Secular folks should worry.

[Res Ipsa]

Oh, and religious rights have been one of the first things to go in totalitarian theistic regimes and/or revolutions and/or governments that have risen to power. Iranian revolution? Mohdi's persecution of Moslems? Taliban persecution of other sects of Islam?

Yes, in regards to the Islamic State fundamentalists rising to power, you have a point. I would say, however, that the principles which they espouse are in direct contradiction with the principles of Christian religious thought.

You left out the context:

Oh, and religious rights have been one of the first things to go in totalitarian atheistic regimes and/or revolutions and/or governments that have risen to power.

Oh, and religious rights have been one of the first things to go in totalitarian theistic regimes and/or revolutions and/or governments that have risen to power. Iranian revolution? Mohdi's persecution of Moslems? Taliban persecution of other sects of Islam?

You made a specific claim about "atheist" governments. I simply parroted your statement back to you, changing "atheistic" to "theistic," along with recent examples, to show you that whether a government is "totalitarian" does not depend on whether the totalitarians are theists or atheistic.

You respond by playing "no true scotsman" and move the goalposts from "religious believers" to "people that agree with the principles of Christian religious thought (another vague term that you, no doubt, will fail to define).

I’m referring to the wide spread and mass destruction of life and property in godless regimes such as the old Soviet state that lead to the Russia of today, and the communists that run China. I suppose you could throw Hitler’s Germany in there too.

Well, bless your heart, of course you are. That's two communists and a facist -- fanatic, authoritarian leaders who were first, and foremost, ideologues. But you simply refuse to consider the many examples of brutal, totalitarian governments headed by believers in God. Claiming that people like me and the millions of other nonbelievers are tantamount to Hitler or Stalin is simple bigotry.

Granted, there is ‘soft’ secular humanism and the more strident ‘in your face, my way or the highway’ secular humanism. Just as there is with, say the hard religious/political right, and the Mitt Romney Republicans. Of which I am one.

"Soft secular humanism?" Is there no end to your making up terms when you find it convenient? "Secular humanism" has a defined set of moral and ethical principles. Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, and Mao, your atheist boogeymen, weren't secular humanists of any type. You keep playing fast and loose with terminology, so please define "hard secular humanism" and "soft secular humanism" as you are using them.

Although when I did so, you essentially called me a liar. You also made me out to be a ‘Tuckerite’. That I am not. Some things I hear him say, I agree with. Other things I hear him say I find myself saying, “What a loon!” Same with Hannity and Co. Same with Trump.

CFR. Please link to the comment in which I "essentially" called you a liar in response you to saying you considered yourself a "Mitt Romney Republican." Also, to me calling you a "Tuckerite." I don't even know what a "Tuckerite" would be. I think you are again confusing people with labels. You don't need to be a close of Tucker Carlson to do something similar to something Tucker is doing.

Secular humanists with non theistic inclinations are inclined to put those that don’t have a worldview similar to their own into one large basket?

LOL. This is classic projection. You're the one that divided Americans into two baskets: people who believe in God and people who don't. It's you who thinks that everyone in your nonbeliever bucket is the same: Res Ipsa, Stalin, Lenin, Mao -- all go in the same large basket. You are doing the dividing on the basis of religious belief and non belief -- not me.

To the extent I've referred to "baskets," it's been in response to your baskets and the purely bigoted claims you make about the people in your nonreligious basket. You see the difference as an existential threat to civil society. I see the difference as of very little significance. People do good things with and without God. People do bad things with and without God. I don't consider "theists" an existential threat to anything. Other than perhaps providing you with a counterexample, can you find an example of me making bigoted statements about "believers" as a group that are the equivalent of your many bigoted statements about "secularists?"

[quote-MG 2.0]That seems to be the case with you. Although I would like to think you are better than that. However we want to define civil society, I don’t think this is part and parcel of where we would want to go. Lumping everyone into ‘the other’ basket and trying to silence them.[/quote]

LOL. You're the guy who's been repeatedly claiming that the people in your "not religious believer" basket are an existential threat to civil society. So, yes, I'd like to think that I'm better than that. As for "trying to silence," please link where I have done that.

