Castanet

Farmmaa wrote:Again...I could care less about anyone's personal beliefs - if they keep it to themselves.
it is when they try to impose those beliefs on everyone else that I have a problem with it.

I have yet to see a group of atheists protesting in front of the hospital every week trying to push their views on anyone.
Have you ?

Demanding that others keep their beliefs personal is totalitarian.

Lots of people protest including atheists. An atheist friend of mine was recently protesting the Vancouver aquarium trying to get it shut down (he's a hard core PETA vegan). There's absolutely nothing wrong with protesting hospitals, aquariums, or any other location.

Free and open expression is the essence of a 21st century democratic civilization. Instead of holding protests you don't like in contempt, try embracing the freedoms that we have to counter them with your own views. Whenever I see a protest I don't like, I remind myself that 99% of those have lived in human history would be executed for doing this. Free and open debate is how we progress because it is only when conflicting viewpoints are presented that society can make fair judgements on what is true and what is just.

The only good answer to a protest you don't like is a better argument. Allowing everyone the opportunity to openly express their views guides society toward the best argument. Censoring free speech just builds resentment, and in the end backfires because the argument backed by the biggest stick trumps the truth.

What? Everyone agrees that violent protests are wrong. Like I've said before, physical violence to express your views is totally unacceptable. Words don't hurt; peaceful protests don't hurt. Violent protests do. The 700 Kelowna abortion clinic bombings we've had over the past two years are totally wrong, not only because they've killed and injured 8,500 people, but also because they destroy property and obstruct perfectly legal business.

The difference between my position and Farmmaa's opinion is that I believe that peaceful protests of any kind are a sign of a healthy democracy. It seems that Farmmaa believes that some of the ones conducted by religious people shouldn't be allowed.

Farmmaa wrote:I would love for you to point out exactly where I have ever stated that people should not be free to practice whatever religion they please ?!

They do NOT however, have the right to dictate or interfere with things that directly affect MY life and freedoms.
They have no business trying to stop the assisted suicide law because it goes against their moral beliefs.
They have no business sticking their righteous noses into other people's right to love and marry whoever they choose to love and marry.
They have no right to try to insist that all children be forced to learn about their religion or to pray in any way, shape or form in public schools.
They have no right to try to tell women what they can and can not do with their own bodies.

Practice whatever religion you want. Celebrate whatever religious holidays you choose.
But....don't try to push your beliefs or moral standards on others.

It's not that difficult to understand.

What is difficult to understand is what it is you propose to do about any of it. Are you saying people of faith shouldn't be allowed to express their views publicly?

Religious people do not make the laws on things like assisted suicide, abortion, gay marriage, education etc. and there is no one accepted "religious view" on any of these topics. Do you have a problem with people of faith individually or collectively having any input whatsoever into the type of society we have or publicly voicing an opinion on it? If so, are there any other groups you would target for exclusion from having an equal say?

OREZ wrote:
What is difficult to understand is what it is you propose to do about any of it. Are you saying people of faith shouldn't be allowed to express their views publicly?

Religious people do not make the laws on things like assisted suicide, abortion, gay marriage, education etc. and there is no one accepted "religious view" on any of these topics. Do you have a problem with people of faith individually or collectively having any input whatsoever into the type of society we have or publicly voicing an opinion on it? If so, are there any other groups you would target for exclusion from having an equal say?

No but religions people get together when their Christian morals are being challenged (ie gay marriage) to protest or write form letters to the law makers, advertisers, and such.

Well, I feel we're really moving off topic here so I won't be too upset if this is deleted but I've got a couple of observations on that:

First of all, not all Christians are on the same page with topics like gay marriage or assisted suicide just as I highly doubt all other religious groups or all agnostics or all atheists are.

Secondly, there are all kinds of lobby groups, political, economic, social justice, environmental, and yes, I'm sure there are some religious ones. We allow this in our political system - I'm not sure how wise it is to let interest groups influence the process but it's allowed.

OREZ wrote:
First of all, not all Christians are on the same page.

EXACTLY.

Is there any reason they should all be on the same page? Maybe there are more Christians who can think for themselves than some people assume.

OREZ wrote:Is there any reason they should all be on the same page? Maybe there are more Christians who can think for themselves than some people assume.

So your thinking and speaking for all Christians?

OREZ wrote:Is there any reason they should all be on the same page? Maybe there are more Christians who can think for themselves than some people assume.

Gixxer wrote:So your thinking and speaking for all Christians?

Huh?
Quite the opposite. That was sort of my point. Nobody can claim to speak for all Christians. Christians don't all have the same opinions on all social and political issues.

OREZ wrote:Huh?
Quite the opposite. That was sort of my point. Nobody can claim to speak for all Christians. Christians don't all have the same opinions on all social and political issues.

I haven't seen anyone suggest that they do.

So much for your science theory.....

Big Science is broken

Science is broken.

That's the thesis of a must-read article in First Things magazine, in which William A. Wilson accumulates evidence that a lot of published research is false. But that's not even the worst part.

Advocates of the existing scientific research paradigm usually smugly declare that while some published conclusions are surely false, the scientific method has "self-correcting mechanisms" that ensure that, eventually, the truth will prevail. Unfortunately for all of us, Wilson makes a convincing argument that those self-correcting mechanisms are broken.

Read more....http://theweek.com/articles/618141/big-science-broken

that article makes no sense in this thread .us the argument is weak at best

averagejoe wrote:So much for your science theory.....

Big Science is broken

Science is broken.

That's the thesis of a must-read article in First Things magazine, in which William A. Wilson accumulates evidence that a lot of published research is false. But that's not even the worst part.

Advocates of the existing scientific research paradigm usually smugly declare that while some published conclusions are surely false, the scientific method has "self-correcting mechanisms" that ensure that, eventually, the truth will prevail. Unfortunately for all of us, Wilson makes a convincing argument that those self-correcting mechanisms are broken.

Read more....http://theweek.com/articles/618141/big-science-broken

Who's science ?
Is science suddenly only an atheist thing ??
So then...religious folks use nothing in their every day lives developed thanks to science ?

Yes, very convincing, given the fact that religions and churches are all self governing - who holds their 'truths' accountable ???

I maintain there is much more wonder in science than in pseudoscience. And in addition, to whatever measure this term has any meaning, science has the additional virtue, and it is not an inconsiderable one, of being true. [Carl Sagan, The Burden Of Skepticism]

The major religions on the Earth contradict each other left and right? You can't all be correct. And what if all of you are wrong? It's a possibility, you know. You must care about the truth, right? Well, the way to winnow through all the differing contentions is to be skeptical. I'm not any more skeptical about your religious beliefs than I am about every new scientific idea I hear about. But in my line of work, they're called hypotheses, not inspiration and not revelation. [Dr. Arroway in Carl Sagan's Contact (New York: Pocket Books, 1985), p. 162. ]

Carl Sagan also warned that as the world as a whole became more advanced, modern, scientifically influenced there would be a backlash by the few who see conspiracies everywhere. We are living in technological times so the Science Luddites come out a cry "Eeek, I don't understand this stuff. Those who do are evil, elitist, controlling us...."