Religious People with Political Views

[Dr.Who]

EG. As a Christian I may want everyone to know the message of salvation but I choose not to propose any laws that would make that compulsary.

The fact that you even consider that an option is scary.

It is unfair of you to characterize my not doing something as giving it serious consideration. I am perfectly capable of being aware that I could cheat on my wife without giving it any serious consideration and being aware of the possibiliy makes me less likely to do it rather than more likely.

I oppose compulsory efforts to evangelize and it is mean spirited of you to imply that my opposition to it is a scary example of me actually wanting it.

 

[Dr.Who]

You cant force religious salvation on others for it to be a true conversion it needs to be something of their choosing. Furthermore is you vote for legislators with the intention of making you moral code law that is an imposition.

I agree that one cannot force salvation.

I have been saying all along that I do not vote for legislators that would make my moral code law. What I don't understand is how you can see the exact opposite in my words?

 

[Apathy]

Will you now claim that I believe ideology should dictate laws? Somehow I doubt it but given your record, I probably shouldn't rule out the possibility. It seems the mere mention of anything religious is what short circuited your cognitive abilities and sent you screaming down your current fallacious path of Anti-Theist hysteria.

More baseless personal attacks along with a continued red herring. Not wishing religion to dictate laws is not equivalent to being Anti-theist. Get back on topic.

 

[GenSeneca]

A world view is meant to be a personal guide for yourself you cannot force your world view on others.

Wouldn't that mean that all laws force a worldview on others? Can you offer an example of a law that does not force a worldview on others?

 

[Apathy]

EG. As a Christian I may want everyone to know the message of salvation but I choose not to propose any laws that would make that compulsary.

It is unfair of you to characterize my not doing something as giving it serious consideration. I am perfectly capable of being aware that I could cheat on my wife without giving it any serious consideration and being aware of the possibiliy makes me less likely to do it rather than more likely.

I oppose compulsory efforts to evangelize and it is mean spirited of you to imply that my opposition to it is a scary example of me actually wanting it.

Yes but to say you do not want to do that is to imply you have the option to do so.

 

[Dr.Who]

I actually do have to disagree with you on this. Anti-Theism is certainly a belief, one deeply held by people who purposefully call themselves "Atheists" in order to falsely claim they have no beliefs, but Atheism itself is not a belief or even a belief system. I say this as an Atheist who is bothered by the fact that so many Anti-Theists feel the need to hide who they are by claiming themselves to be Atheists.

Simply substitute Anti-Theism for Atheism and you're argument is solid.

It is worthy of its own thread.

All beliefs are based on faith on some level though. I did recognize that there are different kinds of atheism an aluded to anti-theism as well as soft-atheism or whatever you would want to call it.

Even non-beliefs are based on faith unless they truly include no thoughts on a subject. If you have a thougt on a subject you are going to have a faith at the base of it.

Start a thread and post what you mean by your own atheism and I will see if it is based on a faith or not.

 

[Apathy]

Wouldn't that mean that all laws force a worldview on others? Can you offer an example of a law that does not force a worldview on others?

Laws that protect individuals from aggression.

 

[Dr.Who]

Much of this thread is not worth my time. What I have posted is mostly for the benefit of any third parties.

Apathy, you may disagree and you may think you have refuted things and you are welcome to your thoughts.

See you around

 

[Apathy]

Sorry I guess I made the mistake that you were actually looking for a debate. Cop outs are cool too I guess...

 

[GenSeneca]

More baseless personal attacks

Translation: I cannot refute anything GenSeneca said in his last post.

along with a continued red herring.

What irrelevant topic have I brought up to divert attention away from the main topic?

Not wishing religion to dictate laws is not equivalent to being Anti-theist.

Would you prefer Theophobic? Since you're not trying to claim that I think ideology should dictate laws, clearly it was the mention of religion that ruffled your feathers.

Get back on topic.

I never left but it would be nice if you rejoined the topic.

 

[GenSeneca]

Laws that protect individuals from aggression.

Such laws impose your worldview on others. The aggressors for one as well as anyone who welcomes aggression.

 

[GenSeneca]

It is worthy of its own thread.

Anti-Theism in America

It's an old thread but a classic. I hope to see you there.

 

[Neutral Evil]

Beliefs that are created by those force themselves are worthy of praise, if they take a practical approach to them. Anything done with the aim of advancement through applied strength of character or intelligence deserves to be. The shortsighted, dogmatic religious people should not be allowed to interfer with the more capable and deserving. They are the only threat that must be eliminated. The others, if they can prove their worth have the right to exist.

 

[Dr.Who]

Beliefs that are created by those force themselves are worthy of praise, if they take a practical approach to them. Anything done with the aim of advancement through applied strength of character or intelligence deserves to be. The shortsighted, dogmatic religious people should not be allowed to interfer with the more capable and deserving. They are the only threat that must be eliminated. The others, if they can prove their worth have the right to exist.

Hello and welcome to the forum.

Are you saying that you would prohibit some people from speaking their beliefs because they are deemed to be shortsighted or dogmatic and religious?

 

[GenSeneca]

Hello and welcome to the forum.

Are you saying that you would prohibit some people from speaking their beliefs because they are deemed to be shortsighted or dogmatic and religious?

He said they do not have the right to exist and should be "eliminated".