tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post5515653886139210277..comments2024-03-26T21:27:42.278-07:00Comments on Pure Mormonism: The Real Threat To Traditional MarriageAlan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comBlogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-48018557946515083012017-09-07T10:44:11.293-07:002017-09-07T10:44:11.293-07:00Again, Joshua, if you wish to remain on point, I w...Again, Joshua, if you wish to remain on point, I would read part two of this series, which I linked to above in my response to Shaun.<br /><br />It is entirely lawful for a business owner to sell to whomever he wishes, but there are conditions that exist for holding oneself out in public commerce. Still, there are exceptions, and refusing to cater, for whatever reason, whether religious, personal, or just not wanting to, is completely within one's rights. Please read the piece where I address those concerns.Alan Rock Watermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-5549707825678613552017-09-06T20:30:01.642-07:002017-09-06T20:30:01.642-07:00They are arguing on the basis of religious freedom...They are arguing on the basis of religious freedom - not property rights - if youre going to claim that you cant sell/bake a wedding cake to sinful people... Then you shouldnt sell/bake a wedding cake for any sin listed in the bible....<br /><br />Even if you threw in the property rights argument, the reality is that no public business would survive if business owners acted on their property rights by refusing service to groups of people. <br />Also, I doubt the owners in question actually own the space where they are conducting business... Most likely they are on a lease. They dont actually 'own' the shop.<br /> And Im sure some of their equipment is probably leased as well. <br />If the bldg owners and equipment owners put a mandate in their lease that all customers have to be served, regardless of ones religious beliefs, there would be yet another bitch fest about religious freedom. There would be a suit against thr bldg owners for violating religious freedom - even though the bldg owners were exercising their property rights...<br />So it all comes back to the religious freedom argument... You dont want to sell to sinners, then you shouldnt sell to ALL types of sinners listed in the bible.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13523905820202753927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-88120254955864879242017-09-06T10:29:08.694-07:002017-09-06T10:29:08.694-07:00Right you are, Shaun. Presumably by now, "Unk...Right you are, Shaun. Presumably by now, "Unknown" has read part two of this series, which addresses fundamental rights. <br /><br />http://puremormonism.blogspot.com.ng/2015/10/Alan Rock Watermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-58699319613704579002017-09-06T01:16:13.877-07:002017-09-06T01:16:13.877-07:00It's not about religious freedom. Anyone who c...It's not about religious freedom. Anyone who claims it is doesn't understand. It is only about property rights. Many goods are scarce. In order to resolve conflicts over the right to control those goods, we follow the axiomatic principle of private property, or private ownership. Ownership is nothing more than the right to control a scarce good. When you walk into a bakery, you do not own anything in there. You do not own the oven. You do not own the ingredients. You do not own the four walls, and you do not own the baker. The baker owns it all. It is hers. She and only she has the right to control her property,and neither you nor anyone else has any say, unless you make yourself out to be a robber and an enslaver.<br /><br />She can discriminate against anyone she wants to - Jews, blacks, whites, gays, stoners, cops, Marines, or baseball players. You might think she's a jerk for doing so, and you might even be right, but that doesn't give you or anyone the right to violate her property rights. She has the right to refuse to perform her labor with her property for any reason or no reason at all. The fact that her door is open doesn't mean she's bound to serve anyone, just because you think that's what it should mean. It's her business, and she gets to decide what her open door means. Shaunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14191966269391321676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-4088914842844901612016-07-01T16:15:04.374-07:002016-07-01T16:15:04.374-07:00Ive read your blog sporadically with much interest...Ive read your blog sporadically with much interest. <br />I have to admit parts of this post really pissed me off. To be fair, you did provide a disclaimer that the section in question will piss of the gays..and it sure did. <br /><br />When you open the door to the public, you need to serve the public. We dont live in a country anymore that use to display 'No Irish Allowed,' or 'No Jews Allowed' within their shop windows - because that was discrimination. <br /><br />Why is it that these bakeries or pizza places, etc will cater to people who have eaten shell fish, wear mixed fabrics or have had sexual relations with their menstruating wife - but they wont make goods for a gay wedding...<br /><br />The Bible specifically calls out the above as sins, yet people who indulge in the above are served - without hesitation - within these religious businesses that refuse to cater a gay wedding. That is discrimination. These religious businesses are picking and choosing from the Bible. <br /><br />If they are going to holler violation of their religious freedom, than they need to ensure that they dont provide any business to individuals committings all acts labeled sinful in the Bible. <br /><br />Thank you for your time. