U.S. Supreme court overturns anti gay marriage laws.

[lill-pumba]

nuff said

[obsidian1200]

freedom of religion? yes shockingly i'm quite familiar with it. HOWEVER that doesn't mask the FACT that america was founding on Christianity. I'm not saying follow my religion or die. in no means am i forcing my beliefs on anyone. i am however stating that this country was founded on a moral guide lines that just so happen to correspond with Christian beliefs so to blame Christianity is irrelevant. the only thing to blame is morality. in todays society we are rapidly change the moral basis which this country was based on. 

 

I'm genuinely curious as to where people gather that the US was founded as a Christian country? Because, as you know, the founders weren't largely Deists, not Christian... and those two ideas are largely different. Jefferson even made his own abridged version of the Bible that excluded much of the Christian mythos and included only the lessons on how to live a 'good' life. If you're using the term "Creator" as has been found in many of the US's originating documents, that evidence is null because many religions outside of Christianity believe in a "Creator." At last check, none of these documents mention "our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ."

 

Again, this is just a genuine curiosity I wanted to express since this thread has been operating off this assumption for the last few pages at least. Well, it's just one of many, but I'll focus on this for now.

[beebskadoo]

THIS POST MEANS NO INSULT TOWARDS ANY GROUP OF PEOPLE BUT RATHER A THEORY

 

 

I would like to take a minute to address homosexuality from a Darwinist-scientific approach. 

 

The basis of natural selection is survival of the fittest. If you cannot survive, whether it be finding food or reproducing, then you are at fault naturally "not fit".  If something as minuscule as a snail cannot reproduce nor can the rest of its snail kin nor its species as a whole cannot reproduce it will eventually die out. this is science this is logic. 

 

so if as humans we promote this idea of couples unable to reproduce then are we also sanctioning the steady decline of the human species? its no secret homosexuality is becoming more and more prevalent so does that mean it is beginning to trend? is this the next step for human adaptation?

 

if survival of the fittest is the basis of evolution does that mean homosexuality is destined to become extinct? 

Are you familiar with the commonality of homosexual behavior in nature? Do the research as i have and then draw conclusions based on darwinian theory. 

[beebskadoo]

I'm genuinely curious as to where people gather that the US was founded as a Christian country? Because, as you know, the founders weren't largely Deists, not Christian... and those two ideas are largely different. Jefferson even made his own abridged version of the Bible that excluded much of the Christian mythos and included only the lessons on how to live a 'good' life. If you're using the term "Creator" as has been found in many of the US's originating documents, that evidence is null because many religions outside of Christianity believe in a "Creator." At last check, none of these documents mention "our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ."

 

Again, this is just a genuine curiosity I wanted to express since this thread has been operating off this assumption for the last few pages at least. Well, it's just one of many, but I'll focus on this for now.

Well i started this thread not to invoke a religious discussion. I still don't want to go there because i don't want this thread to get locked out. But yeah if it was a more open forum with regards to beliefs, i would give them quite the run for their money

[beebskadoo]

That's why I said largely similar. If you added up the population of all the people that a were sex traffickers, cannibals, in racial hate group, etc it wouldn't amount to much.

 

We know that rape, murder, theft, the withholding of other peoples rights, etc is morally wrong. And IMO when these boundaries are crossed it's due to money or religious ideas. Cannibalism in the sense your talking about is often ritualistic or based on some belief (which one could argue is analogous to religion). I dare say most people that murder or rape know it's wrong but choose to ignore the fact. Either way, these are exceptions to the much wider norm.

There are plenty of biblical principles that we understand are entirely wrong. Due to the fact that we have set up a society that is conscious of how we treat others and how we treat nature. Based on these principles we have set up a better world than we could have while under the control of a religious mindset.

[Art Vandelay]

Most of the time it seems the U.S Government is just hell-bent on circumventing the constitution it's founding fathers fought and died for.

That is sadly completely true. 

