2016 Election Thread

[formerly33]

 

Is that like saying I have a black friend?  I guess I've met too many people who think being an atheist means they only have to be decent people when they want to.  Agnostics are great people but people who think they have all the answers and the answer is everything is meaningless bother me, sorry.

Actually, my friend, agnostics are people who believe it is not only arrogant but ignorant to assume that we can know the extent of existence in this universe.

 

So no, I wouldn't say they think they have all the answers, da di da di da.

 

But yes, they're great people. Like, my best friend was raised in a Buddhist family but now considers herself an agnostic/atheist. Have I ever let that bother me or influence my respect for her? No, thanks.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Few atheists believe that everything is meaningless. Rather that it is people and acts that imbue life with meaning as opposed to god or whatever. I mean why are atheists liberal? Why do they care about other people? If your view of them were true they'd be anarchists and wouldn't fight for healthcare and civil rights and poverty etc.

 

I think far too often religion is a get out of morality-free card. If you're a good person don't invoke religion, put your money where your mouth is and act like a good, selfless person.

Bingo. Actions are what matter, not belief structures.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

So a gay couple wanting a wedding cake leads us to a hate group wanting a KKK cake? Sweet slippery slope fallacy, bud. So gay marriage messages are the same thing as hate speech messages in your comparison? Does. Not. Compute.

 

Also I'd wager that 99% of KKK members wouldn't have the balls to approach a black baker and request such a thing anyways (unless they were in their hoods/garb) and surrounded by 30 of their knucklehead buddies.

 

I'm just trying to figure out why we are having this debate in a country that supposedly values freedom. 

 

Let the cake maker refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding.  It's his right.  And when he chooses to exercise said right, he gets to deal with the consequences, which will most likely be a boycott at which point he'd no longer making cakes.  These problems can take care of themselves much more easily than a stupid law which will do more to perpetuate the hate than it will to solve it. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

big·ot
ˈbiɡət/
noun
a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

 

There's plenty of intolerance on this board... much of it is couched in the terms of being more tolerant.  I always find this term amusing, b/c the people claiming to be more tolerant or open minded are usually just as (if not more so) closed minded than their opponents.

 

If this is the direction we have to go to have a discussion, we're doing it wrong. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I saw someone on my Facebook time line swayed today by the fact that Michael Tait of the Christian music group Newsboys endorsed Ted Cruz to become a Cruz supporter today. Of course, my interactions with Tait would put Cruz and he in similar company as far as slimy say-one-thing-about-God-do-another-thing-to-defy-those-words sorts of guys, but it did make a statement to me about how sad the GOP platform has become. I'm a Christian unapologetically, but if the best candidate is an agnostic, an athiest, or *gasp* a Muslim, they'll get my vote. I want the best leaders and the best people in Washington, not simply people who tell me they believe similarly to me. Jimmy Swaggart proclaimed similarly as well, and Fr. Curtis Wehmeyer preached from the pulpit on Sundays as well, but that doesn't mean I'd want either representing what a Christian is and should be to the world. Most of the people claiming Christ in the political landscape are doing such for political gain, and that's the most sickening part of it all.

 

Ok seriously, the Newsboys are a downright awful band.  

 

That said, well said.  There are certain ideas that I think are foundational, such as protecting the freedom of religion, speech, assembly, etc., but I'm largely in agreement here.  We need good leaders, and unfortunately both parties are rather lacking as they've been bought and paid for.

 

And like you, I'm fairly wary of anyone proclaiming Christ in the political landscape.  I don't have a problem with them doing so, but I have a huge problem with Christians not holding them to a higher standard when it's clear that their actions and talk aren't lining up. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Few atheists believe that everything is meaningless. Rather that it is people and acts that imbue life with meaning as opposed to god or whatever.  I mean why are atheists liberal? Why do they care about other people? If your view of them were true they'd be anarchists and wouldn't fight for healthcare and civil rights and poverty etc.  