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13523905820202753927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-36877791703915491822016-01-21T08:59:56.278-08:002016-01-21T08:59:56.278-08:00Speaking of wacky licenses: http://www.foxnews.com...Speaking of wacky licenses: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/21/in-advance-big-storm-new-jersey-lifts-licensing-laws-for-shoveling-snow.html?intcmp=hplnws#Joshua Tolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08481531515300677240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-70328623468061187592015-10-05T10:42:06.592-07:002015-10-05T10:42:06.592-07:00Mr Waterman's salient point to me was: We can&...Mr Waterman's salient point to me was: <i>We can't get people to change. Well, actually we can, but that takes love, not lawsuits. And in order to bring unconditional love into play, we're going to have start by changing ourselves... Rights belong to individuals, not to groups </i>[because]<i> A definable, uniform </i>[group]<i> does not exist.</i><br /><br />I think this is like a cool corollary to the famous quote from Mahatma Gandhi — <i>'Be the change that you wish to see in the world.' </i><br /><br />It seems to me that the gospel of Jesus Christ is, at it's core, about literal individual transformation rather than reformation or change by external coercion. <br /><br />(Luke 17:20–21)<br />The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:<br />21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.<br /><br />It's always been there. The portal to light and truth is engineered into each of us. <br /><br />Dorothy: Oh, will you help me? Can you help me?<br />Glinda: You don't need to be helped any longer. You've always had the power to go back to Kansas.<br />Dorothy: I have?<br />Scarecrow: Then why didn't you tell her before?<br />Glinda: She wouldn't have believed me. She had to learn it for herself.<br />Scarecrow: What have you learned, Dorothy?<br /><br />Thanks Mr Waterman for another great thought provoking post. I knew you wouldn't let me down - and you didn't.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16015388313921723449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-1522433393856010962015-10-04T18:19:07.491-07:002015-10-04T18:19:07.491-07:00Greg,
I find it interesting that you consider my ...Greg,<br /><br />I find it interesting that you consider my efforts to ensure we intend the same content when we use the same words to be "deflection." Without agreeing on semantic content, while we may appear to converse, in reality we're just slinging gibberish at each other.<br /><br />Your questions are irrelevant, again because we don't agree on what the words mean, and your last question tells me uncomplimentary things about you: it tells me you cannot be troubled to read my previous comments in their entirety including the links, or it tells me you are unable to understand what you read.<br /><br />Either way, there is no merit to my repeating what I've already said or linked to, and which you can re-read at your leisure.<br /><br />Jared Liveseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10309044282039536254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-61903335155468183702015-10-04T16:00:00.884-07:002015-10-04T16:00:00.884-07:00Gay sexuality IS legitimate, institutional or notGay sexuality IS legitimate, institutional or notAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11800959939505944679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-40914725975971184262015-10-04T14:16:03.514-07:002015-10-04T14:16:03.514-07:00Log, deflection is another tactic when there are n...Log, deflection is another tactic when there are no more points to be made. Do you want to argue the logic of Christianity or Mormonism? If the defining premise is "faith = truth" (based on a book, a man, a heavenly visitation), well I guess you effectively shut everyone else down, at least in your own mind. Except there are so many sects of Christianity and far more non-christian religions all claiming their unique sect is "the truth" because a certain man proclaimed it to be so. Once you put forth that impossible to prove premise as fact, and then defend every other belief/commandment as truth because the book, the man, the angel told you it was so, there is nothing left to discuss. However, with that logic, anyone can make up any fantasy and claim it was divine edict. In fact that's exactly where mankind has stood throughout recorded history. The problem lies not in your belief system, you can believe whatever you want to as long as you don't hurt me or trample my rights. The problem comes into play when you apply coercion and try to force all others to adhere to your particular set of beliefs. If you claim truth based on the millions who testify your brand of faith, you realize that there are billions that would argue with your millions, all in the name of faith. And what if I pray for an answer and get a different answer than you do? I've found Mormons dismissive of such: "well you must be sinning or you didn't pray well enough or you would have got the same answer I did". Note that nowhere am I denying your right to believe as you wish. I personally believe God did not provide every answer on purpose, to see how we would treat each other in love and kindness or in defiance, rigidity and belligerence. <br /><br />The answers to the following would help me understand your stance a bit better:<br /><br />Do you believe in a God who has unconditional love for all of his children?