 

the problem is however that this country as an entirety is based off of one religion. so even though Christianity is at the same levels as all religions (Islam Atheism Judaism) the country's moral code is still in place. im not saying value one religion over another im saying do not ignore the moral code that was set in place. 

 

example. Vitalius and i are hanging out and he mentions a great sandwich he had at subway. i respect what he says so i decide im going to go try out subway but before i go he warns me NOT TO HAVE THE SOUP. i go in and get pretty much the same thing Vitalius got but i also got pickles. i like it. then some guy walks in 10 min later and starts bashing on my sandwich telling me i should get the soup. should i go get a soup or should i stick to what my buddy told me and not falter?

 

in this analogy vitalius' sandwich represents Christian morality. my sandwich represents the US morality and the guy who walks in and tells me to change represents the new ideas for morality. Vitalius and i have similar sandwiches but they are not fully the same. just similar. theres no denying i based my sandwich off of vitalius but they still are infact different. the guy who walked in immediately tells me to get the soup is calling for change that doesnt make sense. no one gets soup at subway. so why change? plus my buddy warned me about the soup

 

this is a pretty casual analogy for a pretty serious topic but i hope i got the point across that even though america was founded on Christianity the morals we now have are those of Americas not Christianity and there is no reason to change

Are you trying to imply that christian morality is the best for the United States with that analogy? Not having soup is a little different than limiting some peoples' rights based on their sexuality.

[bluepoodleguy]

The mods have already stepped in and said easy with the religion. I don't want this to turn into a flame war so please keep it to a minimum because i don't want this thread locked :)

What do you mean "easy with the religion"? Someone else may quote their philosophical frame of reference but I cannot? I sense a double standard here.

Some justify their position on an appeal to a materialistic interpretation of history others appeal to an understanding of unchanging principles of a transcendent

nature. Any discussion of moral acceptability of any given policy that permits reference to one belief system and not another then claims to be open minded is functionally distorted.

[Canoas]

A little off from the main topic here but I've been reading through some of this thread and It's not quite clear to me what people mean by separation of church and state. For example, it doesn't sound like it refers religious institutions being separate from the government because it has been like that for some time...  So I guess it just generally refers to people who are part of a religion. So let's say I'm religious or Christian, Buddhist, or whatever, than I should not have any say in matters of state because I'm religious? That's kind of an extreme understanding of it and I'm pretty sure that's not what's meant when people are mentioning separation of church and state. What I kind of gather is that people mean more in the sense that people should separate themselves from their specific morals and ethics that come from their religion when considering state legislation that is going to affect everyone else, (who may or may not have the same views). Even that, though, seems a little unfair to me. The reason I kind of feel like its an unfair expectation is that If I'm a theist i shouldn't try and influence state legislation that's going affect everyone but if I'm an atheist than I can because it's not in line with or derived from religion.

 

Separation of church and state means that the state cannot "endorse" any religion. Every religion must be equal in the eyes of the state. Religious people can vote, be elected and work for the government, but they must be impartial when it comes to religion. So the state simply cannot base the laws and decisions on the bible or other religious texts/views. When you're dealing with subjects like gay marriage, steam cell research, abortion, etc. you can't have passages from the bible or religious texts influencing your decision. It's just this. Theists can and should voice their opinion, even if you're influenced by your religion, but your arguments and reasons cannot be based on religion. A valid opinion from a theist would be "I am against abortion because I think that even if the child has not been born yet it is already a live human and to abort it is to take a human life", an invalid one would be "I am against abortion because on Psalm 139:13-16 it is written that (.....)". You have to think logically and impartially and uphold secular values, because religious values change according to religion and you need values and laws that apply to all.

[beebskadoo]

What do you mean "easy with the religion"? Someone else may quote their philosophical frame of reference but I cannot? I sense a double standard here.

Some justify their position on an appeal to a materialistic interpretation of history others appeal to an understanding of unchanging principles of a transcendent

nature. Any discussion of moral acceptability of any given policy that permits reference to one belief system and not another then claims to be open minded is functionally distorted.

