Americans apparantly hate atheists

#251 Posted by musicalmac (23358 posts) -

@HoolaHoopMan said:

Because it makes absolutely no sense. It seems rather odd that an omnipotent being uses a process with takes a staggeringly long time and leaves useless and energy intensive design flaws.

'Guided evolution' is merely religion trying to conform with modern knowledge with out making a lick of sense.

Perhaps what is staggeringly long to you isn't quite so staggeringly long to an omnipotent being. Had you considered that? You also discuss useless, energy intensive design flaws. What specifically are you citing?

#252 Posted by br0kenrabbit (13359 posts) -

@musicalmac said:


What I don't understand is why evolution doesn't fit in with God crafting man in his image, nor how it fails to fit within the timeline of the Bible. Can you elaborate on those points?

I have a question.

Most Christians believe that only man has a soul (yeah back to that whole conversation again about soul/nephesh not meaning what people think it does, but we're talking about their beliefs here, not fact). Animals and such they claim do not.

So if man evolved from something lesser, who was the first man to have a soul, and why didn't his parents have one?

#253 Posted by br0kenrabbit (13359 posts) -

@musicalmac said:

Perhaps what is staggeringly long to you isn't quite so staggeringly long to an omnipotent being. Had you considered that? You also discuss useless, energy intensive design flaws. What specifically are you citing?

Human Endogenous Retroviruses? Look it up. ;-)

#254 Posted by musicalmac (23358 posts) -

@br0kenrabbit said:

Ignorance of the established scientific facts?

Ha, sure. I wasn't actually asking a loaded question. I was just curious how to interpret that open ended phrase.

#255 Edited by musicalmac (23358 posts) -

@br0kenrabbit said:

I have a question.

Most Christians believe that only man has a soul (yeah back to that whole conversation again about soul/nephesh not meaning what people think it does, but we're talking about their beliefs here, not fact). Animals and such they claim do not.

So if man evolved from something lesser, who was the first man to have a soul, and why didn't his parents have one?

I'm sorry that I won't have a great answer for you here. There are a few ways to look at this, and some other things to consider. I can't claim to know who or what does and doesn't have a soul.

When my dogs look at me with sadness when I leave, and get really excited to see me when I get home, I struggle with the idea that they're soulless creatures. The idea that you will be reunited with loved ones in "Heaven" makes me consider the idea that perhaps that extends beyond that of your human connections.

I've always found the idea that "the chair is God" compelling. If God created everything, perhaps that means in one way everything has a soul, even if it's not in the traditional sense. In this scenario, perhaps even the tree you sat under as a child is returned to you in death. Perhaps that's not right, but it's what I find particularly appealing, truth be told.

I'm afraid that's the best I can do for you.

EDIT: I struggle with broad generalizations, largely because the atmosphere in which I grew up had a portion of the Christians you classified above, and a larger portion of Christians that do not fall within your classification.

#256 Edited by br0kenrabbit (13359 posts) -

@musicalmac said:

I'm sorry that I won't have a great answer for you here. There are a few ways to look at this, and some other things to consider. I can't claim to know who or what does and doesn't have a soul.

When my dogs look at me with sadness when I leave, and get really excited to see me when I get home, I struggle with the idea that they're soulless creatures. The idea that you will be reunited with loved ones in "Heaven" makes me consider the idea that perhaps that extends beyond that of your human connections.

I've always found the idea that "the chair is God" compelling. If God created everything, perhaps that means in one way everything has a soul, even if it's not in the traditional sense. In this scenario, perhaps even the tree you sat under as a child is returned to you in death. Perhaps that's not right, but it's what I find particularly appealing, truth be told.

I'm afraid that's the best I can do for you.

Fair enough.

FYI, the first four uses of the word nephesh in Genesis 1 relate to animals and is translated as living beasts/creatures/things. Only when it comes to man is the same word translated as 'soul'. So you're pretty much onto that, you just haven't made that final turn. ;-)

#257 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

@musicalmac said:

@HoolaHoopMan said:

Because it makes absolutely no sense. It seems rather odd that an omnipotent being uses a process with takes a staggeringly long time and leaves useless and energy intensive design flaws.

