Thread: Same sex marriage

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

Accepting that premise means Me lai defines all U.S. servicemen who went to Vietnam, which of course is ridiculous.

To me that is false equivalence. Religion has caused far more problems then it has solved in this world by far. It's misguided dogma to this day is still causing many to suffer. I will reserve my right to criticize and differentiate between someones beliefs when religion is involved. The sooner that mankind can shed that crutch the better for all of us.

...^hear! hear!...

In the absence of Darwin's insights on evolution religious creationism was the only idea going about why we are here.

It also provided an explanation of human consciousness prior to the biological explanation.

It also provided a basis for morality prior to the newer rational approach which is now based on concern for the suffering/wellbeing of sentient creatures.

The myth of heaven also provided a psychological crutch during harder times for humans in the past when life contained more suffering and less pleasure than it does for the average human today.

The threat of omniscient divine punishment also deterred crime in the age before CCTV.

It is all very well (and very easy) to pan the obvious silliness and circular contradictions of religious cant in the 21st century but it did play a pivotal role in the evolution of civilisation.

Originally Posted by Looper

it did play a pivotal role in the evolution of civilisation

...and as that pivotal role has significantly diminished in the modern era, it's long past time for religious interference in the lives of others to go the way of the appendix, the human tail and sloping foreheads...

It was due to his faith, read from actual accounts.
The last recorded case was about 200 years ago. Most persecution was against other christian religious groups such as the Cathars but also jews and moslems. Instigated by the Catholic church it was about power and wealth not Christianity. Although started in Italy it was promulgated by king ferdinand in spain and I forget the french king in france but it was mostly about power and wealth hence the persecution of the knights templar who were known to have great wealth and their own "bank". It had little to do with actual Christianity. BTW remember Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, The kim family, Hirohito, Mussolini and a host of african and south American dictators? I guess they were all Christians. Or genocides in USA. Sandy Creek, The trail of tears I could go on. Again without looking up the figures I would think Hiroshima and Nagasaki would exceed the "christian" death toll.

Of course it is relevant in the context of your criticism. Just because you in find it irrelevant doesn't make it so.

I get you are not religious you have posted enough tedious repetitive little comments but you don't get to make the rules for everyone else.

And you need to get your biased head out of your arse. You are vying with Earl on piss drinking and seeking asylum on Brexit as the most repetitively boring c@%t on TD and that is a degree of difficulty I thought could not be surpassed.

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

Just because you in find it irrelevant doesn't make it so.

...certainly "it" does...for me anyway...

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

but you don't get to make the rules for everyone else.

...you mean, the way religions do, I assume...

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

And you need to get your biased head out of your arse

...*tsk*...you Christians are so-o-o nasty...

Originally Posted by bsnub

To me that is false equivalence. Religion has caused far more problems then it has solved in this world by far. It's misguided dogma to this day is still causing many to suffer. I will reserve my right to criticize and differentiate between someones beliefs when religion is involved. The sooner that mankind can shed that crutch the better for all of us.

Us meaning you. To some people it gives meaning to their lives, if so good on them. Neither you nor I have the right to tell others what they believe. Some find meaning in flag worship, patriotism etc. Not my ideal, but if it floats your boat.

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

I get you are not religious you have posted enough tedious repetitive little comments but you don't get to make the rules for everyone else.

And you need to get your biased head out of your arse.

Hugh does have a point here TC.

Christianity is is such a soft target. Getting all antsy pantsy flouncy pram toys about it as you frequently do feels a bit past its sell by date.

Religion in the west is a spent force.

The real target for religion baters/haters should be Islam. This religion presents a real and credible threat to global moral progressivism far more than watered down western Christianity does.

They throw gay fellas off tall buildings even today in many Islamic countries when western churches are marrying gay fellas.

Your repetitive anti-christian vitriol seems a bit mis-directed.

Originally Posted by Looper

Hugh does have a point here TC.

...disagree...

Originally Posted by Looper

Religion in the west is a spent force

...you obviously haven't spent time in the US...