I have made mention others about keeping it forum appropriate. Don't think you're the only one. Believe me I would love to make religious people look silly and pick apart their beliefs. Sadly I can't do that either. Secular opinions are welcome just not religious ones apparently. I'm not sure but I may be reading something wrong. If I am please correct me because I would really enjoy stepping in and defending my position as an Atheist and a Gay member of the forum. 

[beebskadoo]

Separation of church and state means that the state cannot "endorse" any religion. Every religion must be equal in the eyes of the state. Religious people can vote, be elected and work for the government, but they must be impartial when it comes to religion. So the state simply cannot base the laws and decisions on the bible or other religious texts/views. When you're dealing with subjects like gay marriage, steam cell research, abortion, etc. you can't have passages from the bible or religious texts influencing your decision. It's just this. Theists can and should voice their opinion, even if you're influenced by your religion, but your arguments and reasons cannot be based on religion. A valid opinion from a theist would be "I am against abortion because I think that even if the child has not been born yet it is already a live human and to abort it is to take a human life", an invalid one would be "I am against abortion because on Psalm 139:13-16 it is written that (.....)". You have to think logically and impartially and uphold secular values, because religious values change according to religion and you need values and laws that apply to all.

Secular values have evolved to further society, While I believe religious ones have hindered progress. There are several politicians that are not impartial when it comes to their beliefs. Just look at the state of Texas...

Any morale argument from the bible is rendered moot in my view because of the moral atrocities found within. 

[calarahil]

Secular values have evolved to further society, While I believe religious ones have hindered progress. There are several politicians that are not impartial when it comes to their beliefs. Just look at the state of Texas...

Any morale argument from the bible is rendered moot in my view because of the moral atrocities found within. 

Whether religion has progressed society or hindered is a matter of opinion. It's quite easy to dislike something that you don't believe in, understand, or particularly like on the basis of non belief. 

[Bleedman0xx]

calarahil, on 29 Jun 2013 - 2:33 PM, said:

Whether religion has progressed society or hindered is a matter of opinion. It's quite easy to dislike something that you don't believe in, understand, or particularly like on the basis of non belief.

No, there are times in history that religion has GREATLY hindered society and growth. Take the dark ages for example. Science was abolished and deemed a sin against God (still is even today). History experts have said that we lost hundreds of years of technological, medical and scientific advancement because of religion. Namely, Christianity.

So, no sir. It's not a matter of opinion. It's fact.

[calarahil]

<p>And there are quite a few things that could bunk your argument. The thing that ticks me off is that the second someone states how they believe whether religious or not the people who are non religious show zero respect for those who follow whatever religion they do for something good to strive to be. Complete insensibility and ignorance. When last I checked I have been pretty crodule with others within this thread. If you guys demand equality and respect and yet turn around and aren't willing to offer that yourself you are just as bad get over yourself. </p>

<p> </p>

<p><img alt="screen-shot-2012-07-20-at-9-09-48-pm.png" src="http://recoveringbaptistconfessions.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/screen-shot-2012-07-20-at-9-09-48-pm.png" /></p>

[Bleedman0xx]

And there are quite a few things that could bunk your argument. The thing that ticks me off is that the second someone states how they believe whether religious or not the people who are non religious show zero respect for follow whatever religion they do for something good to strive to be. Complete insensibility and ignorance. When last I checked I have been pretty crodule with others within this thread. If you guys demand equality and respect and yet turn around and aren't willing to offer that yourself you are just as bad get over yourself.

If you seriously think that I'm not showing you respect then you have no idea what respect is. I'm done with this thread. It's been bastardized enough that I don't want to be a part of it. Have fun.

[Vitalius]

Secular values have evolved to further society, While I believe religious ones have hindered progress. There are several politicians that are not impartial when it comes to their beliefs. Just look at the state of Texas...

Any morale argument from the bible is rendered moot in my view because of the moral atrocities found within.

So you're saying... if a man came to you with the cure for cancer, you wouldn't even consider a word he says because he is a convicted murderer?

Essentially the same thing.

