Would you like to see the death of religion.

MooseJam

Yes, except for my religion.

who is counting the christians in china

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

MooseJam wrote: »

who is counting the christians in china

Various groups. Some are statistical surveys. There are also official figures.

Virtually all the religions have resurged in China after the Communist Party relaxed its opposition. A perfect example, really, of the futility of imposed "atheism".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Conar

Yes - through natural causes

According to that BBC website there's possibly 40 million Christians there now, but thats still less than 3%.
Thats not to say that its not still a sizeable increase though.

The government say there's only 16 million Christians there now though so I'm wondering who's figures were used for the 0.2%. If it was the government they could have been downplaying the numbers back then too.

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

Conar wrote: »

According to that BBC website there's possibly 40 million Christians there now, but thats still less than 3%.
Thats not to say that its not still a sizeable increase though.

The government say there's only 16 million Christians there now though so I'm wondering who's figures were used for the 0.2%. If it was the government they could have been downplaying the numbers back then too.

Back then it would have been unlikely that people would admit to being Christian (or any other than the state-approved religion). I certainly wouldn't bother arguing figures, since none of them are likely to be accurate except by luck.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Ok so you are capable of temporarily respecting those of religious persuasion and their beliefs. You are temporarily capabale of not being a facist.
why not push the boundries and try to respect them a little bit more?
At least you'd be consistent.

Thats a pathetic and dim-witted argument even for you Tim.

As I have stated before:

There is a respect that is due to other human beings and lifeforms from the perspective of wishing that respect to be reciprocated and out of genuine ethical consideration. This does not extend to people irrational beliefs, politics, spirituality or assertions that James Blunt is a talented musician.

You are an unrepenting hypocrite.

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I regard your form of militant atheism as biggotted facism and you think it's rational critism. It's not. It's full of arguments by asertion, contradictions and unsubstantiated claims.

I think like all biggots, fear and insecurity is what drives you. Dig in to your heart and you'll find love.

I offered you a chance to get out of this one without looking like a complete fool but if you insist on it -

Your very position is hypocritical and shows that you are one the rather sickening people who pay lip-service to liberalism yet cannot abide anything unfamiliar or that you do not immediatly understand.

You have repeatedly deemed me a fascist for stating the following things;

1) I would welcome the death of religion (I never said I would kill it myself not did I describe the circumstances of its demise).

2) I do not believe that there should be any onus on anyone to show respect to beliefs which are irrational and unsupported by any evidence of any kind ever. I have never once suggested that people have no right to believe what they want, I am just saying that this concept of respecting beliefs regardless of their irrationality is bullsh1t.

3) That the concerns of the Teachers Union and the LGBT groups regarding the ethos clause are not "marginal" any more than these people are "marginal". You asserted that they are, and I would suggest that doing so is quite telling about your opinions regarding people whose sexual practices (or intellectual ones it seems) do not jive with your own.

My points are based on a rational approach to them. You cannot respect and accomodate a belief that says "all adherents of these religion drive ont he opposite side of the road to everyone else" - its not feasable and anyone with an ounce of intelligence would catagorise it as a bloody stupid belief that is detrimental to society and its adherents.

The same can be said of many of the things religions do from the indoctrination of youth into sectarian views, to the denial of evidence to the opposition to scientific advances that only improve the human experience (stem cell research, the human genome, contraception, abortion etc).

It is not a fear of religion that drives me, quite he contrary, it is a comprehension of the irrationality expressed as fact, evidence and truth by these groups that I find an affront (particularly when it is being forced upon the unwilling) and the glaring pseudo-liberalism of some who think that any opposition to anything remotely sacred - regardless of how irrational or daffy that sacrosancty is - is fascistic and those people should be stopped from talking. Nonsense, the demand that I admit I am wrong and adhere to your warped and confused understanding of liberalism is the real fascism here, the constant assertion that we have to be politically correct and accomodate the disturbed world view of others is one of the core aspects of fascism (see: Nazi Political Correctness and definition of fascism).

