Gay persecution vs. "Anti-religion bigotry" thread

[Leeman4Gilmour]

What's the difference between judging a person based purely on their religious beliefs and judging them based purely on their sexual orientation? Or extend that question to include, colour, race, sex, height, weight, citizenship, neighborhood, etc.

Every "group" contains aholes and good people. More often than not, more good people than aholes. Change the innate behaviour of judging a person by what "group" you place them in, and the world will change for the better.

[Resolute 14]

The difference is choice.

A person cannot choose to be white, black, gay, etc.

A person can choose to be a Christian, flat earther, moon landing denialist, etc.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Quantum mechanics as a scientific is one thing. Using quantum physics to explain that their might be an after life in other dimensions, some kind of life force energy etc., is the unscientific type of woo that is usually peddled by quacks such as Deepak Chopra.

I wouldn't say AcGold (or myself, because I've pondered it too) would call any of what he said an explanation for anything. For me personally, it's about keeping an open mind (or allowing others their own openness of mind) regarding things that are outside the realm of our knowledge. To say that something may be possible doesn't make it a solid stance on anything. It's actually kind of the opposite. Just because something hasn't been observed in what we know to be true, doesn't mean it can't be true. It's the things that we've ruled out that people should be dropping by the wayside. Keeping an open mind about possibilities is exactly what drives science in crazy and interesting directions.

It's not that long ago that the mere suggestion of other universes or dimensions would render you a nut in the eyes of most. There are still plenty of people that think you're insane if you're even open to the idea. The willingness of people to pursue those ideas anyways is what continues to push us forward. Even if their theories are proven wrong, it's still likely that they've discovered something new in the process.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

A person cannot choose to be white, black, gay, etc.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The difference is choice.

A person cannot choose to be white, black, gay, etc.

A person can choose to be a Christian, flat earther, moon landing denialist, etc.

Right, because 'slut shaming' is good.

[Dion]

Why I'm proud my little girl doesn't want to go to heaven

I remember the teacher in our weekly bible studies class saying, “If God doesn’t exist, as a Christian, I’ll have still lived a good life. But if He does, you’ll go to hell.”

But as I’ve gotten older, like that sign, I’ve often reflected on that.

I know many people, who, like most Australians, don’t follow any organised religion and who live good, conscientious, generous and responsible lives.

And I know many people who, because of their rigid, unforgiving, dogmatic fanaticism, cause great heartache and suffering to many.

But what makes a good life? It’s a question that philosophers and prophets have tried to answer since time immemorial, and it’s one I’m still trying to get my head around.

It was then that our younger daughter, aged seven, piped up. “I don’t think there’s any heaven, and I don’t think there’s anything after we die.”

Even taking our own lack of faith into account, it sounded shocking. It’s not something we’ve ever really mentioned to our children, beyond trying to explain that everyone – from their beloved grandmother and us to them – must die sometime.

And while many Jews don’t believe in heaven or an afterlife, it’s not something you expect to hear from someone so little.

Throughout history, countless religions have risen, fallen and been forgotten, but it’s interesting that the so-called Golden Rule that underpins most of them is to treat others with the same compassion as you’d wish to be treated yourself.

Of course, there have been just as many cruel and hypocritical non-believers as religious fanatics, but unlike vociferous atheists like Richard Dawkins or Charlie Hebdo, I’m not interested in dismissing or ridiculing anyone else’s faith, nor proving to them why they should believe what I believe.

After all, most religions have myriad sects and interpretations of their scriptures, and just because I don’t believe in them doesn’t mean I don’t think anyone else should either, or that there aren’t good things every religion or philosophy can offer.

No doubt there’ll be people as concerned by my little girl’s godlessness, just as many, like me, are concerned by the fact that it is harder for her to study ethics in NSW public schools than scripture taught by organisations with intolerant, homophobic records.

“All I want to do is have a good life, and be a good person who is good and kind to other people,” my daughter said.

And it’s all I want for her too.

While like me, she may change her mind and her beliefs down the track, I’m glad that, at least for now, she’s free of the guilt and fear that blighted my childhood, and proud that she has a better understanding now of what it means to live well – something most of us take years to discover: to try and be as kind, generous and compassionate to others as we all should strive to be without fear, favour or any reward other than the simple, precious joy of simply being good.

Now if we could only convince her to take the same attitude to eating her vegetables…

http://www.sbs.com.au/topics/life/cu...want-go-heaven

[Kybosh]

Arguing an afterlife based on quantum tunneling or entanglement is kinda silly because there is zero evidence of this at the moment. That's very much in the realm of philosophy, and that's ok, just don't say the science supports it.

However, lots of very smart people have pontificated quantum mechanics as the mechanism for life. For example, in the 1940s Erwin Schrodinger (yes, that Schrodinger) gave a series of lectures called "What is Life?", making an argument for quantum mechanics and chemistry in the evolution of life. Anyway, Schrodinger got some things wrong (remember that DNA had been known for some time before this, but this was also before the structure of DNA was known/published) but the lectures really highlight how some fundamental scientific processes could explain the mechanism of life.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Right, because 'slut shaming' is good.

That's a pretty big stretch, but there's pretty solid science behind people with higher sex drives so that still falls on the genetics side.

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by rubecube

The irony of people pointing out the nonsensical nature of religion and then invoking quantum physics is just so effing rich.

Why?

Quantum mechanics uses empirical methodology to prove its edicts. Non locality, quantum entanglement, particle wave duality. They were proven with experiments that can be repeated infinitely. So answer my question, why? In what way is attempting to understand reality with verifiable scientific evidence ironic? Religion makes no attempts to verify claims, science does.