Basket making at its worst.

Someone once suggested something like "pull the beam out of your own eye first." You might want to read up on him.

I’ve been willing to cut you some slack Res Ipsa, on a personal basis. I haven’t seen ANY evidence that you are willing to do the same.

More passive aggression. I haven't asked you to cut me any slack. As I've already said, I haven't asked you for anything. You get to express bigoted things about your "secularists," which you define to include me, just like anyone else here gets to express bigoted things. I'm discussing your words that you chose to post here in this forum. Those words include that "securlarists," which include me, promote putting pornography in public schools, are tantamount as leaders to Mao and Hitler, and are an existential threat to civil society. If that's what you call cutting me some slack on a personal basis, leave me out.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

snip

Troll. Blatant.

Regards,
MG

A.

[malkie]

for what it's worth, it appears that Putin supports and is supported by the Russian Orthodox church - by most definitions a theistic organization.

as far as I know, most Ukrainians (or at least a plurality) are members of the Ukrainian Orthodox church - kissing cousins to those pouring out horrors upon their heads.

[Morley]

del

[drumdude]

What things, specifically?

To be honest, drumdude, we do not have access to FOX News on television in our home.Sometimes if we are down the street visiting my wife’s parents they will have FOX news on. Sometimes it might be Tucker Carlson, sometimes it might be another pundit. There have been times, more than once, where I’ve said to myself, “Ummm…he’s got that wrong.”

Specifically? Where I don’t see him that often I can’t point out any one thing in particular. But I can tell you that what I’m saying is true.

And you can either choose to believe that or not.

Now and then I’ll run across something online if I’m using Google news and there is a link to FOX.

Regards,
MG

What in general, then, do you disagree with modern conservatives about? There’s been plenty of talking points from them over the last 10 years. And I haven’t seen you specifically push back on any of them.

[Res Ipsa]

You were completely unable to describe my worldview other than the "doesn't believe in God" part, which is hardly a "worldview."

You are free to then lay out what your worldview is. My assertion, however, is that your non theistic beliefs will impact your worldview, whatever that might be.

I asked a question and made a comment earlier about a ‘city set on a hill’. Do you believe all of that…or something different? If so, what?

What is your worldview? Is communism/socialism a threat? Why or why not. Are the changing moralities (honesty, sexual mores, etc.) a threat? Why or why not. Etc.,etc.

Please don’t default to the tired phrase, “Things have gotten better, not worse”.

This is NOT meant as an attack (to be clear). I’m interested in your world view. Also, for fun, if you were the President of the United States, what would your views be on capitalism vs. socialism (rough outlines of each). Law and order. Free speech. Government control vs. parental control of schools. Just a few to start out…

Would your views be more inline with say, a Mitt Romney Republican, or a Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren Democrat? How much impact do the views of either side regarding abortion on demand play into your overall acceptance or rejection of either platform?

Regards,
MG

I'm not the one who claimed that this thread showed an enlightening contrast between two worldviews. But, while you go on and on and on about your own world view, you can't get a single thing right about mine. So, your statement to your imaginary reader is nothing more than BS.

Why are you only asking me about my worldview now? You can't even accurately explain it, but you've been making all sorts of derogatory claims about it. That's bigotry.

As far as your broad-brush issues go, there is no simple term or phrase that describes them. As you ignored the first time I made some general statements about my worldview, I'm not inclined to write several treatises on what I consider to be complex topics.

Why is "things have gotten better" a tired phrase? Why is it any more tired than "things have gotten worse?" That's what we call "poisoning the well."

I don't characterize my views with terms like "Mitt Romney Republican" or "Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren Democrat" (by the way, Bernie isn't a Democrat and there are significant differences between Sanders and Warren).