<br />Do you believe in the LDS concept of agency?<br />Do you believe it is your personal role as a Mormon/Christian to extend your personal beliefs/commandments and concept of consequence for all of humanity? i.e.. Christians/Mormon law for all? <br />Do you believe in "tough love" or "means to an end" (coercion) as a justification of promoting your religious viewpoint on those who don't share them? <br />How does LGBT marriage hurt or threaten you personally?<br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16423919174137826379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-63237706762547539092015-10-04T12:09:00.280-07:002015-10-04T12:09:00.280-07:00Miguel and Gregory,
"[I]f my mental processe...Miguel and Gregory,<br /><br />"[I]f my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms." - JBS Haldane<br /><br />Unfortunately, until you grok this statement fully, you do not understand atheism. By the word "atheism," as is the most common meaning in our culture today, we may understand it to be referring to metaphysical naturalism - succinctly, the idea that there exists nothing but particles, forces, and the void.Jared Liveseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10309044282039536254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-59254107308200999182015-10-04T11:40:08.016-07:002015-10-04T11:40:08.016-07:00oh hurray! does this mean that the peeing contest ...oh hurray! does this mean that the peeing contest is finally over? I was assuming that it must be a guy thing to mercilessly beat a dead argument for so long. <br /><br />Our country is moving into choppy uncharted waters where the traditional definitions of marriage and family are being challenged like never before.<br /><br />Log said: <i>The state is NOT getting out of the marriage business peaceably. Too many fingers are in too many pies. So you deal with the system the way it is, or you kvetch</i> [ie. complain a lot]<br /><br />That's certainly true. I mean, the family court is by far the most profitable of all the courts including constitutional, corporate or even the IRS courts - put together. So change is NOT coming from the top. But what is happening is that ordinary people are voting against the marriage business. This is evident in the fact that marriage rates are plummeting so quickly now that traditional licensed marriage is on trend to become nothing more than a societal anachronism by 2030. <br /><br />I was really hoping that Thomas B Monson was going to address this today in some way, but his talk really was more like be nice to others, comb your hair and don't use drugs (although I'm guessing that prescription drugs was the unmentioned exception... oh just don't get me started on this). <br /><br />Anyway, Mr Waterman said: <i>It sounds unbelievable, but in Mormon marriages today, the desire of the state trumps the will of God. And this holds true even in Utah, where common law marriage is still recognized. What that means is the government would prefer you get a license, but will still recognize the validity of your marriage even if you don't. Your bishop will make you get one anyway. I've wondered why that is for over thirty years, and only recently figured out why. </i><br /><br />I can't wait to see what Mr Waterman is cooking up on this!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16015388313921723449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-35597768704092546832015-10-04T10:59:48.504-07:002015-10-04T10:59:48.504-07:00If a Muslim taxi driver in Minnesota is driving fo...If a Muslim taxi driver in Minnesota is driving for a company he doesn't own, he is subject to the terms of his employment. He is using another person's(employers) property, therefore he is subject to the property owners terms, not his. If the Muslim taxi driver is independent and drives only for himself, there can be no justification for him being being forced to haul people and alcohol against his will. <br /><br />How have another person's rights been violated by someone refusing service to another? Do people have a right to taxi service, or any other service? If so, how are those rights derived? How has "society" been harmed if a Muslim taxi driver doesn't haul drunks? How is "society" a damaged party? Irvenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17926122949198322768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-75580016410209582222015-10-04T09:27:05.162-07:002015-10-04T09:27:05.162-07:00Log, your arguments are based on black and white d...Log, your arguments are based on black and white dichotomy and circular reasoning. Further, your reducing atheism to an extreme silliness: "chemically reactive sacks of mud" is a way to demean and thus discredit opposing viewpoints. Have you considered maybe atheist just don't believe in the Christian God? Or the Mormon God(s)? <br /><br />Personally I'd rather be surrounded by people that act out of an inner ethical and moral integrity and not because of fear of eternal consequence or promises of eternal life, thousands of virgins, what have you. The first is a higher developmental stage, the latter a lower developmental state. We can argue if there are Mormons who develop past early developmental stages or if the religion stunts personal development but that is the another topic.