Religious Bigotry

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

I'd like to squash this illogical, bogus argument before it continues gaining traction on here. People on both sides (the good and the deplorable cheeto supporters) have recently started using "religious bigot" as some sort of jab. But it's not nor should it be considered a jab.

Think about it: race, ethnicity, homosexuality/heterosexuality, and disability are things uncontrollable by an individual. You don't get to pick your race, your ethnicity, your sexual attraction, or if you're disabled. None of those things are reflective of a person's character. There are no shared belief systems between those people. Does a 20 year old black guy in Watts have the same beliefs as the one black guy Out Wayne? No. Does a 60 year old in a wheelchair have the same belief system as a 10 year old in a wheelchair? No.

On the other hand, the most central relationship of people in a religion is a set of shared beliefs, most of which are extremely wide-ranging.

A Muslim is supposed to be fine with the killing of somebody who won't convert to their religion, won't stop being gay, etc. A Christian is supposed to be against homosexuality and abortion while supporting a god who wants to condemn those people to an eternity of damnation.

Now, of course, not all Muslims and not all Christians do support those things, but they all share some very central and important beliefs. Those are reflective of a person's character while race, ethnicity, etc. are not. So why is it bad to be bigoted against people with a shared belief system?

If a religion popped up that believed men should force their daughters to have sex once the girls turn five years old, would it be bad to be bigoted against that religion? Of course not, because that religion has a set of beliefs that you don't agree with.

 

[extragreen]

If it's ok to be bigoted toward all religious positions characterized by belief, then it goes without saying it's ok to be bigoted toward all religious positions characterized by disbelief.

 

[i am herdman]

Are you saying if a 60 year old man is attracted to 10 year old boys then his sexual attraction is not a choice? Should the catholic priests be vindicated because they can't help it they are attracted to the choir boy? Or the 30 year teacher having sex with a 14 year old?

 

[i am herdman]

If it's ok to be bigoted toward all religious positions characterized by belief, then it goes without saying it's ok to be bigoted toward all religious positions characterized by disbelief.

WW JD? Not a bigot. He likes all people.

 

[Herd Fever]

Why does an Atheist who hates God and religious people always the first one to bring up religion on this site?

Over the years its clear you have no understanding of the physical world and the spiritual world.

 

[i am herdman]

Why does an Atheist who hates God and religious people always the first one to bring up religion on this site?

Over the years its clear you have no understanding of the physical world and the spiritual world.

Did you pay that $200 yet or is that going take a miracle?

 

[extragreen]

Did you pay that $200 yet or is that going take a miracle?

Are you ruining a thread?? Stay on topic.

 

[mufan08]

Why does an Atheist who hates God and religious people always the first one to bring up religion on this site?

Over the years its clear you have no understanding of the physical world and the spiritual world.

Idiot and thief, no one pays attention to you on religion topics when you cannot follow commandments 8 and 9 of not stealing or lying (to a Marshall fan).

 

[i am herdman]

Are you ruining a thread?? Stay on topic.

Nope, Fever gets called out at will. He is the worst poster in our history. But, I will stop, in this thread, and let Yags respond to the welcher.

 

[big_country90]

I’m just posting in this thread so I can get alerts on all the wonderful replies that are about to take place.

 

[Dreh_Nagi_HC_IM]

I know many of you are anti-fever these days, but damn, he just lit Rifles carcass on fire.

 

[mlblack16.]

I know many of you are anti-fever these days, but damn, he just lit Rifles carcass on fire.

I'm actually surprised Rifle baited him into this thread. One would think after the many verbal beatings, at the hands of the Jamaican, that he would think twice before messing with him.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

If it's ok to be bigoted toward all religious positions characterized by belief, then it goes without saying it's ok to be bigoted toward all religious positions characterized by disbelief.

Let me bring some logic into your attempt.

Theists share a belief that there is a higher power(s). That means they all share a common belief. More, theists of the major religions all share more than just a common belief in a higher power(s). They also share very similar beliefs within their own religions. It is both ethical and logical to have bigotry towards people with a system of shared beliefs.