Do you understand the meaning of irony? An anti religious person would fully be expected to support science. Or is it that you don't understand quantum mechanics and haven't studied it and make assumptions based off no study?

Religion applies faith and emotion, science applies empiricism to create reproducible experiments. If you're going to mock so condescendingly and with such absolute certainty I demand a full explanation.

You insinuating quantum mechanics is a religion is about as wrong as you could be. It's very existence defied the scientific consensus of the time because the evidence of such things as the dual slit experiment completely defied the common understanding of matter and reality. Go ahead argue what I said but try to do it with a little logic instead of pure rhetoric.

The true irony is you drawing parallels between religion and quantum mechanics; QM exists in defiance of faith and emotion. Its acceptance into the scientific community was resisted by the most respected members including Einstein.

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by AcGold

Why?

Quantum mechanics uses empirical methodology to prove its edicts. Non locality, quantum entanglement, particle wave duality. These are objective experiments that can be repeated infinitely. So answer my question, why? In what way are religion and empirical evidence the same?

In what way is it ironic? Religions apply faith and emotion, science applies empirism to create reproducible experiments. If you're going to mock so condescendingly and with such absolute certainty I demand a full explanation.

To summarize: I say harrumph, good sir. Harrumph!

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

That's a pretty big stretch, but there's pretty solid science behind people with higher sex drives so that still falls on the genetics side.

Fair enough - was hyperbole. A bit.
So that is it then - just so I know what is and is not accepted - judging others based on their choices, regardless if no one else is affected, is fair game?
And I am asking seriously - just when I think I have it understood, I realize I don't. I thought we didn't judge choices or behaviours that weren't harmful to others.

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by Kybosh

To summarize: I say harrumph, good sir. Harrumph!

Actually quite the opposite. I fully open the door to Rubecubes criticism. If you disagree go ahead, but try doing so with a cogent argument instead of just rhetoric. I invite objective criticism.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by AcGold

Actually quite the opposite. I fully open the door to Rubecubes criticism. If you disagree go ahead, but try doing so with a cogent argument instead of just rhetoric. I invite objective criticism.

Your OP was arguing about quantum mechanics, tunneling, and the afterlife which sounded like a lot of the faux-intellectualism that gets passed around by various questionable sources. I already stated that I'm not dismissing quantum mechanics as a whole, just its misuse and misappropriation by mystics and their ilk.

EDIT: Pretty sure I was also cranky and tired when I read your OP so I might not have been particularly thorough.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by AcGold

Why?

Quantum mechanics uses empirical methodology to prove its edicts. Non locality, quantum entanglement, particle wave duality. They were proven with experiments that can be repeated infinitely. So answer my question, why? In what way is attempting to understand reality with verifiable scientific evidence ironic? Religion makes no attempts to verify claims, science does.

Do you understand the meaning of irony? An anti religious person would fully be expected to support science. Or is it that you don't understand quantum mechanics and haven't studied it and make assumptions based off no study?

Religion applies faith and emotion, science applies empiricism to create reproducible experiments. If you're going to mock so condescendingly and with such absolute certainty I demand a full explanation.

You insinuating quantum mechanics is a religion is about as wrong as you could be. It's very existence defied the scientific consensus of the time because the evidence of such things as the dual slit experiment completely defied the common understanding of matter and reality. Go ahead argue what I said but try to do it with a little logic instead of pure rhetoric.

The true irony is you drawing parallels between religion and quantum mechanics; QM exists in defiance of faith and emotion. Its acceptance into the scientific community was resisted by the most respected members including Einstein.

Honestly, from your first post, I thought you were arguing the exact opposite. I think Rube came to the same conclusion.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The difference is choice.

A person cannot choose to be white, black, gay, etc.

A person can choose to be a Christian, flat earther, moon landing denialist, etc.

This is a fairly simplistic way of seeing the difference. This is literally true, but often—perhaps even usually—not practically plausible. A person's religion is most commonly determined by culture and upbringing, and NOT by conscious choice. Huge numbers of people are simply never presented with options in the same way that we make other choices.

I absolutely agree that there is a difference between making judgments based on race, gender, sexual orientation et al. and making them based on religion. But, prejudice of every stripe is still ugly and wrong, and people should never be so quick to judge based on religion.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This is a fairly simplistic way of seeing the difference. This is literally true, but often—perhaps even usually—not practically plausible. A person's religion is most commonly determined by culture and upbringing, and NOT by conscious choice. Huge numbers of people are simply never presented with options in the same way that we make other choices.

I absolutely agree that there is a difference between making judgments based on race, gender, sexual orientation et al. and making them based on religion. But, prejudice of every stripe is still ugly and wrong, and people should never be so quick to judge based on religion.

I make judgements based on all kinds of things all the time, there's nothing wrong with making a judgement.
What is wrong is acting on that judgement in such a way that it negatively effects the people involved.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Peter12, do you feel this applies to you? Genuinely curious.

No, it doesn't really apply to me. My personal journey to faith has gone from being raised conservative Lutheran to a long period of atheism and now back to a kind of existential Protestantism. I have spent a lot of time reading, thinking, and reflecting on my experiences. It lead me to where I am today.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The difference is choice.

A person cannot choose to be white, black, gay, etc.

A person can choose to be a Christian, flat earther, moon landing denialist, etc.

This statement is so plainly antithetical to the spirit of liberalism. Quite repulsive.

[MrMastodonFarm]

haha describing someones thoughts as repulsive in back-to-back posts peter? Never pegged you as much of a usageaster anyways but try a little variety if you're going to go fishing this afternoon.

[peter12]

More personal attacks.