As for your "dig into your heart and you'll find love" - poppycock. dig into my heart and you ill find meat, the bundle of Hiss, blood, valves and cholesterol but you wont find "love" - or at least not the cynical definition you have of it - namely that we have to be nice to everyone regardless of how we feel.

In short, I stand by my argument and I have provided evidence. You have stuck your fingers in your ears and sang "la la la".

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Thats a pathetic and dim-witted argument even for you Tim.

Argument by assertion.

You are an unrepenting hypocrite.

A quote from yourself from a previous post:
"Now you are just getting personal Tim. felling the sinking feeling of a lost argument?"

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I don't see any point here. The Catholic Church for all it's faults has over 3 million members. Surely 3 million people are going to have some sort of influence in society. This begs the questions: what type of influence do they have and what type should they have?
Hivermind needs to develop the detail here..

I'm sure they will have an influence on society. Just as many people who believed that hte wrold is flat, that dinosaurs were on the boat with Noah and that stoning women to death for vague crimes like "inflaming the loins of men" are justifiable. We dont treat such things with any respect and we certainly dont allow them to influence public policy, yet, in some cases we do not see our way to eliminating the other superstitious nonsense. How long ago was it that homosexuality became legal? Why was it illegal? Abortion is another example of a religious law, it is based on the Church Doctrine and not on a secular rationalisation and scientific enquiry. The Good Friday drinking law.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Again what's the point here? Surely government officials are allowed to believe in the man upstairs? Surely instituitions such as Catholic schools have a right to protect their ethos? Why should they adopt Hivermind's ethos?

As for the dismissal of homosexuals of schools, approxiametly 4% of the population is homosexual. That's about 160,000 people. How many of them been kicked out of their school?.

Government officials can believe whatever they want personally, however their duty is to act in the best interests of society. If you have read our constitution you will notice that their is a number of contradictions regarding secularism and religion, many of the religious affirmations have been removed in favor of secular ones. We removed the Catholic churchs special position, yet, we are still not permitted freedom of speech in regards to blasphemy - a religiously influenced rule.

As for your assertions about homosexuals - this smacks of the "who cares about 'em" attitude. It is irrelevant how many have been dismissed, the fact is that because of this clause they must live in fear of the possibility, they must never reveal their sexuality and they must be extraordinarily careful that it not be made apparent to their employer. If this were the case in any other business there would be mass demonstrations. Are you saying you can tolerate a little intolerance in the law in exchange for a few bland words and lip service from the public?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Again I see no point here.
Many atheists are against abortion. Many theists are accepting of abortion.
Our state is entitled to vote whatever we want on this, we are not at the whip of any religion for any referendum. Religions are perfectly entitled to discuss and debate issues amongst its own members. That's democracy.
Don't forget the state went against the Catholic Church in the last divorce referendum even though the majority of its members were in the Catholic Church. This would be clear evidence that the CC is not controlling people or its members like robots.

The point is that the law itself is based on a fallacy of religious dogma, namely that all life is sacred. A fallacy that has been carried over into the humanist position as well I fear. The abortion law in Ireland reflects the religious position, it is the opinion of some that it should not be legalised, which robs those who believe it should be of their right to choose. There are clinics that lie about the realities of abortion based in dublin, one on Abbey street as far as I know - while they receive funding from the government. The HSE recently attempted to prevent a young woman from travelling because they believed she would have an abortion in a country where it is legal. Their position was over ruled because it was nonsensical. Just as the law restricting abortion is a nonsensical one based on the religious dogma of life being sacred.

As for the referendum, please dont make me laugh - bitterly. Referendums mean nothing in this country because if the government does not get he result it likes, it just runs another one and confuses the issue to get the desired result. I'm not goig to point out the example, you were here for it.

The truth is that the church exerets an inordinate ammount of control over the populace. They campaigned against abortion from a religious perspective and whether you want to believe it or not, won a large number of the votes over to their side with the arguement that boils down to "God said so". That is influencing public policy by influencing the population not by truth but by fear and authoritarian means.