 

I think far too often religion is a get out of morality-free card.  If you're a good person don't invoke religion, put your money where your mouth is and act like a good, selfless person. 

 

The problem with atheism is that everything boils down to survival of the fittest.  There is no 'good' in that system because good and evil are all in the eyes of the beholder. 

 

They may not believe everything is meaningless, but that just means they are contradicting their own system by imposing meaning where it cannot possibly exist. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

The problem with atheism is that everything boils down to survival of the fittest.  There is no 'good' in that system because good and evil are all in the eyes of the beholder. 

 

They may not believe everything is meaningless, but that just means they are contradicting their own system by imposing meaning where it cannot possibly exist. 

That's not how most atheists see it.  They take morality seriously, and often reject survival of the fittest--hence their cynicism of capitalism.  Just because it worked for nature, doesn't at all mean it's a good idea for structuring society.  Atheism doesn't mean moral relativism.  In fact many atheist could be accused of being morally righteous. 

 

I'm like Brock. I don't know what I believe as far as afterlife, creation, and spirituality.  But I do try to be a good person, and I guess I do that through I trial and error.  

 

But it really drives me up the wall when people question my/our sincerity because I don't believe in your God, as if it take believing in God to be a good person. The people who are genuinely good do it for the act itself, and need no approval of religion or promise of heaven. 

[TheLeviathan]

Well said Psuedo.

 

I know plenty of bad people that believe in god and plenty of good ones that do too.  I've never found any particular correlation with faith and morality, no matter how much those with faith would like to contend otherwise.  

 

I've always thought, if there is a god out there, he'll appreciate that I've spent my life working with people and trying to make the world a better place.  And if that isn't enough and I should've spent some obnoxious chunk of my life in a church or drinking wine and eating crackers or else all of those good deeds don't matter.....well then that's not the kind of god I want to please any way.  

[mikecgrimes]

 

I'm just trying to figure out why we are having this debate in a country that supposedly values freedom. 

 

Let the cake maker refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding.  It's his right.  And when he chooses to exercise said right, he gets to deal with the consequences, which will most likely be a boycott at which point he'd no longer making cakes.  These problems can take care of themselves much more easily than a stupid law which will do more to perpetuate the hate than it will to solve it. 

 

Actually the few examples we have of this sort of thing say for better or worse it's good for business.

[Squirrel]

There are a lot of generalities and stereotyping going on around the discussion of religion. It's one of the main reasons I refuse to categorize my beliefs and find it annoying that politicians use it as some kind of qualifier in their campaigns, as if by saying they are Christian they are better than the other guy. There isn't one candidate out there whose religious proclamations give them any points from me.

[Mike Sixel]

The problem with atheism is that everything boils down to survival of the fittest. There is no 'good' in that system because good and evil are all in the eyes of the beholder.

 

They may not believe everything is meaningless, but that just means they are contradicting their own system by imposing meaning where it cannot possibly exist.

 

This is a great tautology, btw.

This it's a complete misunderstanding of atheism. Only religious people think you need a god for there to be good and evil. I, otoh, know there is both, without knowing one way or the other of there is a god or dozens of them.

[Squirrel]

The fact that this thread is now becoming a discussion on religion just proves to me how ****ed up politics have become with the intermingling of religion in politics. I don't care what anyone's religious background is, I don't care what anyone's misguided definitions of various religions are, there is a very good reason why there is separation of church and state in this country and let's keep it that way. I don't care what your religious views are, but don't ****ing impose them on me. Laws should not be passed on the basis of religion, period. If you want to have a deeper discussion on religion and their 'meanings,' start a new thread and keep religion out of politics!

[Squirrel]

Further, if you want to like/dislike someone solely based on what religion you think they are, fine by me, go right ahead. I can't think much of you as a person for doing so, but that's your perogative. But using religious beliefs as a grounds for discrimination is wrong on any and every level I can think of.