'Guided evolution' is merely religion trying to conform with modern knowledge with out making a lick of sense.

Perhaps what is staggeringly long to you isn't quite so staggeringly long to an omnipotent being. Had you considered that? You also discuss useless, energy intensive design flaws. What specifically are you citing?

If you're going to ascribe omnipotence to this entity then something really doesn't make sense, at least to me. If god really does have qualities like infinite power and infinite intelligence then there is literally no difference between human intelligence and generalized human "greatness" and the intelligence of a rock in relation to God in the same way that a googol googolplex's is no closer to infinity than 1 is. Who's to say that this was all made with us in mind? We just arrived onto the scene whereas other organisms have been living here for much much much much much much longer. As Neil DeGrasse Tyson has said, if an alien species were to come to earth they'd be perfectly justified in concluding that earth is the planet of the tardigrades.

#258 Posted by musicalmac (23358 posts) -

@br0kenrabbit said:

@musicalmac said:

I'm sorry that I won't have a great answer for you here. There are a few ways to look at this, and some other things to consider. I can't claim to know who or what does and doesn't have a soul.

When my dogs look at me with sadness when I leave, and get really excited to see me when I get home, I struggle with the idea that they're soulless creatures. The idea that you will be reunited with loved ones in "Heaven" makes me consider the idea that perhaps that extends beyond that of your human connections.

I've always found the idea that "the chair is God" compelling. If God created everything, perhaps that means in one way everything has a soul, even if it's not in the traditional sense. In this scenario, perhaps even the tree you sat under as a child is returned to you in death. Perhaps that's not right, but it's what I find particularly appealing, truth be told.

I'm afraid that's the best I can do for you.

Fair enough.

FYI, the first four uses of the word nephesh in Genesis 1 relate to animals and is translated as living beasts/creatures/things. Only when it comes to man is the same word translated as 'soul'. So you're pretty much onto that, you just haven't made that final turn. ;-)

Actually, that precisely is one reason why I find that interpretation ("the chair is God") compelling, though I can't claim to know whether or not that is exactly correct.

#259 Posted by br0kenrabbit (13359 posts) -

@musicalmac said:

Actually, that precisely is one reason why I find that interpretation ("the chair is God") compelling, though I can't claim to know whether or not that is exactly correct.

I see.

It's a compelling theistic argument which has an analogy in physics in that energy and matter are equivalent. Basically: everything that exists be it matter or energy are just different expressions of the same thing.

#260 Edited by musicalmac (23358 posts) -

@br0kenrabbit said:

I see.

It's a compelling theistic argument which has an analogy in physics in that energy and matter are equivalent. Basically: everything that exists be it matter or energy are just different expressions of the same thing.

If elements such as sodium and chlorine can come together to make food more delicious, who knows what's possible. ;)

#261 Posted by Newhopes (4655 posts) -

I hate religion so that puts us on a equal footing.

#262 Posted by always_explicit (3041 posts) -

This is why I dislike religion. Often if segregates and excludes as much as it bonds and welcomes. If religion doesnt welcome people what hope does it have.

#263 Posted by musicalmac (23358 posts) -

@always_explicit: @Newhopes: Both of those replies are incredibly generic to the point of being meaningless.

Think of religion almost like you'd think of a video game. Maybe one person enjoys the welcoming and accessible church of the regenerating health status, while another individuals enjoys the purity of the church of the health pack.

The existence of regenerating health bars doesn't erase the existence of (or wholly disqualify) games that require you to pick up health packs to regain life.

#264 Posted by always_explicit (3041 posts) -

@musicalmac said:

@always_explicit: @Newhopes: Both of those replies are incredibly generic to the point of being meaningless.

Think of religion almost like you'd think of a video game. Maybe one person enjoys the welcoming and accessible church of the regenerating health status, while another individuals enjoys the purity of the church of the health pack.

The existence of regenerating health bars doesn't erase the existence of (or wholly disqualify) games that require you to pick up health packs to regain life.