You wouldnt let a criminal gang get away with those tactics, you would nt allow a fringe radical group to get away with them. Why allow a religion?

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Argument by assertion.

It is a personal opinion of you, which I thought was all right now since you started chucking eRocks earlier. It is an argument from personal experience.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

A quote from yourself from a previous post:
"Now you are just getting personal Tim. felling the sinking feeling of a lost argument?"

And your point is? Your arguments have been little more than hypocracy and fallacy. Throwing a quote from me into the ring as a last ditch attempt to undermine my position and grant your argument spurious legitimacy is really rather sad.

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote: »

I offered you a chance to get out of this one without looking like a complete fool but if you insist on it -

Your very position is hypocritical and shows that you are one the rather sickening people who pay lip-service to liberalism yet cannot abide anything unfamiliar or that you do not immediatly understand.

You have repeatedly deemed me a fascist for stating the following things;

1) I would welcome the death of religion (I never said I would kill it myself not did I describe the circumstances of its demise).

2) I do not believe that there should be any onus on anyone to show respect to beliefs which are irrational and unsupported by any evidence of any kind ever. I have never once suggested that people have no right to believe what they want, I am just saying that this concept of respecting beliefs regardless of their irrationality is bullsh1t.

3) That the concerns of the Teachers Union and the LGBT groups regarding the ethos clause are not "marginal" any more than these people are "marginal". You asserted that they are, and I would suggest that doing so is quite telling about your opinions regarding people whose sexual practices (or intellectual ones it seems) do not jive with your own.

My points are based on a rational approach to them. You cannot respect and accomodate a belief that says "all adherents of these religion drive ont he opposite side of the road to everyone else" - its not feasable and anyone with an ounce of intelligence would catagorise it as a bloody stupid belief that is detrimental to society and its adherents.

The same can be said of many of the things religions do from the indoctrination of youth into sectarian views, to the denial of evidence to the opposition to scientific advances that only improve the human experience (stem cell research, the human genome, contraception, abortion etc).

It is not a fear of religion that drives me, quite he contrary, it is a comprehension of the irrationality expressed as fact, evidence and truth by these groups that I find an affront (particularly when it is being forced upon the unwilling) and the glaring pseudo-liberalism of some who think that any opposition to anything remotely sacred - regardless of how irrational or daffy that sacrosancty is - is fascistic and those people should be stopped from talking. Nonsense, the demand that I admit I am wrong and adhere to your warped and confused understanding of liberalism is the real fascism here, the constant assertion that we have to be politically correct and accomodate the disturbed world view of others is one of the core aspects of fascism (see: Nazi Political Correctness and definition of fascism).

As for your "dig into your heart and you'll find love" - poppycock. dig into my heart and you ill find meat, the bundle of Hiss, blood, valves and cholesterol but you wont find "love" - or at least not the cynical definition you have of it - namely that we have to be nice to everyone regardless of how we feel.

In short, I stand by my argument and I have provided evidence. You have stuck your fingers in your ears and sang "la la la".

You should not be stopped from talking. I am not demanding you be political correct.
I am just arguing your irrational and illogical arguments such as the aformentioned straw men in your latest post.
You have asserted that religion has crossed the line and that you would like to see the demise of religion from the world, without a logical argument.
Your position was clarified in post 105.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055165808&page=6

I believe in free speech and freedom of beliefs unless there is a very negative consequence to the individual, the common good or the weaker in society.

Of course we can all question and have debates about beliefs. I have never onced suggested we stop asking the PDN's and JimiTime's question and nor should the stop asking us. The question should be asked intelligently and respectively.

That's hardly "pseudo-liberalism." It's normal liberal democratic values.
Simple as that.

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote: »

It is a personal opinion of you, which I thought was all right now since you started chucking eRocks earlier. It is an argument from personal experience.

No it's an argument by assertion. You assert the argument is "dim witted" you don't derive it.

And your point is? Your arguments have been little more than hypocracy and fallacy. Throwing a quote from me into the ring as a last ditch attempt to undermine my position and grant your argument spurious legitimacy is really rather sad.

