Becoming an angry atheist

[Thumpalumpacus]

Replace "atheists" with "blacks" and you'll start to see why I'm upset.

People can change their beliefs. People cannot change their race. Your false equivalence is disturbingly ignorant.

Injustice is injustice, no matter the stated reason. And aren't you the fellow who here argues steadfastly for moral absolutism?

I don't think you realize exactly how small-minded you're coming across right now.

[robvalue]

The analogy holds, regardless of whether or not the things in question can change. Atheism is not a choice, it's a state of mind.

You seem to be saying atheists are just wrong and so should expect persecution until they are normal and right. If that's not what your point was, please elaborate.

There's probably only two things that could change the beliefs of a sceptic atheist:

1) Events which are extremely traumatising and shock the brain into a comfortable delusion, or damage the brain's ability to think as before

2) New evidence

[Peebothuhlu]

Large parts of the gay community exclude people who support the notion that marriage is between a man and woman or people who support the notion that homosexuality is a sin.

Citation please.

Much cheers to all.

[robvalue]

Exclude them from what?

Are you saying gay people don't want to be around homophobes? That's not surprising.

[FreeTony]

Exclude them from what?

Are you saying gay people don't want to be around homophobes? That's not surprising.

Why wouldn't they want to hang out with people that continually tell them that they are going to hell?

As a serious aside, the homophobia I've witnessed in my life is disgusting and seriously damaging to the gay people I'm friends with. If I were giving advice to a young gay person then I'd tell them to ignore and stay away from all these homophobic fuckwits (be them religious or not).

[robvalue]

Agreed. They are ignorant piss weasels. If anyone deserves to be excluded from gay events, it's them.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Injustice is injustice, no matter the stated reason. And aren't you the fellow who here argues steadfastly for moral absolutism?

The OPer is upset because some people disagree with his beliefs and express so in often disparaging terms. Boo hoo hoo. That's hardly comparable to being discriminated against because of color. There's a world of difference between "You cannot join our church because you haven't yet repented" and "you can't join our church because you're black."

---

Atheism is not a choice, it's a state of mind.

Sorry, but I must throw the bullshit flag. Rational people have the ability to reflect on their beliefs and to change them if they see fit. Enlightened societies respect this process of working out one's own beliefs as freedom of conscience. Those same enlightened societies recognize that vigorous debate, and sometimes outright argument, is part of that process.

[Natachan]

Not really any difference, and I might argue that both have their validity. A church is a private organization and can set up their own rules. That's not my issue (her beliefs, btw, nata is a girl's name). My issue is that public institutions feel justified in spreading this hate. That is NOT ok.

But let's put that aside. Why is one type of hate ok and the other not? Why is it ok to put down one minority group and not another? Would it be acceptable if politicians all were saying that good Americans can't be Catholic? Or Baptist? Would you expect that they would be glorified for saying so? Or would they face a public backlash? What if they said Episcopals don't count as patriots? What if our public sphere was laced with anti-semitism. Would that be acceptable?

Hate is hate. Injustice is injustice. The motive is unimportant. It is still ill-treatment of a group that you don't happen to belong to. And there should be no acceptance of that.

_____________________________________

Sorry, but I must throw the bullshit flag. Rational people have the ability to reflect on their beliefs and to change them if they see fit. Enlightened societies respect this process of working out one's own beliefs as freedom of conscience. Those same enlightened societies recognize that vigorous debate, and sometimes outright argument, is part of that process.

Changing a mind isn't a choice. Its being honest. If I believe apples are blue and you show me a red apple am I choosing to believe that apples are red? No. I am obligated to believe that by the evidence.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I am obligated to believe that by the evidence.

If that were true, then you'd recognize the validity of the Aquinas's 5 ways, which have never been fully refuted.

[abaris]

If that were true, then you'd recognize the validity of the Aquinas's 5 ways, which have never been fully refuted.

They don't need to be refuted. They were written in the 13th century in an age of general ignorance. His logic is based on false premisses to begin with, since he didn't have the knowledge base we have today. It's called the Dark ages for a reason.

But as far as I understand it, this thread is about religion invading public space. And that's where I agree wholeheartedly. Religion shouldn't leave the privacy of the individual or the group they have chosen to offer their particular brand of worship. It has no business in legislation, since it's bound to discriminate and legislation should be entirely neutral against any group.