MG 2.0 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 3:33 pm
Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 5:27 am
Well, that was … something.
I feel like I need a debrief. Or a beer.
Probably both.
Yes, that was something, indeed. To start a thread and within the span of a few days be called a racist, a bigot, a supporter of pedophilia, and being labeled as “retarded” and an idiot was an eye opener as to the extent that secular atheists will go to in order to distort and/or dispose those views that run contrary to their worldview. I am none of those things, but certain posters will twist words and context in order to make what they will ‘the truth’.
I would recommend that anyone who has been a non participant in this thread and you are coming across it for the first time, read it with open eyes and fairness. There is a great divide between those that believe in God and those that don’t. The argument in the OP article referred to is whether civil society (a society in which we all get along and every voice is heard and valued) can continue as each generation moves towards a secularistic non belief in God.
Posters in this forum seemed to believe that I am somehow against free thought and/or separation of church and state. Not at all.
Here is an interesting article:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... on-atheism
There is much food for thought in this defense of secular thought and practice. One thing in particular was of concern to me.
What secularists do say is that in debates on public policy purely religious arguments should carry no weight. In a Voltaire-like defence of freedom of expression, we absolutely do not wish to suppress or forbid such arguments being voiced – but we do say that by convention they should count for nothing in the minds of politicians and decision-makers. By all means let the religious argue, say, against assisted dying with warnings of a slippery slope – an argument we can all understand and assess – but if they argue that life is the gift of God and that it is not for us to take it away, then in the process of public decision-making their words should be ignored. Such arguments cannot be legitimately admitted in a society where there are so many competing beliefs that reject its very premises.
It is those “competing beliefs” that might be a concern to all of us. Including secularists. We have examples in history where large swathes of humankind were exterminated because of those competing beliefs. Civil societies ceased to exist.
It is that ultimate result of the human condition in which the elite, who have no belief in accountability to a god, are in charge of society and have the military force to dictate their whims, that we ALL ought to be concerned with. THAT was the point of the article. But then we steered towards a discussion as to whether or not the very premise of the article could be trusted and/or the results really had any basis in reality.
Rather than discussing the type of society we ALL would want to live in as we think about the world our grandchildren will grow up in.
Do we want a totalitarian government? Of course not. Do we want a governing establishment that does not value the essential value of life within and without the womb? We’ve already slid down the slippery slope in some respects where we have seen the value of life diminished. And on the whole it’s not by the religionists. It’s the secular humanists with “competing beliefs” that have held sway. If we have a myriad of examples throughout history of societies in which competing beliefs have resulted in large scale death and destruction of individuals, families, and religious beliefs…ought we not to be concerned that this could happen within our country/society?
Some (mostly secular humanists) say no. Others say yes, it is a concern we ought to pay attention to (mostly religionists)..
This dichotomy becomes evident on a board such as this. And when you have majority voices using whatever means necessary to drown out the minority voice(s) you have the perfect example of ‘uncivil society’.
Anyway, yes, Res Ipsa, this was an interesting and even enlightening thread. If nothing else, we have a record of two differing world views being laid out for others to see and observe.
I appreciate the opportunity of being the minority voice. And no, I don’t accept the accusation that I’m a bad representative of my faith. That’s simply a concoction made in order to smear my good name and the good name of the LDS Church.
There, that may wrap things up.
Regards,
MG