Another argument by assertion. You assert that my points have "hypocracy" and "fallacy" you don't derive it.
The quote shows another contradiction from yourself.
Your point about granting my argument spurious legitmacy being sad - is just yet another argument by assertion.
Again you assertion a conclusion, not deriving it logically.

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

No it's an argument by assertion. You assert the argument is "dim witted" you don't derive it.


Another argument by assertion. You assert that my points have "hypocracy" and "fallacy" you don't derive it.
The quote shows another contradiction from yourself.
Your point about granting my argument spurious legitmacy being sad - is just yet another argument by assertion.
Again you assertion a conclusion, not deriving it logically.

It was meant to be a reference to the total conversation.

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You should not be stopped from talking. I am not demanding you be political correct.
I am just arguing your irrational and illogical arguments such as the aformentioned straw men in your latest post.
You have asserted that religion has crossed the line and that you would like to see the demise of religion from the world, without a logical argument.
Your position was clarified in post 105.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055165808&page=6

I believe in free speech and freedom of beliefs unless there is a very negative consequence to the individual, the common good or the weaker in society.

Of course we can all question and have debates about beliefs. I have never onced suggested we stop asking the PDN's and JimiTime's question and nor should the stop asking us. The question should be asked intelligently and respectively.

That's hardly "pseudo-liberalism." It's normal liberal democratic values.
Simple as that.

I have made rational and logical arguments. they are based on the evidence as I see it and my opinions are based on same.

That you dont agree and have dubbed me a fascist and a bigot while simoultaneously marginalising homosexuals, bisexuals and transgendered people is contemptably hypocritical.

You are a pseudo liberal because you are unwilling to aknowledge that my argument has the validity to exist on its own and have said that I am "bad" for holding such views. Labelling me with deliberately emotive terms like "fascist" and "bigot" is an act of vilification, scapegoating if you will - which is exactly the kind of thing that fascists do.

On the other hand, i am saying the religion, a nebulous and abstract concept, is the real meanie in all this and it is a conclusion I have drawn from the overwhelming evidence of same. That the bishops and priests really believe the stuff they say and feel justified in burning witches and the stake and brtualising Jews is an affliction of the abstract upon them causing them to do horrible things. They are, in a sense, victims as well - not innocent, but victims none the less.

Finally, you have demanded I be politically correct by indicating that I adhere to your flaccid views that we should be accomodating to the dangerously irrational views of others. that you then pay lip service to liberalism with your "hurting the weaker" bit is nothing short of laughable.

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote: »

I have made rational and logical arguments. they are based on the evidence as I see it and my opinions are based on same.

That you dont agree and have dubbed me a fascist and a bigot while simoultaneously marginalising homosexuals, bisexuals and transgendered people is contemptably hypocritical.

You are a pseudo liberal because you are unwilling to aknowledge that my argument has the validity to exist on its own and have said that I am "bad" for holding such views. Labelling me with deliberately emotive terms like "fascist" and "bigot" is an act of vilification, scapegoating if you will - which is exactly the kind of thing that fascists do.

On the other hand, i am saying the religion, a nebulous and abstract concept, is the real meanie in all this and it is a conclusion I have drawn from the overwhelming evidence of same. That the bishops and priests really believe the stuff they say and feel justified in burning witches and the stake and brtualising Jews is an affliction of the abstract upon them causing them to do horrible things. They are, in a sense, victims as well - not innocent, but victims none the less.

Finally, you have demanded I be politically correct by indicating that I adhere to your flaccid views that we should be accomodating to the dangerously irrational views of others. that you then pay lip service to liberalism with your "hurting the weaker" bit is nothing short of laughable.

Where have I marginalised homosexuals? In fact I pointed out there were a large number of them in the sate and asked you to provided evidence of them being kicked out of their schools?