Thats a great analogy and I enjoyed your post. Iv'e just always had the thought process that if I was born on a desert island with no church, no texts, no music and no religious imput then God would have no choice but to find me or allow me to find him through some other medium. Therefore I should be able to continue my existence without any form of religious media and still be able to access God. I dont dislike religion but I do dislike the industry that thrives off of it. I want no part of it.

It hasnt happened thus far but I am open to the idea.

#265 Edited by musicalmac (23358 posts) -

@always_explicit said:

@musicalmac said:

@always_explicit: @Newhopes: Both of those replies are incredibly generic to the point of being meaningless.

Think of religion almost like you'd think of a video game. Maybe one person enjoys the welcoming and accessible church of the regenerating health status, while another individuals enjoys the purity of the church of the health pack.

The existence of regenerating health bars doesn't erase the existence of (or wholly disqualify) games that require you to pick up health packs to regain life.

Thats a great analogy and I enjoyed your post. Iv'e just always had the thought process that if I was born on a desert island with no church, no texts, no music and no religious imput then God would have no choice but to find me or allow me to find him through some other medium. Therefore I should be able to continue my existence without any form of religious media and still be able to access God. I dont dislike religion but I do dislike the industry that thrives off of it. I want no part of it.

It hasnt happened thus far but I am open to the idea.

Fascinating line of thinking, truly.

In that spirit, I actively avoid the big religious media outlets that ("700" Club, for example). I think it's also important to imagine religion not as something that you do, but rather something that you live. An individual's example is far more powerful than his word.

It's also damaging to look at religion (or to portray religion) as a destination and not as a journey, that's my opinion. I think it's healthier to look at it as a journey of mutual discovery (you and whatever power you're actively seeking) full of as many questions as you can ask. At points along the way, you should find yourself coming to conclusions that feel natural or intuitive, even if some decisions you make may be difficult.

That's my outlook, at least.

#266 Posted by always_explicit (3041 posts) -

I do believe the concept of a journey is of far more benefit to the individual and to others than those who see religion as just a means to tick the boxes to get in to heaven. I try to lead a good life and would never cause harm to other. I do often struggle with my own journey and remain a sucker for temptation however awareness of our faults is the first step towards changing them :P

@musicalmac Im glad you have found something you can live with! Its important.

#267 Posted by musicalmac (23358 posts) -

@always_explicit said:

I do believe the concept of a journey is of far more benefit to the individual and to others than those who see religion as just a means to tick the boxes to get in to heaven. I try to lead a good life and would never cause harm to other. I do often struggle with my own journey and remain a sucker for temptation however awareness of our faults is the first step towards changing them :P

@musicalmac Im glad you have found something you can live with! Its important.

Well, I'm in no position to judge.

#268 Posted by bowchicka07 (1104 posts) -

I see more material with atheists trying to disapprove religion than I do christians and etc. trying to prove their religion.

On another note I also hear more about christian giving back to society through mission trips, charity and community outreach etc.

I'm an american and don't hate atheists at all really. I just tend to have more respect for people whose belief is inspires them to do selfless things.

All in all I just wish more people didn't judge.

#269 Posted by br0kenrabbit (13359 posts) -
@bowchicka07 said:

I see more material with atheists trying to disapprove religion than I do christians and etc. trying to prove their religion.

On another note I also hear more about christian giving back to society through mission trips, charity and community outreach etc.

I'm an american and don't hate atheists at all really. I just tend to have more respect for people whose belief is inspires them to do selfless things.

All in all I just wish more people didn't judge.

Myself and all my atheist friends do volunteer work. I also came across this:

… The study found that 65% of religiously-affiliated people donate to congregations or charitable organizations. (More on that statistic later.) 80% of Americans are religiously affiliated. And 65% of 80% is just about… 55% of the total. In other words, the religious people who are giving say they’re giving because of religion. And they’re overwhelmingly giving to religion as well.

Probably the most notable statistics, though, are those which compare religious and non-religious philanthropy. Religion is supposed to make us better people, which includes, I assume, being more generous. So, is it the case that religious people give more generously than the non-religious?

