Secular folks should worry.

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 3628
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: Secular folks should worry.

Post by MG 2.0 »

drumdude wrote:
Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:12 pm
MG 2.0 wrote:
Mon Mar 27, 2023 7:28 pm


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.
Generally, I am in favor of Conservatism and the principles that it espouses. Mitt Romney conservatism is a different animal than populist nationalism and isolationism which is passing for conservatism.

One builds consensus. The other is simply deal making at all costs, essentially. I don’t see Tucker as a consensus builder.

And it works both ways. There are liberals who are vehemently ‘in your face’ and unwilling (at least from what I read in the press) to build consensus. Instead they also spread a form of hate and disregard for the views of others.

Regards,
MG
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 3628
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: Secular folks should worry.

Post by MG 2.0 »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:15 pm

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.
Your broad brush generalities expressed earlier didn’t do much to explain your views applied to situational ethics in which the rubber meets the road. Thus, the further inquiries to clarify your positions. I wasn’t overly hopeful that you would take the time to respond.

Regards,
MG
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 3628
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: Secular folks should worry.

Post by MG 2.0 »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:15 pm

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.
I can respect those views and your reasoning behind them. See? That wasn’t so hard, was it?

Regards,
MG
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 3628
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: Secular folks should worry.

Post by MG 2.0 »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:15 pm
I should also note that I don't consider "respect for life" to be a uniquely religious value.
And we would be on the same page.

Regards,
MG
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 3628
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: Secular folks should worry.

Post by MG 2.0 »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:20 pm
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
Tell that to Falun Gong. Anything else you want to ‘teach me’? Oh thou font of wisdom.

Regards
MG
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: Secular folks should worry.

Post by Res Ipsa »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:20 pm
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
I think it's pretty clear from his posting here that he isn't interested in learning anything about what and how nonbelievers think. He doesn't seem to appreciate the asymmetric situation he finds himself in. Just using me as an example, I've been in his religious shoes. I understand his point of view -- I heard it from some, but not all, other LDS folks. The views of nonbelievers ("atheists" was the term of choice) I was exposed to were damned ignorant. But it wasn't until I became a nonbeliever that I understood how ignorant those views were.

Once you experience making moral and ethical decisions without a belief in God, it shifts your perspective of the importance of religious in being a good person. Why? Because nonbelievers arrive at decisions using exactly the same picking and choosing that believers do. The range of material from which those selections are made may be different. But the process is the same: taking bits and pieces from different sources and applying them. The major difference is that nonbelievers don't purport to be following a divine code.

MG 2.0 clearly has no idea of what it's like to be a human being just like him except for belief in God. He is convinced that he is "good" only because God commands it and he has no frame of reference to help him understand what it's like to be "good" without God. It's a literal inability to empathize with non-believers.

That inability could be overcome by taking a genuinely curious stance toward nonbelievers. But he doesn't take that stance. He doesn't understand, and it appears that he has no interest in understanding because he sees it is some kind of threat to his world view.

Because the difference between belief and unbelief is of critical importance to him, he cannot imagine it being any other way. It doesn't matter how many different ways I explain it, he can't understand that anyone would not see the difference as being important.

I understand why it's important to him. But that doesn't justify his ignorant, bigoted view of his fellow humans who do not share his belief in God. Maybe that flows from being part of a religious tradition that believes in an existential battle between God and Satan -- one that insists that there must be opposition in all things. But I've known lots of Christians, including LDS folks, who don't display the level of ignorance and bigotry that MG 2.0 has posted in this thread. Frankly, I think MG's views have more to do with politics than religion, but it may be both.
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 3628
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: Secular folks should worry.

Post by MG 2.0 »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Mon Mar 27, 2023 11:23 pm
MG 2.0 clearly has no idea of what it's like to be a human being just like him except for belief in God. He is convinced that he is "good" only because God commands it and he has no frame of reference to help him understand what it's like to be "good" without God. It's a literal inability to emphasize with non-believers.
Aargh. Not even sure where to begin with this ‘broad brush’ stroke.

I’ll just leave it with the comment of ‘not true’.

Regards,
MG
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 3628
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: Secular folks should worry.

Post by MG 2.0 »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Mon Mar 27, 2023 11:23 pm
[MG could take] a genuinely curious stance toward nonbelievers. But he doesn't take that stance. He doesn't understand, and it appears that he has no interest in understanding because he sees it is some kind of threat to his world view.
Aargh, again.

This doesn’t merit a response.

Regards,
MG
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 3628
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: Secular folks should worry.

Post by MG 2.0 »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Mon Mar 27, 2023 11:23 pm

I understand why it's important to him. But that doesn't justify his ignorant, bigoted view of his fellow humans who do not share his belief in God.
One more aargh for the road.

Regards,
MG
drumdude
God
Posts: 5212
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am

Re: Secular folks should worry.

Post by drumdude »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Mon Mar 27, 2023 11:11 pm
drumdude wrote:
Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:12 pm



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.
Generally, I am in favor of Conservatism and the principles that it espouses. Mitt Romney conservatism is a different animal than populist nationalism and isolationism which is passing for conservatism.

One builds consensus. The other is simply deal making at all costs, essentially. I don’t see Tucker as a consensus builder.

And it works both ways. There are liberals who are vehemently ‘in your face’ and unwilling (at least from what I read in the press) to build consensus. Instead they also spread a form of hate and disregard for the views of others.

Regards,
MG

I agree and think it’s a great common ground for discussion.
Post Reply