Now if you claim to have a logical argument let's see it in logical format please.
i.e.
premise: [insert here]
conclusion: [insert here]

So we can examine it.
I think you think you have logical arguments but I haven't seen any.
Or perhaps you could clarify what form of logic you are using?
Rgds

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Where have I marginalised homosexuals? In fact I pointed out there were a large number of them in the sate and asked you to provided evidence of them being kicked out of their schools?

Now if you claim to have a logical argument let's see it in logical format please.
i.e.
premise: [insert here]
conclusion: [insert here]

So we can examine it.
I think you think you have logical arguments but I haven't seen any.
Or perhaps you could clarify what form of logic you are using?
Rgds

You referred to the clauses that I pointed out as being minor or unimportant.

You made specific reference to the statistic of 4% of the population falling into the LGBT catagory (something that should have attracted more contest) which implies that they are only a minor group and through your own arguments their feelings and position within a school is secondary to that schools ethos.

As I have stated, whehter or not any of them have been kicked out of a school is irrelevant, you asked for an example of the impact and influence of religion into the secular or national life and there it is. Deny, dismiss or marginalise, you cannot escape it as a fact.

Here is another.

Freedom of speech

Premise: The limitation of freedom of speech in the constitution with specific reference to blasphemy is an example of religious pandering and dogma being catered to at the expense of everyone.

Conslusion: My right to speak, and the right of anyone else to speak their mind regarding the issue of religion, god and the denouncement of same etc are curbed and this is not conducive to a free society.

Premise: Legislative clauses protecting a school or other institutions right to protect their ethos extends to immunity to prosectuion for unfair or prejudiced dismissal of LGBT staff, staff who hold differing views on socio-political issues such as abortion, sex before marriage, same sex marriage etc

Conclusion: This clause allows for institutions which recieve government funding to aribitrarily dismiss those they deem to be engaging in perfectly legal and private matters which in their view are against a spiritual law - without penalty and without recourse for the dismissed person. This, in the interests of an equal and free society is a bad thing.

Premise: Religious beliefs are irrational, illogical and fly in the face of evidence. Simply by living in society I, as an individual, am confronted by such nearly everyday. Moreover, "respect" for these irrational beliefs is demanded of me by society to the expense of my own feelings and conclusions. I should not speak against such things because they are the "sacred beliefs" of these people.

Conclusion: In order for people who hold primitve, superstitious and irrational beliefs to be accomodated for their foolishness I must not say certain things, I must be subjected to certain curbs on my freedom and I must feign respect for their nonsense. this is antithetical to a free and equal society.

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

Enough already of this demanding logic crap, Tim.

To clarify what I think Hivemind is saying: He does not want to curb the rights of people to believe what they want, but he would be happy to see the demise of religion due to what he sees is a historically negative influence.

The question was "Would you like to see the death of religion?" - not "would you oppress people to force them to give up their beliefs?"

And for the record Hivemind I don't agree that abortion is relevant here. Yes, the outcome was influenced by religion, but despite your lack of 'faith' in the referendum system, it was democratically voted against. And I recall a LOT of press from both sides. You seem to suggest that all non-religious would by default be in favour of legalisation, which I don't believe to be true.

Tim Robbins

Dades wrote: »

Enough already of this demanding logic crap, Tim.

What's the point in having a debate if there is no requirement for logic?
I was trying to have some sort of structured conversation but if rants are preferred what's the point.

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

Tim Robbins wrote: »

What's the point in having a debate if there is no requirement for logic?
I was trying to have some sort of structured conversation but if rants are preferred what's the point.

Unfortunately, Tim, while you are quick to demand "formal logic" from opponents, you don't usually meet even basic logical standards yourself. There's little point demanding that people lay their arguments out as if they were defending their PhD thesis in philosophy, when your own arguments are riddled with fallacies and assumptions, straw men and ad hominems.

I know you think of yourself as logical, but my own observation is that you aren't. I apologise for the offence my opinion will no doubt cause you.

regrettably,
Scofflaw

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

Dades wrote: »

And for the record Hivemind I don't agree that abortion is relevant here. Yes, the outcome was influenced by religion, but despite your lack of 'faith' in the referendum system, it was democratically voted against. And I recall a LOT of press from both sides. You seem to suggest that all non-religious would by default be in favour of legalisation, which I don't believe to be true.