Well, yes and no. Remember that statistic, that 65% of religious people donate to charity? The non-religious figure is 56%. But according to the study, the entire 9% difference is attributed to religious giving to congregations and religious organizations. So, yes, religion causes people to give more — to religion itself.

#270 Edited by EPICCOMMANDER (743 posts) -
@br0kenrabbit said:

Yep, but you're missing the bigger picture. All evidence suggests that the monotheists were the revolutionaries. Schisms in religion are hardly ever quite.

As evidence, both El and Yahweh preexisted as members of the Canaanite pantheon. El, father of the Gods, Yahweh the storm/war God (as he is often depicted in the OT). The 'Kenite hypothesis' is pretty much accepted. Here's the wiki quip on the subject for brevity:

Early worship of Yahweh likely originated in southern Canaan during the Late Bronze Age.[14] It is probable that Yahu or Yahweh was worshipped in southern Canaan (Edom, Moab, Midian) from the 14th century BCE, and that this cult was transmitted northwards due to the Kenites. This "Kenite hypothesis" was originally suggested by Cornelius Tiele in 1872 and remains the standard view among modern scholars.[15]

In its classical form suggested by Tiele, the "Kenite hypothesis" assumes that Moses was a historical Midianite who brought the cult of Yahweh north to Israel. This idea is based on an old tradition (recorded in Judges 1:16, 4:11) that Moses' father-in-law was a Midianite priest of Yahweh, as it were preserving a memory of the Midianite origin of the god. According to Exodus 2, however, Moses was not a Midianite himself, but a Hebrew from the tribe of Levi. While the role of the Kenites in the transmission of the cult is widely accepted, the historical role of Moses finds less support in modern scholarship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh_%28Canaanite_deity%29#Origins

Well it doesn't explain why Yahweh was inevitably worshipped without the use of an idol when every other religion in the area used one, so I would ask what caused the change in worship-a change that was so significant, idol worship is, again, referred to as desecrating the temple of Yahweh numerous times in the Old Testament. It also makes the whole Elijah event seem absurd if the Baal worshipers and Elijah were praying to same pantheon of gods, yet only when Elijah prayed did anything happen, which does not make any sense.

You would have to ignore these things to believe this.

#271 Edited by br0kenrabbit (13359 posts) -

@EPICCOMMANDER said:

Well it doesn't explain why Yahweh was inevitably worshipped without the use of an idol when every other religion in the area used one, so I would ask what caused the change in worship-a change that was so significant, idol worship is, again, referred to as desecrating the temple of Yahweh numerous times in the Old Testament. It also makes the whole Elijah event seem absurd if the Baal worshipers and Elijah were praying to same pantheon of gods, yet only when Elijah prayed did anything happen, which does not make any sense.

You would have to ignore these things to believe this.

Or, you know, the Elijah thing is complete fiction.

And again, the religion developed into what it is now. The stories as they are written were oral history long before they were recorded, and you know how oral history goes.

And Yahweh did have an associated idol: The Ark.

Even before that, Yahweh was freely depicted in imagery:

Edit: The letters above are placed differently than below, the Y is to the left of the figures head above. I couldn't find a good quality pic of the coin below, but they're both from the same period.

#272 Posted by whipassmt (14265 posts) -

Most Americans are Christians or otherwise believe in God. I don't think your survey shows people "hating" atheists, it just shows that parents of believers would prefer their children not to marry an atheist. My guess is that a big reason that these people don't want their kid marrying an atheist is because they fear having an atheist spouse could make it harder for the believing spouse to raise the children in accordance with their religious beliefs.

Also as others have pointed out the small number of vocal atheists who mock and disrespect the religious beliefs of others can contribute to anti-atheist sentiment in a way that is unfair to most atheists.

#273 Posted by EPICCOMMANDER (743 posts) -
@br0kenrabbit said:

Or, you know, the Elijah thing is complete fiction.

Lol ! Heh heh, to be fair though, you yourself presented several verses from the Bible as evidence for your argument, so it seems contradictory to nitpick which things you find to be true and which you don't and is kind of close to a fallacy in that regard.