<br /><br />I assume you are LDS. If so, then you should believe in both the principle of agency, and a God who loves his children unconditionally. If you believe in these principles, which there are scriptural evidence, then you should be a little kinder and more accepting as you emulate that model. If you believe in vengeance, conditional love, and coercion, and feel the right to scold, shame and demean others until they see your viewpoint, then you should know that many don't want to be associated with such people or such a God. There is much good to be found scripturally. There is also much horror and terrible things which have been done by those who believe they are on earth to carry our God's vengeance to non-believers, all in his name. Do you believe in conditional love or unconditional love. Do you believe in agency? Do you believe it is your role in life to enforce your God's will on other people who don't share your views? That's not a position others are going to feel very good about. It damages the message of Christ and bastardizes the reason for the religion. In fact, according to Mormon theology, that was exactly Satan's plan was it not? <br /><br />The argument of logic in atheism vs logic in Mormonism would be a good one but not fit for this thread. <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16423919174137826379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-7847781293979073112015-10-04T09:00:04.081-07:002015-10-04T09:00:04.081-07:00I feel this is a great summary viewpoint pertinent...I feel this is a great summary viewpoint pertinent to this discussion:http://www.nomorestrangers.org/religious-freedom-our-founding-fathers-and-marriage-equality/<br /><br />"From its inception in American history, freedom of religion actually meant freedom from the dominant religions of the time. The religious refugees were escaping mainstream European and Christian religions such as the Anglican church or the Catholic church.<br /><br />Stop and think about that for a minute. The first Amendment was written to protect people from forced participation in mainstream Protestantism. It was meant to protect minority religions and minority religious viewpoints from the majority.<br /><br />Frequently, religious values seep into our legal system. This is inevitable, and even desirable, because religious values are often human values. ‘Thou shalt not kill’ makes sense regardless of what religion you adhere to. ‘Thou shalt not steal’, or ‘bear false witness’, have implications on a society in general, that make them subject to legal codification.<br /><br />On the flip side, there are numerous laws that actually restrict religious practice. Mormons in the late 1800’s experienced this when the federal government imprisoned church leaders for practicing plural marriage. Native Americans experienced this when they were forced to fight for their right to use a hallucinogenic drug, peyote, in their religious rituals as they had been doing for hundreds of years. Jehovah’s Witnesses experience this today when their children are forced to receive blood transfusions in life-threatening situations, as do Christian Scientists when they are forced to allow medical treatment of their children. Muslim taxi drivers in Minnesota are forced to transport people who carry alcohol against their religious objections. Muslims and Fundamentalist Mormons are both restricted from legal polygamy and from marrying under-age brides. All of these are cases where the adherents have every right to their belief, but they are restricted in their practice. The justification for these restrictions is that a religious practice is violating the rights of another person or harming society.<br /><br />‘Religious liberty’ has never meant the right of a majority religion (or religions) to impose religious practices or religious rules on non-adherents. In America, we can be sure that Catholics can’t make birth control illegal, even though they are the largest religion. We can be sure that if Muslims become a dominant religion in any community, they still can’t require all women to cover their heads or impose Sharia law. We can be sure that if Amish are a majority in some community, they can’t impose their lifestyle on non-Amish living there.<br /><br />In the case of marriage laws, there are many dominant religions who define marriage as one-man/one-woman. However, there are several religions who define it differently and bless same-sex marriages. The irony is, if a religious freedom argument were relevant, then it would actually work in favor of same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court will never be able to justify forcing any religion to adopt a practice of performing marriages that it does not believe in. But, more importantly, if religious freedom is grounds for interference around marriage, the Supreme Court should protect those minority religions that do want to perform same-sex marriages (as well as those that don’t). This is consistent with the principles of religious liberty and separation of church and state that inspired our founding fathers to write the first amendment–in order to protect minority religions from the dominant religions."Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16423919174137826379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-85766120433819153492015-10-04T06:23:48.205-07:002015-10-04T06:23:48.205-07:00"How many people would willingly follow someo..."How many people would willingly follow someone who openly contradicts himself, who acts against what he says he believes?"