Originally Posted by Looper

The real target for religion baters/haters should be Islam

...the real target is the need to control the lives of others...seems obvious to me...

Originally Posted by Looper

Your repetitive anti-christian vitriol seems a bit mis-directed

...my disagreement is with religions that seek to enforce their beliefs on others...any religion...

Originally Posted by tomcat

...the real target is the need to control the lives of others...seems obvious to me...

This is one of the problems with religion.

Religious people believe that an act can be morally wrong even if it harms no-one (which fails the first test of rational morality) and they believe that there is an omniscient god who will be offended even by goings on in private.

So they feel justified in prohibiting things which will offend their god.

But Islam's prohibitionism is 100 times worse than Christianity's. It really is straight from the 14th century.

What's more, significant proportions of supposedly 'moderate' Muslims profess to believe that atrocities like suicide bombings, while they would not do it themselves, are still 'justified in certain circumstances'.

The west is a morally progressive society and Christianity is allowed to live on as long as it keeps its head down and moderates its professions to fit in with the secular zeitgeist.

But Islam is an entirely different kettle of fish and is in its own premier league of angry resentful belligerent benighted backwardness. We should not be shy about calling out truly dangerous and offensive religious beliefs when they run so starkly counter to the moral progress that the world has made in recent decades and centuries.

Originally Posted by tomcat

...better to say it is morally diverse and leave it at that...

The moral stature of 21st century Western society is objectively better than that of any other civilisation in history.

It is more tolerant, inclusive, reverent of the importance of the individual, mature and fair in its political and judicial structures.

We live in the most morally sophisticated society in history.

This is not a relativistic statement. It is objectively and measurably true.

Originally Posted by tomcat

...again, take a swing through Iowa, Mississippi, Texas, South Carolina...you'll understand how uninformed this observation is...

There are areas of the US which have problems with Christian fundamentalism but the West is much bigger than the US. Western Europe, Canada, Australia and the NZ are global bastions of secular political liberalism. But even the US Christians prohibitionism pales in comparison with the rabid blood thirsty insanity of Islam.

Originally Posted by tomcat

...you do go on about Islam...

Christian fundamentalists may be opposed to such refined liberal ideas as gay marriage but those splitting-hairs objections are light years ahead of the brutal proscriptions commonly levelled at gay men in Islamic countries.

Why do you reserve all your vitriol for relatively benign Christianity and remain silent on the perniciously dangerous problem of Islam?

Originally Posted by Looper

Western Europe, Canada, Australia and the NZ are global bastions of secular political liberalism

they still have hangups - which are rooted in the priesthood

will be a generation or 2 yet until goat shagging will be acceptable

Originally Posted by baldrick

will be a generation or 2 yet until goat shagging will be acceptable

Shagging goats in the privacy of your own home is OK.

But marrying your goat in public will require a plebiscite for public approval and ratification and religious organisations and cake-makers will not be obliged to participate.

Originally Posted by tomcat

...if the religious would simply mind their own business, the world would be a better place...

TC, assuming you are in Thailand and assuming your Partner is Thai.

Given the prevalence for Thai's to practicing Buddhists, how you cope with your Partners belief system?

Originally Posted by David48atTD

how you cope with your Partners belief system?

...not a problem...SD doesn't insist I take part in the few religious rituals he performs (primarily ancestor worship activities practiced outside our home) and, because they don't in any way affect my life, I don't bring up my disbelief beyond a simple curiosity...works well for us...

Dear Looper
Although I find your religious arguments persuasive, they do seem limited to generalizations. Probably required for the brevity demanded by this format.
Worth mentioning that there are good and bad folk in Christianity and within the Islamic faith.
Despite beind raised in the Christian west, I have lived and worked in disparate Muslim countries. I have developed the view that religion is anachronistic and way past it’s sell by date.
it does provide the glue lacking in some societies and cultures. We really should find a moral framework outside religious beliefs to which we might find better adhesion.
All religions have divided beliefs even under the singular faith they purport to follow

Its not quite as clear cut as you and TC seem to think it is. On the whole, you are on the right track though.