I also pretty much entirely disagree that the oral traditions changed at all over time as the later books of the Bible attest to the earlier books canonical authority, among many other reasons, but that's a whole other entire discussion and I don't want to get into that.

As for the rest of what you are saying, I'm not knowledgable enough to discuss any of that, so I'll just end my involvement in this discussion by saying I still disagree they are the same god, but I'm too lazy to keep going with this discussion.

#274 Edited by br0kenrabbit (13359 posts) -

@EPICCOMMANDER said:
@br0kenrabbit said:

Or, you know, the Elijah thing is complete fiction.

Lol ! Heh heh, to be fair though, you yourself presented several verses from the Bible as evidence for your argument, so it seems contradictory to nitpick which things you find to be true and which you don't and is kind of close to a fallacy in that regard.

I also pretty much entirely disagree that the oral traditions changed at all over time as the later books of the Bible attest to the earlier books canonical authority, among many other reasons, but that's a whole other entire discussion and I don't want to get into that.

As for the rest of what you are saying, I'm not knowledgable enough to discuss any of that, so I'll just end my involvement in this discussion by saying I still disagree they are the same god, but I'm too lazy to keep going with this discussion.

My quoting the text of the Torah was to show the evolution of the religion, not to confirm its authenticity. And lol later authors said "yeah, these earlier stories are true" does not make them true.

Edit: I fixed the first image above, it didn't show up at first for some reason. It'll give you more insight into the panel in question.

#275 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7865 posts) -

@musicalmac said:

@HoolaHoopMan said:

Because it makes absolutely no sense. It seems rather odd that an omnipotent being uses a process with takes a staggeringly long time and leaves useless and energy intensive design flaws.

'Guided evolution' is merely religion trying to conform with modern knowledge with out making a lick of sense.

Perhaps what is staggeringly long to you isn't quite so staggeringly long to an omnipotent being. Had you considered that? You also discuss useless, energy intensive design flaws. What specifically are you citing?

I'm citing the number of human vestigial traits. There are myriads of evolution dead ends left in the human body. I'd expect more from an omnipotent creator.

#276 Posted by The_Last_Ride (74019 posts) -

@br0kenrabbit said:

@musicalmac said:
@The_Last_Ride said:

Religious people can't understand that sadly. When christians claim that the earth is 5000 years old it is very telling

Very telling of what?

Ignorance of the established scientific facts?

Thank you, if you don't trust science when it's telling you the truth and still deny it. It is telling

#277 Posted by GazaAli (23524 posts) -

@sSubZerOo said:

@GazaAli said:

What is discriminatory about this? Aren't people entitled to personal preferences anymore?

... People need to understand how the first amendment works within the United States.. Specifically neo-cons who are indeed prejudice.. You can have your opinion, and you are free to state it.. Your not going to be imprisoned for it, but in turn people have the right to tell you how full of sh!t you are.. This constant play on the "victim" card as of late that people with prejudices are some how "victims" is fvcking absurd, and they clearly don't understand how the first amendment works.. If people can't handle criticism by stating a opinion, than you shouldn't be stating it loud.. Don't get me wrong I have seen this sh!t even on the left, but it seems to be extremely prevalent right now on the conservative side of politics..

What you're stating may apply to matters pertaining to public life, although it is worth mentioning that unsparing rebuke and the threat of alienation and marginalization that usually follow are real and potent forms of suppression.

With that said however, what you're stating does not have any bearing to matters strictly pertaining to personal life. Discrimination is inimical to society and it constitutes injustice rather unequivocally. But we're entitled to freely "discriminate" in our personal lives and it is through that discrimination that we have personal preferences. Even if that personal discrimination is prejudicial, undesirable, unrighteous and/or wicked and we would all like to see it go away, we really can't shove enlightenment down people's throats. What started as a desire for tolerance and progressiveness would inevitably end as tyranny and totalitarianism.

So let me ask you this: is not feeling attracted to black women and thus abstaining from dating or getting romantically involved with them tantamount to racism? Because the way I see it is that the subject matter of this topic and that example are two sides of the exact same coin.