<br /><br />If Unknown declared that they believe there is meaning in one's life whether a person is an atheist or not and then afterwards states that one's life is meaningless, then there would be a contradiction.<br /><br />I understand that to Log, believing that humans are just an assortment of matter, formed through random evolution, would mean there is no point in life. I agree to a degree because if there was no creator, there would be no purpose behind this arrangement of matter into a human being. But whether there was a purpose or not, a human can find meaning in his or life through enjoyment of certain pursuits. The human, somehow, still has thoughts and feelings, and things found along the journey of life matter to him/her. To me, this would lead me to believe there is a quale, the "way things seem to us" as Daniel Dennett put it; the pain or a headache or the redness of the sunset sky. Or in other words, that there is more to the universe than what is physically present, which we can sense. Believing in God or in anything spiritual has more to do with this than in merely physically sensing something. Steak Presedenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11145688976336741401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-40342608618305458232015-10-04T06:01:47.470-07:002015-10-04T06:01:47.470-07:00Either few people seem to understand what atheism ...Either few people seem to understand what atheism means or they do but use the word to mean whatever they want, regardless.<br /><br />From Oxford dictionary:<br /><br />Atheist: "Person who does not believe in God."<br /><br />It does not mean a person who does not believe in spirituality or believes that the material universe is all there is. Nor does it mean a person who believes that human lives have no meaning. One can be an atheist but believe in the existence of the human spirit or soul (or the spirit/soul of anything) and the existence of an afterlife.<br /><br />I understand the convenience of using the term atheist to describe a person who does not believe in any of the above or any other religious or spiritual ideas. However, problems arise when one assumes that just because a person claims they are an atheist they therefore do not believe in any of these ideas. This is what we have right now with Log and Unknown, with the latter stating that they can find meaning in life and the former arguing they cannot due their lack of belief in a God, which would assume a lack of belief in meaning in his or her life.Steak Presedenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11145688976336741401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-22364990207096053512015-10-03T21:20:23.769-07:002015-10-03T21:20:23.769-07:00"How many people would willingly follow someo..."How many people would willingly follow someone who openly contradicts himself, who acts against what he says he believes?<br /><br />How many people would be comfortable in allowing such an individual to have power to point a gun at one's head - you know, be in charge of writing and / or enforcing laws upon you?"<br /><br />That's pretty much the situation we find ourselves in right now. I don't like it at all.Doxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11229489025173839494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-65498828022639003372015-10-03T15:28:23.799-07:002015-10-03T15:28:23.799-07:00"For the record, I would not wish to particip..."For the record, I would not wish to participate in any governmental system where I or anyone had capacity to prosecute mine or anyone's vision of the way things should be upon you or anyone else by force of arms. Not sure where that one came from."<br /><br />And yet, the entire conversation stems from a post about participating in a governmental system where people have the capacity to prosecute their vision of the way things should be upon me and everyone else by the force of arms.<br /><br />Did I really have to point that out? <br /><br />I mean, really?Jared Liveseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10309044282039536254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-51199161670149328952015-10-03T15:15:21.965-07:002015-10-03T15:15:21.965-07:00Maybe we should take a vote.
How many people woul...Maybe we should take a vote.<br /><br />How many people would willingly follow someone who openly contradicts himself, who acts against what he says he believes?<br /><br />How many people would be comfortable in allowing such an individual to have power to point a gun at one's head - you know, be in charge of writing and / or enforcing laws upon you?<br /><br />Yeah... I think I'd like to avoid those situations.<br /><br />And, lastly, if not caring why someone's lying is a moral failing, well, then, I'm a moral failure.Jared Liveseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10309044282039536254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-51049659427175582942015-10-03T13:05:53.415-07:002015-10-03T13:05:53.415-07:00I'm reminded of a statement I read recently by...I'm reminded of a statement I read recently by the late author Kurt Vonnegut, a chain-smoking, sometimes vulgar, very worldly (by LDS standards) agnostic/atheist that he made during the first Iraqi war; to the effect that he was quite distressed at how the Iraqi POW's were being treated, that "...they are my brothers", having been a POW in Germany himself. I felt, when reading that statement, that he showed more of what the LDS call the Light of Christ than all of the pro-war Mormon, evangelical, and "born-again Christian" believers put together.