Originally Posted by Switch

they do seem limited to generalizations

...agree: perhaps refined to poorly informed generalizations...

Originally Posted by Switch

Probably required for the brevity demanded by this format.

...I suspect it is due to the brevity of his thinking process...

Originally Posted by Switch

it does provide the glue lacking in some societies and cultures

...glue is apt...humans are beginning to see the need for a different social contract...

Originally Posted by Switch

We really should find a moral framework outside religious beliefs to which we might find better adhesion.

...agree...the oppressing minorities framework is a proven failure...

Originally Posted by Switch

Its not quite as clear cut as you and TC seem to think it is

...disagree: "it" is as clear cut as I think "it" is: stop religious adherents from insisting others must live as they do...

Originally Posted by Switch

We really should find a moral framework outside religious beliefs to which we might find better adhesion.

Humanism and its rational approach to weighing moral right and wrong is only way forward for an intelligent species such as ourselves.

Superstitious religion is inevitably doomed to go the way of the dinosaurs as rational humanism is the only way for a global agreement on ethics to be reached.

While we are pressing for that to happen it is certainly possible to objectively weigh the moral shortcomings of the various religions and measure them against each other.

Islam takes the Jules Rimet trophy for moral retrogression not by a small measure but by a country mile. The competition does not even have a look in.

While we are in the process of actively dismantling religion we have to be honest about calling out the major criminals and not cower behind politically driven fear of causing cultural offence.

Superstitious religious beliefs have to be put to bed and the worst religion on the planet (by far) deserves the most attention.

Originally Posted by Switch

I have developed the view that religion is anachronistic and way past it’s sell by date.

Hear Hear!!!

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

To some people it gives meaning to their lives, if so good on them.

Clinging to imaginary beings in the sky is not healthy in my eyes. Perhaps education could better help assuage their fears. After all it is fear that keeps most clinging to dogma.

Originally Posted by Looper

it is certainly possible to objectively weigh the moral shortcomings of the various religions

...and who is so unburdened by a particular human culture that his/her/its opinions are completely objective?...nominations, please...

Originally Posted by tomcat

...and who is so unburdened by a particular human culture that his/her/its opinions are completely objective?

If you don't think it is possible to objectively measure the moral worth of any particular behaviour then you are not a moral rationalist you are a moral relativist.

Moral relativists are apologists for the worst crimes committed in the name of religion.

Moral rationalists can (through reflection, discussion, rational discourse and enlightened agreement) work out what is right and wrong by a measure of the positive and negative impact on the sentient creatures upon whom the action has an effect.

Right and wrong is not culturally relative it is objectively measurable.

The ongoing frequent killing of gay men in Islamic countries is morally reprehensible in absolute terms because being gay is just the way some men are and being gay does no-one any harm.

Honour killings of raped girls by their fathers and brothers are morally reprehensible in absolute objective terms because a raped woman deserves consoling and comfort not execution.

Acid attacks and organised judicial rape of women who have consorted socially with the 'wrong' men from the wrong village is wrong in absolute non-culturally-relative terms.

The supposed mitigations that the men who commit these crimes come from 'cultures' where they are conditioned to behave in these ways is embarrassing moral relativism in its most repugnant form.

Originally Posted by tomcat

....nominations, please...

We as intelligent humans are intellectually qualified to decide what is right and wrong and it is not culturally relative.

Originally Posted by Looper

We as intelligent humans are intellectually qualified to decide what is right and wrong and it is not culturally relative

......

If you don't agree then how do you define the very concepts of right and wrong?

How do you think you know what is right and what is wrong?

It is either from a divine source which we seem to agree it is not or else it is from human intellectual enquiry and agreement.

If you agree with me that it is wrong for gay men to be killed in Islamic countries why do you think that is true?

As soon as you respond we are engaging in rational discourse and therefore you are implicitly agreeing with me that right and wrong are can be apprehended through rational enquiry.