#278 Posted by -TheSecondSign- (9228 posts) -

People opt to spend the rest of their lives with someone who shares the same faith.


I don't see the problem with this. If religion was that important to her, I wouldn't really enjoy being with her anyway because I'd have to listen to a bunch of stuff that doesn't interest me at all.

#279 Posted by The_Last_Ride (74019 posts) -

@-TheSecondSign- said:

People opt to spend the rest of their lives with someone who shares the same faith.

I don't see the problem with this. If religion was that important to her, I wouldn't really enjoy being with her anyway because I'd have to listen to a bunch of stuff that doesn't interest me at all.

There are loads of people that come together with different faiths, so i don't see the issue

#280 Edited by sSubZerOo (43609 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

@sSubZerOo said:

@GazaAli said:

What is discriminatory about this? Aren't people entitled to personal preferences anymore?

... People need to understand how the first amendment works within the United States.. Specifically neo-cons who are indeed prejudice.. You can have your opinion, and you are free to state it.. Your not going to be imprisoned for it, but in turn people have the right to tell you how full of sh!t you are.. This constant play on the "victim" card as of late that people with prejudices are some how "victims" is fvcking absurd, and they clearly don't understand how the first amendment works.. If people can't handle criticism by stating a opinion, than you shouldn't be stating it loud.. Don't get me wrong I have seen this sh!t even on the left, but it seems to be extremely prevalent right now on the conservative side of politics..

What you're stating may apply to matters pertaining to public life, although it is worth mentioning that unsparing rebuke and the threat of alienation and marginalization that usually follow are real and potent forms of suppression.

With that said however, what you're stating does not have any bearing to matters strictly pertaining to personal life. Discrimination is inimical to society and it constitutes injustice rather unequivocally. But we're entitled to freely "discriminate" in our personal lives and it is through that discrimination that we have personal preferences. Even if that personal discrimination is prejudicial, undesirable, unrighteous and/or wicked and we would all like to see it go away, we really can't shove enlightenment down people's throats. What started as a desire for tolerance and progressiveness would inevitably end as tyranny and totalitarianism.

So let me ask you this: is not feeling attracted to black women and thus abstaining from dating or getting romantically involved with them tantamount to racism? Because the way I see it is that the subject matter of this topic and that example are two sides of the exact same coin.

That's just it, no one is shoving anything down any one's throat.. This isn't some "new" thing.. Its the fact that the said prejudicial view points are NOW the focal point of criticism.. When in fact decades earlier it was the other way around.. Bigots feel like they are the victims now because they can't say sh!t about homosexuals for instance any more with impunity.. The way I see it, if you can't handle receiving your own medicine, stfu. Because this isn't some new "phase" this exact same sh!t happened prior to this but it was in the bigots favor... This isn't suggesting your a bigot, I really could care less.. But this is pointing out that if your going to have a PUBLIC opinion, then don't be shocked when some one is critical of it..

#281 Posted by GazaAli (23524 posts) -

@sSubZerOo said:

@GazaAli said:

@sSubZerOo said:

@GazaAli said:

What is discriminatory about this? Aren't people entitled to personal preferences anymore?

... People need to understand how the first amendment works within the United States.. Specifically neo-cons who are indeed prejudice.. You can have your opinion, and you are free to state it.. Your not going to be imprisoned for it, but in turn people have the right to tell you how full of sh!t you are.. This constant play on the "victim" card as of late that people with prejudices are some how "victims" is fvcking absurd, and they clearly don't understand how the first amendment works.. If people can't handle criticism by stating a opinion, than you shouldn't be stating it loud.. Don't get me wrong I have seen this sh!t even on the left, but it seems to be extremely prevalent right now on the conservative side of politics..

What you're stating may apply to matters pertaining to public life, although it is worth mentioning that unsparing rebuke and the threat of alienation and marginalization that usually follow are real and potent forms of suppression.

With that said however, what you're stating does not have any bearing to matters strictly pertaining to personal life. Discrimination is inimical to society and it constitutes injustice rather unequivocally. But we're entitled to freely "discriminate" in our personal lives and it is through that discrimination that we have personal preferences. Even if that personal discrimination is prejudicial, undesirable, unrighteous and/or wicked and we would all like to see it go away, we really can't shove enlightenment down people's throats. What started as a desire for tolerance and progressiveness would inevitably end as tyranny and totalitarianism.