Non-theists (or atheists) have absolutely no shared belief. The absence of a belief does not make it a "religious position." It is not the same thing as a shared religious belief. Let me dumb it down for you:

If your claim were true ("it's ok to be bigoted toward all religious positions characterized by disbelief"), that means non-theists (atheists) must have a common belief. But they don't. How don't they? Well, do you collect pubic hairs of mosquitoes? No? Neither do I. Does that mean we have a shared hobby by not taking part in a shared hobby? Of course not. Do you collect stamps? No? Nor do I. Does that mean we have a shared hobby of not collecting stamps? Of course not. The absence of a particular hobby does not mean people share a hobby of not taking part in a hobby. Thus, the absence of a belief in something does not mean a religious position shared among those without a belief.

Are you saying if a 60 year old man is attracted to 10 year old boys then his sexual attraction is not a choice?

That's correct. A 60 year old being attracted to a 10 year old is no more of a choice than you/me being attracted to Charlize Theron walking down the street without a bra. The attraction comes naturally for all of us.

Should the catholic priests be vindicated because they can't help it they are attracted to the choir boy? Or the 30 year teacher having sex with a 14 year old?

Here is the point you are missing. The attraction is not the issue. I have seen developed 17 year old girls that I am very attracted to (remember the Australian surfer sisters that I posted last year in which the hottest one was only 15 or 16?). Nobody is wanting to imprison us due to us being naturally attracted to that 15 year old girl (who looks like she was 24). Now, if we were to act on that natural attraction it would violate laws and societal ethics. At that point, plenty of people would want to lock us up. The same thing holds true for the 60 year old guy attracted to the 10 year old boy (or girl). He shouldn't be jailed for naturally being attracted to that 10 year old just like nobody wants us punished for being naturally attracted to that underage surfer girl. But if he were to act on it in an unacceptable way (legally or societal ethically), then there is a problem he should be held accountable for.

 

[i am herdman]

That's correct. A 60 year old being attracted to a 10 year old is no more of a choice than you/me being attracted to Charlize Theron walking down the street without a bra. The attraction comes naturally for all of us.
-------------

Then why is it illegal? How about some men who have an attraction to raping women? What do you think of Alabama's new chemical castration law. If some people can't help it then, what do we do legally?

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Why does an Atheist who hates God and religious people always the first one to bring up religion on this site?

Over the years its clear you have no understanding of the physical world and the spiritual world.

What does your god think about you stealing $200 from somebody? What does your god think about your racist comments towards white women? What does your god think about you mocking a person just because one of their loved ones is facing a serious cancer battle? What does your god think about your habit of beastiality considering you sleep with a whale?

Moron, nobody gives a shit to respond to you. You're too much of a pussy to even acknowledge that you stole $200 from somebody. You were a 30 year old who lived with his momma'.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

That's correct. A 60 year old being attracted to a 10 year old is no more of a choice than you/me being attracted to Charlize Theron walking down the street without a bra. The attraction comes naturally for all of us.
-------------

Then why is it illegal?

It's not illegal. There is no law saying that a 60 year old can't be attracted to a 10 year old. There is no law saying that the two of us can't be attracted to that 15 year old surfer girl. Did you not read the rest of my post?

How about some men who have an attraction to raping women?

That's more than being attracted. Being attracted is an action that doesn't hurt anyone. Raping somebody is an attraction that hurts somebody. Again, there is a reason why there is no law banning anyone from being attracted. There is a reason why there are laws prohibiting a 60 year old from being sexually involved with a 10 year old and why there are laws prohibiting rape.

I'm shocked that I have to explain such a simple concept.

What do you think of Alabama's new chemical castration law. If some people can't help it then, what do we do legally?

I think it's barbaric. If people can't follow the law, then they are punished (fines, incarceration, etc.). If some people can't control their attraction and molest children, rape, etc., then they are punished. If, after that punishment, it is determined that they still can't control their actions, they are punished more. If it is determined that they are still a threat, they continue to be incarcerated. They aren't punished for naturally being attracted to any of these people. They are punished for acting upon that attraction and hurting others as a result of it.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Let me bring some logic into your attempt.

