close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

JPL Wins religious discrimination suit

Discussion in 'Religious Issues' started by void *, Jan 20, 2013.

  1. void *

    void * Dereference Me!

    I have done nothing of the kind.

    My position is that atheism is not a religion, but you'll go with my argument when everyone agrees it's a religion?

    That makes no sense whatsoever. I suppose it could mean that you're tacitly admitting that you're arguing that atheism is a religion simple because you want to be oppositional, and if everyone agreed with you you'd pick the other position. Would you like to clarify?

    I'm not cherry picking. The Supreme Court ruled that freedom of religion requires that non-belief (which includes agnosticism, by the way, even by the definition you use) be afforded the same First Amendment protections as belief. Therefore, courts use a definition of "religious" that includes non-belief. That is different than saying non-belief is religious in the way a lay person uses the word 'religious'.


    Well, apparently you're just some guy I heard about once upon a time, and not the person I was attempting to converse with.

    Unless you didn't actually post what you posted?
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2013
  2. void *

    void * Dereference Me!


    I'm not holding you to the reasoning of some random theists. I'm holding you to your statement about a court ruling, and attempting to explain why your claim that I am using the same logic is in fact INCORRECT.

    See, I didn't claim that some guys over here said one thing and those guys over there said another, and that they all have to say the same thing.

    I claimed that the *same* guys said one thing here and the *same* guys said another there.

    Do you get it?
     

    Last edited: Jan 21, 2013

  3. ksg0245

    ksg0245

    3,852
    0
    Feb 28, 2008
    California
    It was only PZ; Dawkins wasn't recognized, and allowed in.

    PZ Myers talks about the irony of being expelled from the premier of a movie about creationists complaining about being expelled for being creationists:

     
  4. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    You are trying to be slippery, but it's not working.

    Funny, but somehow lame in the same way. Try going back to post 51, and then slowly reading from there.

    I wasn't a judge on that court, but I did ask you to use the same arguments and logic, and acquiesce to the same conclusions they came to, in the same way you were trying to get me to do with someone else's arguments.

    And we haven't even touched on the fact that the arguments you wish me to take responsibility for are those of theists. I aren't one [sic]. If I was going to be accurate, I would be asking you why you think it's OK to kill innocent New Yorkers by flying planes into their building.



    Take several steps back, and try to approach this debate in an honest manner.
     
  5. Syclone538

    Syclone538

    2,086
    0
    Jan 8, 2006
    I think you mean believes, with adore and faith.
     
  6. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    Ardor, not adore. I believe I don't know exactly how the universe happened, and life on earth happened.

    I'm pretty sure about that. If some want to consider that a religion, I'm cool with that. Funny how I don't get the same indifference in return. :whistling: It's almost like those guys are uncomfortable or something.
     
  7. void *

    void * Dereference Me!

    So CD, here's a dilemma for you, and maybe you will get the point.

    I have no problem with schools *not* teaching non-belief under the same principle that would have courts and government treat non-belief as being protected by the First Amendment, legally defining it to be treated as a religion.

    The Discovery Institute supported the teaching of ID in schools, when that was being litigated, on the basis that it is science, not religion. They also supported the plaintiff in this lawsuit, which required that this guy be fired because of his belief in ID, and that firing be religious discrimination.

    Me: "Fine, treat athiesm as a religion for legal purposes, you get the right result even though it's not actually a religion as known by a lay person - both in the case where you don't teach it in school, and in the case where attempting to prevent someone from not believing restricts their ability to believe or not believe as their conscience dictates"

    The Discovery Institute: "We want ID to be treated as not a religious concept by the courts when that would allow a wins in this lawsuit here, but we want it to be treated as a religious concept by the courts when that would allow a win in that lawsuit there"

    So explain to me how I am using the same logic in both places again? I don't want it one way here and one way there - I am fine with atheism being treated as religious for first amendment purposes both with regard to preventing having it taught in school, and preventing discrimination against people merely because they don't believe.

    That can't be said of the Discovery Institute and ID - they want to say it's not religion when it comes to teaching it in schools, but that it *is* religion when it comes to a claim (which turned out to be false) that some guy was fired because he believed it.

    It is quite simply not the same logic. It is non-contradiction vs. contradiction. Applying the logic the Discovery Institute is using, it would be perfectly acceptable for a science textbook to state 'There is no God' - and that is actually an incorrect result, any public school attempting to use such a science textbook would get sued and *lose*.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2013
  8. Syclone538

    Syclone538

    2,086
    0
    Jan 8, 2006
    Opps.
     
  9. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    You completely missed the point. The fact is that ID, Creationism, it just sorta happened, extraterrestrial sources, are all just unsupported theories.

    Yeah, there are some people that believe there is convincing evidence for one or more of those theories. I have kids. I balance what my kids hear at school with reality. I discussed today, with my 17 year old that MLK was not a Democrat for a good reason. Democrats fought against civil rights for African Americans. There are recently retired prominent members of the Dem party (Byrd) that were very prominent members of the KKK also. There is a rather infamous LBJ quote that uses the N-word, and how they can get them to vote Democrat. “I’ll have those n*****s voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” Lyndon Baines Johnson about the Great Society plan.