[DaveW]

 

There's plenty of intolerance on this board... much of it is couched in the terms of being more tolerant.  I always find this term amusing, b/c the people claiming to be more tolerant or open minded are usually just as (if not more so) closed minded than their opponents.

 

If this is the direction we have to go to have a discussion, we're doing it wrong. 

Dude that is the literal definition of bigot/bigotry. I didn't make the word up or the definition. When you (not you, but someone) say you have no respect for a group of people (atheists) that makes you a bigot towards them, sorry that is the reality.

 

I remember when I said Torii Hunter is a bigot against homosexuals people flipped ****, however it is the correct word to use.

I am bigoted (don't respect) towards several groups of people: Hate Groups aka KKK White Supremacists,  Packers fans etc..

[DaveW]

 

 

Well said Psuedo.

 

I know plenty of bad people that believe in god and plenty of good ones that do too.  I've never found any particular correlation with faith and morality, no matter how much those with faith would like to contend otherwise.  

 

I've always thought, if there is a god out there, he'll appreciate that I've spent my life working with people and trying to make the world a better place.  And if that isn't enough and I should've spent some obnoxious chunk of my life in a church or drinking wine and eating crackers or else all of those good deeds don't matter.....well then that's not the kind of god I want to please any way.  

"But if I go to hell then I hope I burn well,
I'll spend my days with J.F.K., Marvin Gaye, Martha Raye, and Lawrence Welk,
And Kurt Cobain, Kojak, Mark Twain and Jimi Hendrix's poltergeist,
And Webster yeah Emmanuel Lewis cause he's the anti-christ,"

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I'm just trying to figure out why we are having this debate in a country that supposedly values freedom. 

 

Let the cake maker refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding.  It's his right.  And when he chooses to exercise said right, he gets to deal with the consequences, which will most likely be a boycott at which point he'd no longer making cakes.  These problems can take care of themselves much more easily than a stupid law which will do more to perpetuate the hate than it will to solve it. 

Which is a great idea in the abstract but reality rarely unfolds so symmetrically.

 

60 years ago, a governor of one our states stood on a university doorstep, screaming at the sky how black people would never be allowed to enter its hallowed doors.

 

Oppression is usually borne from power and majority. If all people had equal power and ability to fight for their own equality, your idea might work... but that's not the hand reality has dealt us.

 

If not for aggressive intervention, there are places in the south that would still refuse to serve black people in 2016. It's really easy to say "well, everyone should be able to do whatever they want" while standing in a position of unrivaled power (in 2016, that'd be a white straight male, probably Christian). For everybody else, that policy really sucks.

 

In practice, no one denies service to the white straight male because he constitutes such buying power the business would likely fail without him. But a black dude? Eh, screw that guy, my business can survive without him. So we end up in a place where everyone serves one group and the rest of the world is told "figure it out your own damned self, not my problem".

[formerly33]

 

I'm just trying to figure out why we are having this debate in a country that supposedly values freedom. 

 

Let the cake maker refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding.  It's his right.  And when he chooses to exercise said right, he gets to deal with the consequences, which will most likely be a boycott at which point he'd no longer making cakes.  These problems can take care of themselves much more easily than a stupid law which will do more to perpetuate the hate than it will to solve it. 

I find it confusing that so many people see freedom in not being able to buy a wedding cake, in not being able to use a hotel or public (public!) restroom.

 

We have freedom of religion in the United States, yes. Is a restaurant a religious enterprise? Also, I always interpreted this freedom as being the freedom to practice any religion we want without being discriminated against (i.e. said cake maker has to make a cake for a Muslim or Mormon or atheist wedding, even if it contradicts their beliefs). It doesn't mean that the person practicing their religion of choice gets to do whatever they want in the name of their religion.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

That's not how most atheists see it.  They take morality seriously, and often reject survival of the fittest--hence their cynicism of capitalism.  Just because it worked for nature, doesn't at all mean it's a good idea for structuring society.  Atheism doesn't mean moral relativism.  In fact many atheist could be accused of being morally righteous. 