So let me ask you this: is not feeling attracted to black women and thus abstaining from dating or getting romantically involved with them tantamount to racism? Because the way I see it is that the subject matter of this topic and that example are two sides of the exact same coin.

That's just it, no one is shoving anything down any one's throat.. This isn't some "new" thing.. Its the fact that the said prejudicial view points are NOW the focal point of criticism.. When in fact decades earlier it was the other way around.. Bigots feel like they are the victims now because they can't say sh!t about homosexuals for instance any more with impunity.. The way I see it, if you can't handle receiving your own medicine, stfu. Because this isn't some new "phase" this exact same sh!t happened prior to this but it was in the bigots favor... This isn't suggesting your a bigot, I really could care less.. But this is pointing out that if your going to have a PUBLIC opinion, then don't be shocked when some one is critical of it..

To tell you the truth I usually don't give two fucks about being the target of rebuke and unwarranted flak for stating an unpopular opinion or point of view. If that was not the case I wouldn't have managed to stay and post here whenever I feel like it. I guess we'll agree to disagree on this one. I personally can't comprehend why someone would be criticized, condemned and accused of prejudice and bigotry for a personal preference. Its irrational and prejudicial itself. Stating a personal preference is NOT a public opinion as it does not pertain to public life.

To address what you said about bigots, if a society wants to make claims of liberty and freedom of speech and action, all of its members should be granted the right to say whatever they want with impunity, so long as they are not enticing violence or undermining national security. Such a society would not be able to cherrypick what is and what is not allowed to be said. And before you tell me that everyone is free to say whatever they want but they should be ready to endure the repercussions of their unpopular opinions, let me tell you that liberty is about the free exercise of one's faculties without tampering with them or attempting to undermine such liberty one way or the other. Unsparing criticism, public disparagement and derision, slander and defamation and the threat of alienation from and marginalization in social life are all valid and legitimate forms of persecution and oppression. These are the same forms of persecution and oppression that certain social groups, such as LGBT group, have suffered from in the past and have received emancipation and public support as a result of that suffering and torment.

Now, let me reiterate the statement that the aforementioned applies to a society that makes claims of absolute and unalienable/unalterable liberty and freedoms. You can't attempt to have your cake and eat it by making such claims then practicing prejudices and intimidation on those whom you don't agree with. That would constitute hypocrisy and duplicity. I personally do not believe in absolute liberty and believe that freedom of speech must have clear and rigid limits. In fact, what is happening in those societies that make such claims and are overwhelmingly socially liberal is an evidence of the impossibility of absolute liberty and freedoms.

#282 Posted by dave123321 (34306 posts) -

Never liked the don't be bigots to bigots line of argument

#283 Posted by sSubZerOo (43609 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

@sSubZerOo said:

@GazaAli said:

@sSubZerOo said:

@GazaAli said:

What is discriminatory about this? Aren't people entitled to personal preferences anymore?

... People need to understand how the first amendment works within the United States.. Specifically neo-cons who are indeed prejudice.. You can have your opinion, and you are free to state it.. Your not going to be imprisoned for it, but in turn people have the right to tell you how full of sh!t you are.. This constant play on the "victim" card as of late that people with prejudices are some how "victims" is fvcking absurd, and they clearly don't understand how the first amendment works.. If people can't handle criticism by stating a opinion, than you shouldn't be stating it loud.. Don't get me wrong I have seen this sh!t even on the left, but it seems to be extremely prevalent right now on the conservative side of politics..

What you're stating may apply to matters pertaining to public life, although it is worth mentioning that unsparing rebuke and the threat of alienation and marginalization that usually follow are real and potent forms of suppression.