In terms of abortion, I personally consider it a medical procedure best left to the woman and her doctor. I don't think that criminalizing that procedure is necessary or justified. I don't consider my personal view of abortion as any sort of litmus test. I recognize that society has an interest in the well-being of children and that there are competing interests at stake. The bodily connection between a pregnant woman and the embryo or fetus or unborn child is a unique situation that I think is pretty much suis generis. If the law doesn't compel me to donate a kidney or blood to save my child's life, it's hard for me to justify compelling a woman to give birth against her will.

I do favor the government taking action that appears to have a secondary effect of lowering the abortion rate. One of those is evidence-based sex education in schools. Another is providing pregnant women with facts regarding their options, including adoption services. (The religion-based "pregnancy centers" too often provide false, misleading, or incomplete facts to qualify.) I also have no objection to society deciding to give incentives for people to have children, such as tax deductions or credits or financial support for any women who seek abortion because of an inability to financially support them.

I should also note that I don't consider "respect for life" to be a uniquely religious value.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Article 36 of the Chinese constitution says that citizens “enjoy freedom of religious belief.” It bans discrimination based on religion and forbids state organs, public organizations, or individuals from compelling citizens to believe in—or not believe in—any particular faith.

That took all of five seconds to google. But MG isn’t really interested in learning, is he?

- Doc

[MG 2.0]

LOL. This is classic projection. You're the one that divided Americans into two baskets: people who believe in God and people who don't. It's you who thinks that everyone in your nonbeliever bucket is the same: Res Ipsa, Stalin, Lenin, Mao -- all go in the same large basket. You are doing the dividing on the basis of religious belief and non belief -- not me.

You’re the one…
It’s you who thinks…
You are doing the dividing…

Res Ipsa, I appreciate what you’re trying to do here. And it’s not appreciated. You spent a good portion of your post ‘spin doctoring’ in one form or another. You are a pro at doing so. You ought to be. As I said earlier, that’s your bread and butter.

Your sophistry is admirable.

But at the end of the day it’s a matter of whether a jury would look at underlying arguments and evidence as having merit and/or whether or not there is reasonable doubt.

You have your own logic, no matter how at odds with other people it may be. I suppose someone who gets inside their own ‘logic bubble’ and makes their ‘truth’ the greater Truth one might call self-righteous.

I read your posts and have not been able to get past the fact that when I read what you write much of it just doesn’t ‘ring true’. I know that is partly my bias. And partly my own belief in an all knowing all wise creator that knows and understands infinitely more than any one of us can understand.

Your arguments and logic are all you have to counter the arguments against God and His commandments. Excuse me if I find your argumentation less than persuasive in regards to reasons that we ought to ignore what many are able to see right in front of their eyes.

Society is changing.

Some things are just right and some things are just wrong. The trick is determining what is what and which is which.

I do appreciate the fact that you’re winging it and trying to do the best you can with the knowledge that you have in regards to morality and ethics. And if it works for you, great. In my earlier posts I expressed some thoughts in regards to why this might be very risky in the population writ large. Especially when there are competing ideas and ideologies that might get in the way.

That’s where the rubber meets the road in respect to whether or not civil society will endure. If we didn’t have so many weapons of destruction at our disposal it wouldn’t be as big a deal. Different world. Different consequences.

Personally, I’d rather place my bets on God and His judgements and knowledge than the wisdom of man which can be fraught with error. I’ve seen that too many times to count…just on this backwoods forum.

Thanks for the conversation. It is enlightening.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I haven't asked you to cut me any slack.

You didn’t have to.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

for what it's worth, it appears that Putin supports and is supported by the Russian Orthodox church - by most definitions a theistic organization.

as far as I know, most Ukrainians (or at least a plurality) are members of the Ukrainian Orthodox church - kissing cousins to those pouring out horrors upon their heads.

Is the Russian Orthodox Church corrupt? If so, does that matter?

Regards,
MG