|
crazyml -> RE: Freedom From Atheism! (3/26/2016 6:51:54 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
quote:
ORIGINAL: crazyml
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
quote:
ORIGINAL: crazyml
"The term religion can encompass a broad spectrum of belief systems, but "Atheism" is not a system of belief, it's a simple belief. Atheism is not a religion."
Its imperative you grasp the meanings and usage of the words you are trying to use.
I have explained many times why it is in fact a belief system and religion, and proved the definition of religion is even more broad leaving no room for atheists to escape coming under its umbrella, so aside from simply posting your butt hurt no reason version of your opinion why not lay out your reasoning and and at least make an attempt to establish a fact somewhere in your attempt at argument. Reversing and conflating meanings and a pile of strawman bs only serves to sink your boat not float it.
No. You have failed to support your assertion, many times.
You drooling babbler.
If you make an assertion, it's to you to prove it. Your repetitive babble isn't advancing your argument, simply reinforcing the truth that you haven't the vaguest clue what you're talking about.
I proved it several times to anyone who is not titally in denial.
Most religions practiced polygamy:
Polygamy-RELIGIONS
Polygamy (from Late Greek πολυγαμία, polygamia, "state of marriage to many spouses") involves marriage with more than one spouse.
[snip]
Polygamy is widely accepted among different societies worldwide. According to the Ethnographic Atlas, of 1,231 societies noted, 588 had frequent polygyny, 453 had occasional polygyny, 186 were monogamous and 4 had polyandry.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy
Bigamy-STATE
...bigamy is the act of entering into a marriage with one person while still legally married to another
History of anti-polygamy laws - STATE
Before Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, Diocletian and Maximian passed strict anti-polygamy laws in 285 AD that mandated monogamy as the only form of legal marital relationship, as had traditionally been the case in classical Greece and Rome.
That's nice.
quote:
Now the gubblemint comes along causing trouble as usual, and passes laws that are 100% opposed to the religion being practiced.
Given your deep research into the history of the legal statement of polygamy, I'm surprised you missed the bit about bigamy being made unlawful under church law before it passed into common law. When I say surprised, I meain "I do not believe".
Bigamy was made unlawful under ecclesiastical law in the middle ages. The council of Hertford, held in 673, pronounced that bigamy was a sin. (See chapter 10 of the council proceedings). Later, at the council of Trent in 1563 this was reaffirmed by the established church. (The canons and decrees of the sacred and oecumenical Council of Trent. Ed. and trans. J. Waterworth (London: Dolman, 1848), page 194. (24th Session, Canon II.) although during the reformation there was a lot of debate among some protestants, including Luther, about whether polygamy was, indeed, a sin.
The bigamy laws that the US inherited when it adopted British Common law were religiously motivated laws. They were originally enforced by ecclesiastical courts.
They are religious in motivation. They are not "atheist laws"
quote:
That leaves you with 1 choice.
Nope. It leaves you with Nothing. Nada. Your entire assertion that the anti bigamy laws are "atheist" laws is destroyed.
You laughing stock.
quote:
the gubmint passed an atheist law because the law the gubmint passed is 100% contrary to theistic based religious law, it is therefore atheist, and since it is a decision based on religion morals it is therefore classified as a religious law.
I wonder if a tiny part of you recognises the futility of your argument - you certainly seem to become even less coherent when cornered.
Let's set aside your assertion that the anti bigamy law is "100% contrary to theistic based religious law" - since we all know that's plain old horseshit.
Let's imagine that you've found a law that is indeed "100% contrary to theistic based religious law", which - as has been patiently explained to you - you haven't yet (what with your bigamy law example having been shown to be a religiously motivated law).
But let's imagine it nevertheless.... and bear in mind, in order to find that, we need to determine what on earth you mean by "100% contrary to theistic based religious law" - do you have a particular religion in mind? To pass this test does it have to be 100% contrary to every theistic based religious law? What about the nontheist religious movements, do you want to exclude them?
The first amendment did not bar congress from passing laws that affected people with specific religious beliefs, it barred congress from passing laws that were specifically intended to affect people with religious beliefs. The passing of a law, for example, that makes it unlawful to discriminate against people who are gay, is not an infringement, because it's purpose is to make society better and fairer - it's purpose is not to put bigoted Christians out. I made the "Bigoted" point because many Christians support gay rights - which means that you can't even claim your 100%, even if it were relevant.
quote:
Unless of course you want to claim its only religious if religious people make it a law
That would be a silly claim to make.
quote:
but when gubmint makes it a law it is somehow something else, something 'other' than a religious law, now that would be some serious king of owellian twisted.
Ah... is it belching and farting time. What the fuck do you mean you incoherent drooler???
quote:
Now the burden of proof shifts to you. You think they are not atheist do tell us your well reasoned rebuttal and counter arguments and by all means ejumacate us. (without strawmen or rhetoric please).
What the fuck am I meant to be rebutting? I can only assume it's your specious claim that the bigamy law is an "atheist" law... in which case, I am happy to "ejumacate" [sic] you - with the actual facts. As outlined above.
quote:
Which of course means you have to prove how the homosexuality is a religions matter with respect to religious christians etal, and at the same time not a religious matter with respect to gubblemint.
Errm... nope. I don't have to do anything of the sort. You're a very confused person - To destroy your specious claim that the anti bigamy law is "atherist" I don't need to talk about homosexuality at all.
But... as a special favour to you.
Many people do regard homosexuality to be a religious matter. Many, but by no means all, christians oppose homosexuality on the basis that they believe it to be against their religion.
However, equality legislation isn't religious - It is based on what is fundamentally right. You don't need to be a theist, atheist, religious, or non religious. The belief that people should not be treated differently because of their sexual orientation is a position that can be held completely independently of religious belief or non belief.
quote:
That would be really convenient, the gubblemint can pass any damn thing they want and claim its not religious because gubblemint is doing it. that would be some seriously tewisted shit but I'd love to hear your rebuttal if you got one. [8|]
The government cannot pass any damn thing they want and claim it's not religious. The supreme court can strike out any law that breaks the first amendment. This prevents the government from passing laws that are intended to promote one religion over an other. That's why the clause is there.
So the rebuttal would be the first amendment.
|
|
|
|