Whether religion has progressed society or hindered is a matter of opinion. It's quite easy to dislike something that you don't believe in, understand, or particularly like on the basis of non belief.

This.

While there were the dark ages, religion caused a lot of good things to come back that possibly wouldn't have.

Charlemagne's (the French King) choice to push public education for example. He used the missionaries' placement around the many countries as bases and had them start teaching the basics of things. Yes, they taught theology, obviously, but they also taught how to read and write as well as the basics of math.

Now whether you agree that what they taught was good or not, setting the precedent for public education after it had been lost and largely ignored since the Romans stopped doing it (100's of years before) is a pretty big deal after the dark ages.

Then there's the Muslims engineering and architectural advances in the time before the Crusades. In fact, the European and Middle Eastern sections of the world were so separate that when the Crusades came, the soldiers and leaders thought that magic was used to make the Middle Eastern structures because they'd never seen it before and didn't understand how it worked.

This was all do to the differences in theology, but more so, the way of thinking that persisted between the two sections of the world in the time from 800's-1400's. Europe acted as a sort of container for Platonic thought to preserve it while the Middle East was the same for Aristotelian thought.

Platonic being "There is some perfect version of everything out there, but the material world is the manifestation of many imperfect versions of it." similar to the idea of a rock being dropped in a pond and you only experience the waves but never the rock that caused them, while Aristotelian is "I see an object that has four legs and is used to hold things up off the ground, therefore it is likely a table" which is essentially the founding of the scientific method (to take experience as facts and use those to come to conclusions) as well as logic and reason in general.

Aristotle basically works from the ground up based on experiential evidence and is better for the scientific method. Platonic basically being starting from the end (the idea of perfection) and working your way back, which is better for philosophical and moral things because those are, in essence, looking for the "ideal" and to find how we get to that, you have to start from it and work your way back.

Huh. Kinda went off on a barely related tangent there. Oh well. Food for thought I guess.

[beebskadoo]

Whether religion has progressed society or hindered is a matter of opinion. It's quite easy to dislike something that you don't believe in, understand, or particularly like on the basis of non belief. 

Most athiests are previous believers. I happen to be one of them.

[beebskadoo]

So you're saying... if a man came to you with the cure for cancer, you wouldn't even consider a word he says because he is a convicted murderer?

Essentially the same thing.

This.

Where do you extrapolate that from my comment?

[calarahil]

Most athiests are previous believers. I happen to be one of them.

 

you are however side stepping my point. 

[beebskadoo]

you are however side stepping my point. 

How?

[calarahil]

The point is that there is a understone of not wanting to consider the the respect and or feelings of both sides. And that we as a society are quick to judge what we ourselves don't necessarily understand for one reason or another. 

 

I know you perhaps didn't mean to but what sometimes people who debate in politics do is they'll a part of a question or comment and say something about it without actually commenting on what was actually said. 

 

like this for example

 

Did you try apple that was on the table it was a red one

response. 

I like red its my favorite color.             

[NeoZeon]

Most scientists ( me being one of them) have already removed ourself from the science vs religion debate. People who use science to attack religion and vice versa have not been studying science for very long.

 

These kinds of topics come up every semester in my geology class, a student asks me how geological processes can exist when the planet has only been around for ~5 thousand years. I tell them they need to learn what the geological processes are, but they do not have to believe them to be true.

 

Most atheists are like Richard Dawkins, claiming some moral high ground because they chose to banish thoughts of worship from their mind. Richard Dawkins is the wrong vessel for atheists, even if he is a brilliant scientist.  Some of the most brilliant scientists I know, my advisor included (who is mormon and I am jewish/agnostic) are deeply spiritual.  The real difference between scientists, people upholding religion, and the general public is that scientists have a goal that gives them very little time to waste. 

[calarahil]

Most scientists ( me being one of them) have already removed ourself from the science vs religion debate. People who use science to attack religion and vice versa have not been studying science for very long.

 

These kinds of topics come up every semester in my geology class, a student asks me how geological processes can exist when the planet has only been around for ~5 thousand years. I tell them they need to learn what the geological processes are, but they do not have to believe them to be true.