 

[i am herdman]

It's not illegal. There is no law saying that a 60 year old can't be attracted to a 10 year old. There is no law saying that the two of us can't be attracted to that 15 year old surfer girl. Did you not read the rest of my post?



That's more than being attracted. Being attracted is an action that doesn't hurt anyone. Raping somebody is an attraction that hurts somebody. Again, there is a reason why there is no law banning anyone from being attracted. There is a reason why there are laws prohibiting a 60 year old from being sexually involved with a 10 year old and why there are laws prohibiting rape.

I'm shocked that I have to explain such a simple concept.



I think it's barbaric. If people can't follow the law, then they are punished (fines, incarceration, etc.). If some people can't control their attraction and molest children, rape, etc., then they are punished. If, after that punishment, it is determined that they still can't control their actions, they are punished more. If it is determined that they are still a threat, they continue to be incarcerated. They aren't punished for naturally being attracted to any of these people. They are punished for acting upon that attraction and hurting others as a result of it.

So, homosexuals, straight, are born with attractions the same as rapists, pedophiles, etc.?

At want point does society accept the rapists, pedophile, etc. as being normal and they are born that way so they can't help it and that is normal? The Age of 18 is a just a number is it not? Or 16? Or he can't control his natural desire or attraction? Human beings can begin sexual reproduction and their biological function much earlier that the age of consent. And, who is to say NC is correct over California or Nebraka or Canada or Taiwan?

 

[i am herdman]

Oh this is going right where herdman said it when we homosexuality became "normal". Here we are. That's what damn road this is going down.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

So, homosexuals, straight, are born with attractions the same as rapists, pedophiles, etc.?

In terms of hetero/homo, yes, the overwhelming number are born with that attraction. Sure, there are others who force themselves the other way or are "nurtured" to be attracted the other way.

Rapists? I don't know of anybody who is born a rapist or with the natural desire to rape.

At want point does society accept the rapists, pedophile, etc. as being normal and they are born that way so they can't help it and that is normal?

Again, nobody (outside of the religious) faults people for necessarily having those desires. You've never met a woman who was hot but a total bitch and had thoughts of "God, she's a bitch, but I'd love to hate **** her"? That's your natural urge, yet you don't act on it because you know it is wrong.

Society won't accept rapists and pedophiles since those people, by definition, are creating victims. Society has already accepted the attraction to those things which is why there is so much porn centered around gagging/binding, girls looking really young in pigtails and sucking their thumbs, etc.

The Age of 18 is a just a number is it not? Or 16?

Correct, and that is why so many different states have different laws regarding consent for sex (among other things). Those ages are developed to an extent based on experts who believe those ages represent the best general age when a person has enough life experience/wisdom to be able to make those types of decisions on their own.

Or he can't control his natural desire or attraction?

And that's the point. Nobody is blaming (other than the religious) somebody for having desires. People are getting blamed for acting on those desires which create victims. Having the natural desires is acceptable.

Acting on those desires/not being able to control them is what is being punished.

 

[big_country90]

Non-theists (or atheists), have absolutely no shared belief. The absence of a belief does not make it a "religious position." It is not the same thing as a shared religious belief.

While not necessarily a religious position, being an atheist is absolutely a shared belief. You, and every other atheist in the world, believe there to be no God. How that is not a “shared belief” is beyond me. Your shared belief is that we got here some other way than by a higher power.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

You, and every other atheist in the world, believe there to be no God. How that is not a “shared belief” is beyond me. Your shared belief is that we got here some other way than by a higher power.

No. This may be beyond your ability to comprehend.

Theism is the belief in a god(s).
Atheism is not the disbelief in a god(s), but rather, a lack of belief in a god(s) (similar but different than agnostic).

As I said, the absence of a belief is not a disbelief. Not acknowledging a god makes one an atheist, but since it isn't a belief or disbelief, it isn't a shared belief.

A lack of belief in the existence of something is different than the belief that something doesn't exist. I fit the latter, but not all atheists do, as some fit the former.