 

I'm like Brock. I don't know what I believe as far as afterlife, creation, and spirituality.  But I do try to be a good person, and I guess I do that through I trial and error.  

 

But it really drives me up the wall when people question my/our sincerity because I don't believe in your God, as if it take believing in God to be a good person. The people who are genuinely good do it for the act itself, and need no approval of religion or promise of heaven. 

All you need to do is go back a ways to a time before organized religion existed. During that time, man still cared for its sick and elderly. Those societies created art. They did more than was required to simply survive... and they did it without any concept of what we view as modern religion. Did they believe in a higher power? Sure, probably... but that higher power could have been fire, for all we know. Maybe it's even likely, as fire was what sustained those societies and gave them life, food, and warmth. Yet these simple people transcended basic animal instinct and forged a society for the better of everyone. It was often crude, violent, and ugly but it was more than the bare minimum required for survival.

 

On top of that, most modern religions center around the same basic concept: don't be an ass. If several religions are capable of focusing on the same broad-sweeping concepts, why can't someone do the same without religion? If you're Christian and dogmatically believe Atheists are incapable of accepting societally-generated precepts of good and evil, then Jews must be the same. And Muslims. And maybe Lutherans. After all, they don't believe in the exact same set of principles outlined in your book of choice. Most Atheists - the ones I know, anyway - simply believe in generating those same principles through societal interaction and agreement and not a decree from above. The end result is similar, if not the same.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

That's not how most atheists see it.  They take morality seriously, and often reject survival of the fittest--hence their cynicism of capitalism.  Just because it worked for nature, doesn't at all mean it's a good idea for structuring society.  Atheism doesn't mean moral relativism.  In fact many atheist could be accused of being morally righteous. 

 

I'm like Brock. I don't know what I believe as far as afterlife, creation, and spirituality.  But I do try to be a good person, and I guess I do that through I trial and error.  

 

But it really drives me up the wall when people question my/our sincerity because I don't believe in your God, as if it take believing in God to be a good person. The people who are genuinely good do it for the act itself, and need no approval of religion or promise of heaven. 

 

It really doesn't matter how you see it.  If there is no law maker, you cannot have a law, and I'm really targeting my statement on atheism, not agnosticism (which is what you're essentially claiming here).  It is self-contradictory.

 

But to be clear, if all we are is nothing more than a bundle genes that were created through random luck, primordial soup, and no divine help, then the only moral absolute would be survival of the fittest.  I find that more amusing than anything, given that we've spent countless pages debating capitalism, when it's main premise from an economic standpoint is precisely that:  survival of the fittest.

 

 

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

It really doesn't matter how you see it.  If there is no law maker, you cannot have a law, and I'm really targeting my statement on atheism, not agnosticism (which is what you're essentially claiming here).  It is self-contradictory.

 

But to be clear, if all we are is nothing more than a bundle genes that were created through random luck, primordial soup, and no divine help, then the only moral absolute would be survival of the fittest.

You're taking this from a particular perspective that is tainting your view.

 

From an Atheist's perspective, god does not exist (the same goes for Agnosticism, really). Therefore, all humans make their own laws and build their own societal structure because there is no law maker. From an Atheist's perspective, the Bible is nothing more than a book of laws/guidelines written by man to influence other men... You know, pretty much the same thing Atheists do, only they do it through society, government, and law of man instead of god.

 

And, again, we end up at exactly the same point no matter if you believe in God or not. The same moral absolutes apply depending on perspective.

 

And if you don't like my argument using the word "Atheists", replace it with "Buddhists". The same principles apply. Are Buddhists incapable of morality because they believe in man and nature, not a god?

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Dude that is the literal definition of bigot/bigotry. I didn't make the word up or the definition. When you (not you, but someone) say you have no respect for a group of people (atheists) that makes you a bigot towards them, sorry that is the reality.

 

I remember when I said Torii Hunter is a bigot against homosexuals people flipped ****, however it is the correct word to use.

