

that just becos the bible has 619 commandments for living does not mean we should base our entire society upon it/them. there are 1000 different books offering 1000 different ways to run society. the bible has no stranglehold on morality. and it's quite possible to have morality without the bible.

Vedderlution_Baby

I'll read to whole thread later but a question now (my fault if its been asked)



Onelongsong. Know1. I feel sympathy for you for being religious. I feel it inhibits your view on life and how to live it. Lets say....its like going through a festival with a blindfold on.



Now, that doesnt ruffle your feathers?

onelongsong

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

I'll read to whole thread later but a question now (my fault if its been asked)



Onelongsong. Know1. I feel sympathy for you for being religious. I feel it inhibits your view on life and how to live it. Lets say....its like going through a festival with a blindfold on.



Now, that doesnt ruffle your feathers?

not in the slightest. it would be quite arrogant of me to think that everyone could find the same enlightenment i have. i'll say a prayer that your enlightenment comes quickly.