I dont feel that the default position is support of my position. I believe the default opinion is no opinion.

My position relateing to the issue of abortion is that the percieved sanctity of life is a part of religious dogma and holds no real truth or evidence to support it. It is merely the impression that it is wrong to terminate a pregnancy, or to murder (thou shalt not kill) etc that, in my opinion, has generated a social emotional memetic response - usually of abhorance.

There is no denying that the religious position has had an extremely strong influence on the subject and the default position of the law is the removal of choice from the individual. A position that the church fought for, supports entirely and will resist any change to.

Abortion is an extremely tricky subject though as it call into question are criteria for defining where life begins and life ends.

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unfortunately, Tim, while you are quick to demand "formal logic" from opponents, you don't usually meet even basic logical standards yourself. There's little point demanding that people lay their arguments out as if they were defending their PhD thesis in philosophy, when your own arguments are riddled with fallacies and assumptions, straw men and ad hominems.

I know you think of yourself as logical, but my own observation is that you aren't. I apologise for the offence my opinion will no doubt cause you.

regrettably,
Scofflaw

I have no problem with someone picking or questioning any of my logic. I would encourage that as we all make mistakes. But it appears you are just using this opportunity to get a little dig in.

I am not asking anybody to use the levels of a theisis in philosophy to make their points. I am simple asking Hivermind to state in some basic logical format as he is claiming they are logical, I am claiming they are not.

If they are in some form of logical format we can examine them and see if they are logical or not.

I don't see anything wrong with that.

Is this about ego or about the validity of an argument? For me it's the latter. I
may very well be wrong here but surely logic should show that so we can leave the digs and cheap shots out.

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I have no problem with someone picking or questioning any of my logic. I would encourage that as we all make mistakes. But it appears you are just using this opportunity to get a little dig in.

Is this about ego or about the validity of an argument? For me it's the latter. I
may very well be wrong here but surely logic should show that so we can leave the digs and cheap shots out.

Wow. Just wow.

Conar

Yes - through natural causes

Tim Robbins wrote: »

In fact I pointed out there were a large number of them in the sate and asked you to provided evidence of them being kicked out of their schools?

Still enjoying the debate here.

Tim I think that he has quite cleary discussed how we should not need evidence of any homosexuals being fired as knowing that they would live in fear of being fired is proof enough.

Conar

Yes - through natural causes

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Premise: The limitation of freedom of speech in the constitution with specific reference to blasphemy is an example of religious pandering and dogma being catered to at the expense of everyone.

Conslusion: My right to speak, and the right of anyone else to speak their mind regarding the issue of religion, god and the denouncement of same etc are curbed and this is not conducive to a free society.

I was not aware of this.
This kind of thing scares me.
This is why I would love to see an end religion, because the fact that they are afforded special priviledges that other organisations would never get is unfair and undemocratic.

I feel extremely marginalised by the fact that people can say that I shouldn't be allowed openly criticise something for which I see no evidence, yet I could never be afforded the same courtesy on any issue as I am an atheist (i.e. only religion is given this extremely high pedestal)

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote: »

You referred to the clauses that I pointed out as being minor or unimportant.

You made specific reference to the statistic of 4% of the population falling into the LGBT catagory (something that should have attracted more contest) which implies that they are only a minor group and through your own arguments their feelings and position within a school is secondary to that schools ethos.

That's a straw man. I never said their feelings and position was secondary to that of the school ethos.

As I have stated, whehter or not any of them have been kicked out of a school is irrelevant

Well then withdraw your remark that they are kicked out if you can't substantiate it.

Premise: The limitation of freedom of speech in the constitution with specific reference to blasphemy is an example of religious pandering and dogma being catered to at the expense of everyone.

Conslusion: My right to speak, and the right of anyone else to speak their mind regarding the issue of religion, god and the denouncement of same etc are curbed and this is not conducive to a free society.