Let me give you an analogy:

2+2 = 4 is an accepted fact. It is provable and easily seen. But pretend I don't believe it. That makes me a disbeliever that 2+2 = 4.

Now, pretend you make a claim that dinosaurs went extinct due to two huge volcanoes that erupted at the same time on different parts of Earth. You give no other evidence or information about your claim. If I don't accept your claim, it doesn't mean that I disbelieve your claim. It just means that I lack a belief in your claim due to having seen no evidence that you provided. My lack of belief in your dinosaur claim is based on a lack of information, not a refusal of acceptance or belief.

 

[ThunderCat98]

I’m just posting in this thread so I can get alerts on all the wonderful replies that are about to take place.

Same.

 

[ThunderCat98]

While not necessarily a religious position, being an atheist is absolutely a shared belief. You, and every other atheist in the world, believe there to be no God. How that is not a “shared belief” is beyond me. Your shared belief is that we got here some other way than by a higher power.

Interesting read on this topic.

https://www.zachariastrust.org/the-scandanavian-sceptic-or-why-atheism-is-a-belief-system

 

[mlblack16.]

While not necessarily a religious position, being an atheist is absolutely a shared belief. You, and every other atheist in the world, believe there to be no God. How that is not a “shared belief” is beyond me. Your shared belief is that we got here some other way than by a higher power.

It's like Scientology. You don't believe it exists to practice or worship it, according to GREED.

 

[ThunderCat98]

Another interesting read.

https://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/atheism.htm

 

[extragreen]

Let me bring some logic into your attempt.Etc.

If it's ok to be bigoted toward all religious positions characterized by belief, then it goes without saying it's ok to be bigoted toward all religious positions characterized by disbelief.

Non-theists (or atheists) have absolutely no shared belief.

They most certainly do. They share the belief that there is no God. And that most certainly is a religious (religious def: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances) position. You don't get to re-write the dictionary. So, I'll answer my own question....it IS ok to be bigoted toward those all religious positions characterized by disbelief.

 

[extragreen]

I have some bad news for you. Those pills you take....they're not logic pills. But if you find some, swallow as many as you can get your hands on.

 

[ThunderCat98]

One of two things must be true: either Yags must admit he doesn't know if God exists (which is actually agnosticism, not atheism, and, arguably a belief system, or, perhaps even better, Yags has to admit to not knowing something) or he knows God doesn't exist, which is an affirmatively held belief. So which is it? Do you lack knowledge of the existence of God, or do you believe God doesn't exist?

 

[extragreen]

It's like Scientology. You don't believe it exists to practice or worship it, according to GREED.

You're an idiot.

 

[Herd Fever]

What does your god think about you stealing $200 from somebody? What does your god think about your racist comments towards white women? What does your god think about you mocking a person just because one of their loved ones is facing a serious cancer battle? What does your god think about your habit of beastiality considering you sleep with a whale?

Moron, nobody gives a shit to respond to you. You're too much of a pussy to even acknowledge that you stole $200 from somebody. You were a 30 year old who lived with his momma'.

You and others obviously did. I truly dont give af about you or anyone else on here for that matter.

But who is pussy? I challenged you to a fight 5 years ago, offer still stands. You have stalked me and my family but wont show your face. If anyone is pussy, its you. Who makes fake social media accounts only to harass peoples wives. Only pussy ass bitches like you.

Want to address me, come to San Diego, we can throw hands and get this shit over with I dont give a ****. Only a pussy ass bitch would have another man as his picture on here.

 

[Herd Fever]

Since your following me on Twitter, send me a tweet and show your face you pussy ass bitch.

 

[Dorrej]

 

[big_country90]

No. This may be beyond your ability to comprehend.

Theism is the belief in a god(s).
Atheism is not the disbelief in a god(s), but rather, a lack of belief in a god(s) (similar but different than agnostic).

As I said, the absence of a belief is not a disbelief. Not acknowledging a god makes one an atheist, but since it isn't a belief or disbelief, it isn't a shared belief.

A lack of belief in the existence of something is different than the belief that something doesn't exist. I fit the latter, but not all atheists do, as some fit the former.