 

Most atheists are like Richard Dawkins, claiming some moral high ground because they chose to banish thoughts of worship from their mind. Richard Dawkins is the wrong vessel for atheists, even if he is a brilliant scientist.  Some of the most brilliant scientists I know, my advisor included (who is mormon and I am jewish/agnostic) are deeply spiritual.  The real difference between scientists, people upholding religion, and the general public is that scientists have a goal that gives them very little time to waste. 

True, however scientists are out to prove something. And sadly not everything can be but either way I'm just trying to instill a level of respect on the topic without people bashing religion and people bashing those who think there should be a level of respect for there common man. 

[NeoZeon]

True, however scientists are out to prove something. And sadly not everything can be but either way I'm just trying to instill a level of respect on the topic without people bashing religion and people bashing those who think there should be a level of respect for there common man. 

 

We are not out to prove anything. We observe nature in a manor that these observations can be reproduced. Thats all we are doing. We are looking at nature, and then explaining what we see. Some might call that truth, but thats adding to sciences promise. 

[Vitalius]

Where do you extrapolate that from my comment?

Secular values have evolved to further society, While I believe religious ones have hindered progress. There are several politicians that are not impartial when it comes to their beliefs. Just look at the state of Texas...

Any morale argument from the bible is rendered moot in my view because of the moral atrocities found within. 

 

So what you are saying is, if a man claimed to have the cure for cancer (morale argument analogy), but is a convicted felon for murder (moral atrocity analogy), you wouldn't even bother listening to him (rendered moot analogy)?

Analogy might not be the right word, but I hope that shows you where I see that from. That's essentially what you are saying.

The point is that there is a understone of not wanting to consider the the respect and or feelings of both sides. And that we as a society are quick to judge what we ourselves don't necessarily understand for one reason or another. 

 

I know you perhaps didn't mean to but what sometimes people who debate in politics do is they'll a part of a question or comment and say something about it without actually commenting on what was actually said. 

 

like this for example

 

Did you try apple that was on the table it was a red one

response. 

I like red its my favorite color.             

I'm very guilty of doing that from time to time. Let me know if I do it without realizing it.

 

Most scientists ( me being one of them) have already removed ourself from the science vs religion debate. People who use science to attack religion and vice versa have not been studying science for very long.

 

These kinds of topics come up every semester in my geology class, a student asks me how geological processes can exist when the planet has only been around for ~5 thousand years. I tell them they need to learn what the geological processes are, but they do not have to believe them to be true.

 

Most atheists are like Richard Dawkins, claiming some moral high ground because they chose to banish thoughts of worship from their mind. Richard Dawkins is the wrong vessel for atheists, even if he is a brilliant scientist.  Some of the most brilliant scientists I know, my advisor included (who is mormon and I am jewish/agnostic) are deeply spiritual.  The real difference between scientists, people upholding religion, and the general public is that scientists have a goal that gives them very little time to waste. 

I "think" of myself as a scientist in the sense that I understand the concepts that go behind the information scientists give for things. A good example would be how the "measured" age of the universe, from what we know, is 13.8 Billion years old give or take some seconds and years.

I can't do the math or anything else like that to show something like that, but I understand, to a degree, the ideas and concepts used to get to that point of finding such a value out. 

Because of this, I've always found it silly when people do that (what you used Richard Dawkins as an example of).

[beebskadoo]

So what you are saying is, if a man claimed to have the cure for cancer (morale argument analogy), but is a convicted felon for murder (moral atrocity analogy), you wouldn't even bother listening to him (rendered moot analogy)?

Analogy might not be the right word, but I hope that shows you where I see that from. That's essentially what you are saying.

No that's certainly not what i'm saying.  I was saying that we have moved beyond biblical morality. I see that you acknowledge there are some bits of the bible that are not a part of your moral code and that you may find immoral. Well i think that's what you may be implying. What i have issue with is the 'well that was old Testament' argument when these atrocities are given but the so called miracles are still credible. That's just one of my issues.