<br /><br />Paradoxically, LDS scriptures and even the New Testament support "Unknown" Jon's comment at 10:14 pm (without going into the subsequent arguing between Jon and Log), specifically Mormon's teachings in Moroni 8 and 9 that charity, or in other words loving and respecting everyone as yourself is the greatest of all, and D&C 58:26 which indicates that keeping behavior "within acceptable ranges" (as Jon put it above) out of fear of punishment instead of love and charity does not, in fact, receive any reward from God. Also 2 Timothy 1:7 where the Apostle Paul states that true belief in God does not come from fear, but from power, and love, and a sound mind.PNW_DPerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16203324465643216620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-18746270136935515682015-10-03T10:32:25.630-07:002015-10-03T10:32:25.630-07:00"One needs more than mere arrangements of mat..."One needs more than mere arrangements of matter to provide significance or meaning to life."<br /><br />In the end, this is the assumption upon which your entire argument is based. I don't agree with that statement. I don't <b>feel</b> that a belief in God is the only thing that can provide significance or meaning to life. Many people are currently living such lives. You claim they are living self-contradictory lives and don't truly live what they believe. Of course you do. That is because it contradicts the above statement. But just because you don't accept this idea of finding meaning/significance without a God, does not mean it isn't real for those that have found it.<br /><br />"I don't really care what, therefore, motivates your self-contradictory claim to belief. Your self-contradiction marks you as an unreliable reporter of reality. I would not wish to participate in a governmental system where you had capacity to prosecute your vision of the way things should be upon me by force of arms."<br /><br />And with that this conversation ends, as well as any influence you held with other readers. To admit to not care about someone else's beliefs (regardless if they are self-contradictory) speaks volumes.<br /><br />For the record, I would not wish to participate in any governmental system where I or anyone had capacity to prosecute mine or anyone's vision of the way things should be upon you or anyone else by force of arms. Not sure where that one came from.<br /><br />-JohnUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02168207737376360619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-54498451794098711702015-10-03T09:14:48.070-07:002015-10-03T09:14:48.070-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jared Liveseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10309044282039536254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-86596306502035931642015-10-03T08:51:26.386-07:002015-10-03T08:51:26.386-07:00There are no "good" people if atheism is...There are no "good" people if atheism is true. People are simply chemically reacting sacks of mud - or meat puppets, if you like, or highly complex rocks. An arbitrary arrangement of matter, in the end, just like the rest of the universe, and with no more morality attached to it.<br /><br />"Good" presupposes some standard. You are free to declare "this or that is good, based on my whims!", but so was Jeffrey Dahmer. Apparently he found his lovers mmm mmm good.<br /><br />You see, you have no non-arbitrary way of declaring how things ought to be from the way things are. In the end, all you can say against Dahmer is "I just don't <i><b>feel</b></i> that way!" Which you have, multiple times. Thankfully so, I'm sure your lovers would agree.<br /><br />One needs more than mere arrangements of matter to provide significance or meaning to life. That you declare that you feel there is more to life than mere arrangements of matter says you, yourself, do not feel what you claim to believe is true.<br /><br />I don't really care what, therefore, motivates your self-contradictory claim to belief. Your self-contradiction marks you as an unreliable reporter of reality. I would not wish to participate in a governmental system where you had capacity to prosecute your vision of the way things should be upon me by force of arms.<br /><br />Just sayin'.Jared Liveseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10309044282039536254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-48496504344824915082015-10-03T08:09:11.670-07:002015-10-03T08:09:11.670-07:00Log,
"If atheism is true, it doesn't mat...Log,<br /><br />"If atheism is true, it doesn't matter how you act when you believe no one is watching.<br />And it also doesn't matter how you act when you believe anyone is watching."<br /><br />That is exactly my point. If one believes there is no end punishment/reward to be handed out by God and yet still chooses to behave "within acceptable ranges", that individual is simply a good person and someone to emulate. Their actions are guided by their own conscience, by their own desire to be moral. In my opinion, that is far superior to an individual who does good for fear of God's reprisal or a desire for God's reward.<br /><br />To believe that being a moral atheist is illogical is nothing more than closed-mindedness. One does not need a god to provide significance or meaning to life.<br /><br />-JonUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02168207737376360619noreply@blogger.com