I am bigoted (don't respect) towards several groups of people: Hate Groups aka KKK White Supremacists,  Packers fans etc..

 

I know you didn't make it up Dave, but I don't think you see the point I'm trying to make.  There's plenty of intolerance and bigotry that goes on, but it happens on BOTH sides of the debate, with (in my opinion) the least tolerant people often being the ones screaming tolerance. I don't find that argument very persuasive for that very reason.  People often don't see their own intolerance.

 

I do agree that choosing not to respect someone because they are an atheist or a Christian is not right, but that's a far cry for screaming bigotry or intolerance.  

 

For me, a lack of respect usually comes down to a body of work, of which all the remaining Dem and Rep candidates have none in my book (just to get back on topic)... and Packers fans never had any

 

 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Which is a great idea in the abstract but reality rarely unfolds so symmetrically.

 

60 years ago, a governor of one our states stood on a university doorstep, screaming at the sky how black people would never be allowed to enter its hallowed doors.

 

Oppression is usually borne from power and majority. If all people had equal power and ability to fight for their own equality, your idea might work... but that's not the hand reality has dealt us.

 

If not for aggressive intervention, there are places in the south that would still refuse to serve black people in 2016. It's really easy to say "well, everyone should be able to do whatever they want" while standing in a position of unrivaled power (in 2016, that'd be a white straight male, probably Christian). For everybody else, that policy really sucks.

 

In practice, no one denies service to the white straight male because he constitutes such buying power the business would likely fail without him. But a black dude? Eh, screw that guy, my business can survive without him. So we end up in a place where everyone serves one group and the rest of the world is told "figure it out your own damned self, not my problem".

 

And then you run into the other side of things, where your own thoughts are policed and a different kind of oppression is based off of power and majority. It's really no different Brock.  Forcing the cake maker to make a cake for a wedding he doesn't believe in is just as oppressive. 

 

This isn't a government standing up and trying to oppress the rights of a race of people like it was 60 years ago.  And even though I don't agree with homosexuality, I still have no problems politically with gays marrying (as I've said here on more than one occasion).

 

This is about a business man making a business choice that most people here (plenty of which are white straight males) think is wrong. 

 

The problem with this debate is that we are looking at it all wrong. The purpose of the government is to protect the liberties of the people.  It's their job to allow consenting gay couples to marry, just as it's their job to let those who don't believe it's right to say so.  That's how freedom works. 

 

You would have a point here if the cake was an essential service in which the cake maker was denying said service based on sexual preference.  But that isn't what is going on.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

You're taking this from a particular perspective that is tainting your view.

 

From an Atheist's perspective, god does not exist (the same goes for Agnosticism, really). Therefore, all humans make their own laws and build their own societal structure because there is no law maker. From an Atheist's perspective, the Bible is nothing more than a book of laws/guidelines written by man to influence other men... You know, pretty much the same thing Atheists do, only they do it through society, government, and law of man instead of god.

 

And, again, we end up at exactly the same point no matter if you believe in God or not. The same moral absolutes apply depending on perspective.

 

I'd be careful, I'm not the one contradicting myself.  I get that you think that the Bible was written by man to influence other men.  That's an assumption that I do not share and not one you can assume that we do when framing this discussion. 

 

But in that, you just said what I've bene saying, that moral absolutes apply depending on perspective.  That means they aren't moral absolutes.  Post Modernity got that right when it developed a world view that had no God. The problem is that no one likes that outcome anymore than they liked the outcome with a God as no one likes survival of the fittest in practice.  Instead, they try to have it both ways, even though it doesn't work. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I'd be careful, I'm not the one contradicting myself.  I get that you think that the Bible was written by man to influence other men.  That's an assumption that I do not share and not one you can assume that we do when framing this discussion. 

 

But in that, you just said what I've bene saying, that moral absolutes apply depending on perspective.  That means they aren't moral absolutes.  Post Modernity got that right when it developed a world view that had no God. The problem is that no one likes that outcome anymore than they liked the outcome with a God as no one likes survival of the fittest in practice.  Instead, they try to have it both ways, even though it doesn't work. 