    A well known democrat swore on a bible above MLK's travel bible today. It's sad about how much that guy had to ignore to think that was appropriate.



    If you watched any of that factual information on the news today, I missed it.

    A balanced, non-biased, non-agenda driven approach is best in public schools. Even if that means acknowledging it is possible that life on Earth was designed.
     
  10. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    opps or oops?

    :supergrin:
     
  11. Syclone538

    Syclone538

    2,086
    0
    Jan 8, 2006
    lol

    I don't think it matters. It's not a real word anyway is it?
     
  12. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    Typos happen to the best of us. :cool:
     
  13. void *

    void * Dereference Me!

    None of those actually rise to the level of theory, as the term is actually used in science (as opposed to the 'well it's just a theory' usage which, while is actually a valid definition, is *not* the definition in use when talking of a 'scientific theory').

    And you are, unsurprisingly, yet again avoiding the point, and are off somewhere pretending that we were talking about something else all along.

    You claimed that I was somehow using the same logic myself that the DI people are using when they try to have it both ways. Or something along those lines, you weren't necessarily making a whole lot of sense to me at the time.

    Given that I am not in fact using the same logic (I am not in fact contradicting myself in the way they are), are you going to continue to claim things like

    and

    When I neither made such an argument, nor hold the same contradictory position as the Discovery Institute people are holding?

    Or can you simply admit that the Discovery Institute people are contradicting themselves as to whether or not ID is religious, given that they have supported different lawsuits that require it be treated as such in one lawsuit, and *not* treated as such in another?
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2013
  14. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    You are changing the subject again. If I am going to be held to the arguments of theists, as an agnostic, you are supposed to be agreeing that atheism is a religion.

    You're either being obtuse, or are really oblivious to the logical fallacy you are attempting.
     
  15. void *

    void * Dereference Me!


    I am not changing the subject again. *You* are changing the subject again. My initial point was to state that DI is contradicting itself as to whether or not ID should legally be treated as religious - you responded with some claim that I was somehow using the same logic/arguments.

    You had the choice to just simply admit that, yeah, DI is contradicting itself. Instead you tried to argue that I was somehow using the same logic they are, and *you* brought in the different subject with that claim and a bunch of talk about me having to get RI to agree that atheism is a religion, which is completely ridiculous.

    If you're going to pretend that I'm just being obtuse, rather than trying to get you to plainly admit that DI is contradicting itself on whether or not ID should be treated as religious in courts of law (which you have not yet done - you've merely stated something along the lines of 'some theists say it's a scientific claim', while pretending I'm somehow holding you to their contradiction), while *also* getting you to admit that I have never made a likewise contradictory claim that *anything* should be treated as religious by the courts in one case, but not religious in others, then there's really no point in talking to you, is there?

    To be clear: I am not saying you are making the same argument they are, nor am I trying to hold you to their argument.

    I am saying *your statement that I am somehow using the same argument they are is flat out incorrect*. They claimed that ID should be differently treated, by courts, based on whether or not the suit they wanted to win would win on a particular interpretation. *YOU* claimed I was making the same argument, as far as I can tell. I am not holding you to *their* argument, I am holding you to *YOUR* claim.

    So please quote where I have *ever* stated or implied that *anything* should be treated as religious by a court in one context, and not religious by a court in another context. That is the contradiction DI is committing. If you cannot provide such a statement, then your claim that I am somehow using the same arguments they are fails.

    Please also quote where I have ever stated that you hold the same position as DI - you will not be able to, as I never said any such thing. I merely stated that you were missing the point, when your response actually missed the point that DI was contradicting itself.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2013
  16. Gunhaver

    Gunhaver the wrong hands

    2,736
    0
    Jan 24, 2012
    Hey man, join the club. G36 and I are having the membership cards printed up soon.
     
  17. Glock36shooter

    Glock36shooter

    3,157
    0
    May 30, 2010
    That's what he does. He tries to turn your argument into something it isn't and then attacks you and sometimes your intelligence for making it. It's intellectually dishonest cowardice. I don't think I've ever seen him actually debate what's actually being discussed. It's often some off shoot non-topic he's manufactured. You won't get anywhere talking to him. It's just the nature of the beast.

    It's far better to talk around him and just not acknowledge him. But he will follow you around everywhere you go pissing his pants hoping you'll engage him.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2013
  18. steveksux

    steveksux Massive Member

    19,648
    1,947
    Jul 12, 2007
    :rofl::rofl:

    Welcome to RI. You're new here, obviously... How do you like our pet troll? :rofl:

    He looks really cute:

    [​IMG]

    But do NOT feed him after midnight.

    This is the guy that claims Merriam-Webster's definition of religion proves atheism is a religion, including the part that specifically calls atheism an antonym of religion. His troll-fu is strong. His shameless disingenuous streak is legendary.

    Randy
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2013
  19. Animal Mother

    Animal Mother Not Enough Gun

    13,373
    252
    Mar 22, 2004
    No, they don't. From your link: The First Church of Atheism was born out of necessity. Created by Paul and Jacki McMaster, the FCA is the first society of its kind. Dedicated solely to ordaining atheists so that they too may perform ceremonies previously performed by religious men.

    You cited two examples, neither supports your thesis. Perhaps it's time to abandon it?