With that said however, what you're stating does not have any bearing to matters strictly pertaining to personal life. Discrimination is inimical to society and it constitutes injustice rather unequivocally. But we're entitled to freely "discriminate" in our personal lives and it is through that discrimination that we have personal preferences. Even if that personal discrimination is prejudicial, undesirable, unrighteous and/or wicked and we would all like to see it go away, we really can't shove enlightenment down people's throats. What started as a desire for tolerance and progressiveness would inevitably end as tyranny and totalitarianism.

So let me ask you this: is not feeling attracted to black women and thus abstaining from dating or getting romantically involved with them tantamount to racism? Because the way I see it is that the subject matter of this topic and that example are two sides of the exact same coin.

That's just it, no one is shoving anything down any one's throat.. This isn't some "new" thing.. Its the fact that the said prejudicial view points are NOW the focal point of criticism.. When in fact decades earlier it was the other way around.. Bigots feel like they are the victims now because they can't say sh!t about homosexuals for instance any more with impunity.. The way I see it, if you can't handle receiving your own medicine, stfu. Because this isn't some new "phase" this exact same sh!t happened prior to this but it was in the bigots favor... This isn't suggesting your a bigot, I really could care less.. But this is pointing out that if your going to have a PUBLIC opinion, then don't be shocked when some one is critical of it..

To tell you the truth I usually don't give two fucks about being the target of rebuke and unwarranted flak for stating an unpopular opinion or point of view. If that was not the case I wouldn't have managed to stay and post here whenever I feel like it. I guess we'll agree to disagree on this one. I personally can't comprehend why someone would be criticized, condemned and accused of prejudice and bigotry for a personal preference. Its irrational and prejudicial itself. Stating a personal preference is NOT a public opinion as it does not pertain to public life.

To address what you said about bigots, if a society wants to make claims of liberty and freedom of speech and action, all of its members should be granted the right to say whatever they want with impunity, so long as they are not enticing violence or undermining national security. Such a society would not be able to cherrypick what is and what is not allowed to be said. And before you tell me that everyone is free to say whatever they want but they should be ready to endure the repercussions of their unpopular opinions, let me tell you that liberty is about the free exercise of one's faculties without tampering with them or attempting to undermine such liberty one way or the other. Unsparing criticism, public disparagement and derision, slander and defamation and the threat of alienation from and marginalization in social life are all valid and legitimate forms of persecution and oppression. These are the same forms of persecution and oppression that certain social groups, such as LGBT group, have suffered from in the past and have received emancipation and public support as a result of that suffering and torment.

Now, let me reiterate the statement that the aforementioned applies to a society that makes claims of absolute and unalienable/unalterable liberty and freedoms. You can't attempt to have your cake and eat it by making such claims then practicing prejudices and intimidation on those whom you don't agree with. That would constitute hypocrisy and duplicity. I personally do not believe in absolute liberty and believe that freedom of speech must have clear and rigid limits. In fact, what is happening in those societies that make such claims and are overwhelmingly socially liberal is an evidence of the impossibility of absolute liberty and freedoms.

Yet again you seem to be confusing what the true meaning of liberty and what the first amendment does in the United States.. Your free to have your opinion, and to state it.. Your not going to be imprisoned for it, your not going to be punished by the government for it, or taxed etc etc.. But at the very same time I can practice my right to speech as well and call you out on your sh!t.... What your basically arguing is you can hold your ideals above others and suggest you are some how above being criticized.. Your not.. Your not protected from it.. Just like I am not protected by criticism when I state my opinion.. And I am sorry but even REMOTELY comparing this to the kind of treatment gays got through out history is utter bullsh!t.. And furthermore it is has always been this way within society. Say something crazy.. Your going to be ostracized for it.. Just like you would be 50 years ago.. Could you imagine what would happen to a public figure in the 1950s within the United States that spoke in support of Gays?

I support your right to state your opinion, but that doesn't stop me from telling you from how fvcking stupid your opinion is..

#284 Posted by sSubZerOo (43609 posts) -

@dave123321 said:

Never liked the don't be bigots to bigots line of argument

That's because its bullsh!t line of thought that is morally bankrupt.. Where was this line of thought before this push of Gay rights for things like Nazi groups and the KKK? Oh that's right, there never was one, and they have never been defended in such a manner by such a large group of people.