I'm not contradicting myself, which is why I clearly stated a perspective and stated nothing as fact.

 

If moral absolutes cannot exist without god, explain Buddhism. There's a circular argument here and that's what bothers me. It hinges on the acceptance of a god for morality and without god, morality cannot exist. Well, what about someone who believes in a different god? How can you say moral absolutism exists as a Christian while acknowledging moral absolutism also exists for Jews? Absolutism is a pretty rigid thing. In its very definition, there is no wiggle room. If, as a Christian, you accept Jews also employ moral absolutism, then you must accept that Atheists can do the same because you're allowing personal perspective into the argument and not absolutism.

 

Never mind that no religion on earth actually applies moral absolutism. 1500 years ago, Catholicism preached "do not lop off someone's head without cause... unless they're a slave, then do whatever, it's cool". Today they preach "do not lop off someone's head without cause".

 

In 2016, many Christian religions preach "homosexuality is wrong". In 50 years, that will no longer be said from a mainstream pulpit. It's inevitable.

 

If moral absolutism is a constantly moving target interpreted by 10,000 different people 10,000 different ways depending on perspective and time period, how does it exist at all? If it does exist, then it's on a personal level, which loops us back around to, you guessed it, Atheism...

[Craig Arko]

In the end, I just hope we can find someone electable who is more interested in the 21st century and its unique challenges.

[Craig Arko]

This could be described as the hymnal of my beliefs.

 

http://www.symphonyofscience.com

[PseudoSABR]

 

It really doesn't matter how you see it.  If there is no law maker, you cannot have a law, and I'm really targeting my statement on atheism, not agnosticism (which is what you're essentially claiming here).  It is self-contradictory.

 

But to be clear, if all we are is nothing more than a bundle genes that were created through random luck, primordial soup, and no divine help, then the only moral absolute would be survival of the fittest.  I find that more amusing than anything, given that we've spent countless pages debating capitalism, when it's main premise from an economic standpoint is precisely that:  survival of the fittest.

Morality is not a matter of obedience to a prescribed set of laws (whether made by man or god/prophet).  Did Jesus compel others to do good because it pleases God and will grant them eternal life in heaven, or did he do so because goodness is its own reward (and you know actually helps others)?  The logic you're presenting here is exactly why so many religious people do such a horrible job of prioritizing the welfare of others (especially the poor and the weak).   The Christian's quest for their own salvation too often trumps their interest and capacity to actually do good for people not themselves; and in fact, explains their fondness of capitalistic economic models which mirror their own self-interest. 

 

You might want to spend some time thinking about why people who don't believe in god don't adopt survival of the fittest.  Plenty of non-believers desire to do good, even against their own self-interest.  Why is that?  At some point you should say to yourself: "Gee that's pretty courageous that so many non-believers fight for the welfare of others without being compelled by God or religion."    My point is that even if we are just biological creatures without any spiritual dimension, we can still build a society in which we work for the good of all people and not just our own self-interest.   

[TheLeviathan]

I'm not so sure most of us aren't a blend of morality and "survival of the fittest".  Sometimes we look out for others for selfish reasons, sometimes because of our own sense of good.  (From wherever that might be inspired)

 

We're rather complicated creatures.  

 

Except for Ted Cruz of course.

[Craig Arko]

By the way, maybe we can consign this back to the 19th century where it belongs.

 

'The phrase "survival of the fittest" is not generally used by modern biologists as the term does not accurately describe the mechanism of natural selection as biologists conceive it. Natural selection is differential reproduction (not just survival) and the object of scientific study is usually differential reproduction resulting from traits that have a genetic basis under the circumstances in which the organism finds itself, which is called fitness, but in a technical sense which is quite different from the common meaning of the word.'

[TheLeviathan]

Marco Rubio with perhaps the most amusing debate disaster I can recall.