Not bad. Is it really at the expense of everyone though? How many people are at a loss because of this? I can't think of anytime anybody in this state was prosecuted for blasphemy.

Premise: Legislative clauses protecting a school or other institutions right to protect their ethos extends to immunity to prosectuion for unfair or prejudiced dismissal of LGBT staff, staff who hold differing views on socio-political issues such as abortion, sex before marriage, same sex marriage etc

Conclusion: This clause allows for institutions which recieve government funding to aribitrarily dismiss those they deem to be engaging in perfectly legal and private matters which in their view are against a spiritual law - without penalty and without recourse for the dismissed person. This, in the interests of an equal and free society is a bad thing.

Could you provide more evidence for premise?

Premise: Religious beliefs are irrational, illogical and fly in the face of evidence. Simply by living in society I, as an individual, am confronted by such nearly everyday. Moreover, "respect" for these irrational beliefs is demanded of me by society to the expense of my own feelings and conclusions. I should not speak against such things because they are the "sacred beliefs" of these people.

Conclusion: In order for people who hold primitve, superstitious and irrational beliefs to be accomodated for their foolishness I must not say certain things, I must be subjected to certain curbs on my freedom and I must feign respect for their nonsense. this is antithetical to a free and equal society.

I think your premise is based on subjective view of things.
Most of life is irrational and illogical. The evidence thing is moot unless you can provide evidence to negate this view points.

This argument is a bit muddled. You have several premises and several conclusions. Each one could be examined separately. It would be easier to examine this if you narrowed done both or separated them.
Rgds

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

Conar wrote: »

I was not aware of this.
This kind of thing scares me.
This is why I would love to see an end religion, because the fact that they are afforded special priviledges that other organisations would never get is unfair and undemocratic.

I feel extremely marginalised by the fact that people can say that I shouldn't be allowed openly criticise something for which I see no evidence, yet I could never be afforded the same courtesy on any issue as I am an atheist (i.e. only religion is given this extremely high pedestal)

Exactly.

Tim Robbins

Conar wrote: »

Still enjoying the debate here.

Tim I think that he has quite cleary discussed how we should not need evidence of any homosexuals being fired as knowing that they would live in fear of being fired is proof enough.

A few of the teachers in my school were gay and seemed happy enough.
Atheists can be homophobic as well.
Theists can be quite liberal on this issue and are welcoming of homosexuals.
PDN made a point recently about his daughter and her friend. The Anglican chruch is also quite progressive here.
This point fails because it just seems a generalisation without good evidence.

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Wow. Just wow.

Come on, let's try and do this intellectually.

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

Tim Robbins wrote: »

(to Scofflaw) I have no problem with someone picking or questioning any of my logic. I would encourage that as we all make mistakes. But it appears you are just using this opportunity to get a little dig in.

Well tbf the reason I mentioned it is because I also feel you harp on about logic and throw out terms like "straw man" and "by assertion" without having a solid logical basis to your own arguments. I have bowed out of discussions previously for this very reason.

Now obviously you're not going to agree with this, and demand to see examples of such transgressions but that is just going to to get us mired down again in rhetoric. Suffice to say that sometimes we're all not as logical as we like to think we are.

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

Dades wrote: »

Well tbf the reason I mentioned it is because I also feel you harp on about logic and throw out terms like "straw man" and "by assertion" without having a solid logical basis to your own arguments. I have bowed out of discussions previously for this very reason.

Now obviously you're not going to agree with this, and demand to see examples of such transgressions but that is just going to to get us mired down again in rhetoric. Suffice to say that sometimes we're all not as logical as we like to think we are.

Yes, I probably should have continued to not comment.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Come on, let's try and do this intellectually.

Intellectually speaking my answer is better than your "?".

I was saying "wow" at the startling arrogance and hypocricy you seem capable of. One rule for us and another, more lenient rule for you I see?

As for your comment about your gay teachers feeling happy ... that is not evidence, the evidence I gave you is legislation that appears in the national statute of laws. Your "evidence" is hearsay and unsupportable.