Let me give you an analogy:

2+2 = 4 is an accepted fact. It is provable and easily seen. But pretend I don't believe it. That makes me a disbeliever that 2+2 = 4.

Now, pretend you make a claim that dinosaurs went extinct due to two huge volcanoes that erupted at the same time on different parts of Earth. You give no other evidence or information about your claim. If I don't accept your claim, it doesn't mean that I disbelieve your claim. It just means that I lack a belief in your claim due to having seen no evidence that you provided. My lack of belief in your dinosaur claim is based on a lack of information, not a refusal of acceptance or belief.

Why do you get so wrapped up in minutia? There are two sides (possibly three) to the God debate. He either exists or he doesn’t. Some believe he does. Some believe he doesn’t. You fall in the camp that doesn’t believe it. What’s the big deal?

Merriam-Webster’s definition of disbelief is “the act of disbelieving: mental rejection of something as untrue.” I think everybody on this board would agree that “mental rejection of something as untrue” is squarely where you fall in the God/no God debate.

The fact that you don’t want others to view you as having a religious belief is the only reason you’re making this argument. I have already rejected that premise, so admit you simply don’t believe in God and move on. Geez.

 

[i am herdman]

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

They most certainly do. They share the belief that there is no God. And that most certainly is a religious (religious def: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances) position.

Pretend that I believe the third toe on your left foot is the only true god of the world. If you disbelieve that or have a lack of belief in that, does that mean it's a religious belief of yours? See how stupid your attempt is now?

Your own definition of "religious" uses "religious" in its definition. Brilliant!

If I am not religious, how is that a religious belief? Being void of a belief is not having that a belief.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

One of two things must be true: either Yags must admit he doesn't know if God exists (which is actually agnosticism, not atheism, and, arguably a belief system, or, perhaps even better, Yags has to admit to not knowing something) or he knows God doesn't exist, which is an affirmatively held belief. So which is it? Do you lack knowledge of the existence of God, or do you believe God doesn't exist?

I believe god doesn't exist. How did both you and BC entirely miss that admission on here hours ago? The point was that not all atheists disbelieve in a higher power. Many lack a belief in a higher power which is entirely different.

 

[herdfan06]

Top 3 posters that participate in threads involving homosexuality
1. YAGS: People do not choose their attractions.
2. HERDMAN: If it is okay for adults to feel attracted to each other, why is it not okay for adults to have sex with children and barn animals?
3. BigC: Yags, why can you not just admit that you hate God?

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Why do you get so wrapped up in minutia? There are two sides (possibly three) to the God debate. He either exists or he doesn’t. Some believe he does. Some believe he doesn’t. You fall in the camp that doesn’t believe it. What’s the big deal?

Merriam-Webster’s definition of disbelief is “the act of disbelieving: mental rejection of something as untrue.” I think everybody on this board would agree that “mental rejection of something as untrue” is squarely where you fall in the God/no God debate.

The fact that you don’t want others to view you as having a religious belief is the only reason you’re making this argument. I have already rejected that premise, so admit you simply don’t believe in God and move on. Geez.

This is why I say the things I do towards you. Read your next to last sentence again: "I have already rejected that premise, so admit you simply don't believe in god and move on."

Now, read what I posted in this thread hours ago:

"A lack of belief in the existence of something is different than the belief that something doesn't exist. I fit the latter, but not all atheists do, as some fit the former."

In other words, you just spent three paragraphs arguing something that I admitted to hours ago. Christ. Why are reading and following a coherent and logical argument so difficult for some of you?

Now, your claim that my disbelief in a higher power is religious belief is foolish. My view isn't a religious belief since there is no religion behind it - atheism is not a religion.

 

[ThunderCat98]

Now, your claim that my disbelief in a higher power is religious belief is foolish. My view isn't a religious belief since there is no religion behind it - atheism is not a religion.

It isn't a religious belief, but it is a belief about religion, and therefore a position on religion. It's a belief shared by many like-minded persons. It isn't an absence of belief, but a belief of non-existence.