Religion Ask a Christian - Continued in Part 2

[Chief]

Continued in Part Two:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/ask-a-christian-part-2.1295001/unread

 

[Opine]

When they claim something as "truth" they do have a burden of proof.

So which of my arguments exactly do you have a problem with?

FMD. All of your arguments are shithouse; every single one of them. Let’s start on that presumption. We can progress from there!!!

 

[mcnulty]

Mate you’re lazy.
Who posited it? at State level; Victorian Parliament in Equal Opportunity Act 2010 http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/vic/consol_act/eoa2010250/s4.html

At Commonwealth level Religious Discrimination Bill 2019 2nd exposure. Go to section 5 page 8 https://www.ag.gov.au/sites/default...-draft-religious-discrimination-bill-2019.pdf

Good grief…this is what you’re taking your refuge in? Bureaucratic double speak? Cooked.

 

[Opine]

Good grief…this is what you’re taking your refuge in? Bureaucratic double speak? Cooked.

Are really such an idiot?

 

[Roylion]

FMD. All of your arguments are shithouse; every single one of them.

Which ones? Be specific.

The historicity of the 'global flood'? The existance of Adam And Eve? The Resurrection? The historicity of the Gospels?

 

[mcnulty]

Are really such an idiot?

You call me lazy, then outsource your thinking to the dept.of whatever. Hilarious.

 

[Roylion]

Good grief…this is what you’re taking your refuge in? Bureaucratic double speak? Cooked.

It is bureaucratic double speak. A catch all term to demonstrate that those with no / a lack of religious belief cannot be discriminated against in society.

It certainly doesn't mean that atheism is a religious belief. In the same way agnosticism is not a religious belief. The second of these by it's very definition most certainly cannot be a religious belief.

 

[Opine]

It is bureaucratic double speak. A catch all term to demonstrate that those with no / a lack of religious belief cannot be discriminated against in society.

It certainly doesn't mean that atheism is a religious belief. In the same way agnosticism is not a religious belief. The second of these by it's very definition most certainly cannot be a religious belief.

Bureaucratic double speak? Are you really so irresponsible that you would attempt to diminish the intended effect of that legislation in a social and political forum? and a Mod at that..

 

[Roylion]

Bureaucratic double speak?

Yep. Bureaucratic double speak.

It certainly doesn't mean that atheism is a religious belief. In the same way agnosticism is not a religious belief. The second of these by its' very definition most certainly cannot be a religious belief.

 

[Opine]

Yep. Bureaucratic double speak.

It certainly doesn't mean that atheism is a religious belief. In the same way agnosticism is not a religious belief. The second of these by its' very definition most certainly cannot be a religious belief.

Does it really need to be made clear that those definitions are in place for the purposes with which those pieces of legislation are concerned? which in turn relate to the topic for which this thread is concerned.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Does it really need to be made clear that those definitions are in place for the purposes with which those pieces of legislation are concerned? which in turn relate to the topic for which this thread is concerned.

You're seriously saying that, because State and Commonwealth legislation make the perfectly reasonable point that just as it is illegal to discriminate against people for their religious beliefs, so it is illegal to discriminate against someone for not having religious beliefs... that that proves that atheism is a religion?

Is that seriously what you are saying?

 

[Roylion]

Does it really need to be made clear that those definitions are in place for the purposes with which those pieces of legislation are concerned?

Once again. It is bureaucratic double speak. A catch all definition to demonstrate that those with no / a lack of religious belief cannot be discriminated against in society.

I'll repeat. It certainly doesn't mean that 'atheism' is a religious belief. In the same way 'agnosticism' is not a religious belief. The second of these by it's very definition most certainly cannot be a religious belief.

You refuse to explain how either Atheism or agnosticism are religious beliefs, despite repeated requests to do so. Seems to suggest that you can't.

 

[mcnulty]

Does it really need to be made clear that those definitions are in place for the purposes with which those pieces of legislation are concerned

Firstly, this is garbled gibberish. Secondly it does absolutely nothing to support your argument.

 

[Opine]

Firstly, this is garbled gibberish. Secondly it does absolutely nothing to support your argument.

Ok

 

[Boston tiger]

Do atheists have a belief system regarding on how existence came about? Eg If you don’t believe it was a created by a creator with a purpose in mind by default does a atheist then have a belief that it was all an accident without any purpose or they just believe matter always existed ?
Are atheists devoid of the ability to believe ?
Or as fellow “human beings “ you are just stuck in this conundrum inside a riddle and belief is just part of the show ?

This is why you should start you start your own thread and stop mooching on Christianity .
It would be fascinating to get to know the mind of the Atheists. I mean do you like Art ? Do you go out to discos and dance etc .

 

[mcnulty]

At least the others in here mount some sort of arguments, you're just ignorant, offensive, and quite frankly really really stupid.
.

Your arguments have been obliterated. Suck it up. Take the L and move on.

 

[dusty1234!]

Do atheists have a belief system regarding on how existence came about? Eg If you don’t believe it was a created by a creator with a purpose in mind by default does a atheist then have a belief that it was all an accident without any purpose or they just believe matter always existed ?
Are atheists devoid of the ability to believe ?
Or as fellow “human beings “ you are just stuck in this conundrum inside a riddle and belief is just part of the show ?

This is why you should start you start your own thread and stop mooching on Christianity .
It would be fascinating to get to know the mind of the Atheists. I mean do you like Art ? Do you go out to discos and dance etc .

A-thiest
name suggests a lot.
Personally, I simply reject what you cannot prove.

 

[Opine]

Once again. It is bureaucratic double speak. A catch all definition to demonstrate that those with no / a lack of religious belief cannot be discriminated against in society.

I'll repeat. It certainly doesn't mean that 'atheism' is a religious belief. In the same way 'agnosticism' is not a religious belief. The second of these by it's very definition most certainly cannot be a religious belief.

You refuse to explain how either Atheism or agnosticism are religious beliefs, despite repeated requests to do so. Seems to suggest that you can't.

That is not what it says. I’m satisfied you don't really know what your’re saying.

 

[Boston tiger]

A-thiest
name suggests a lot.
Personally, I simply reject what you cannot prove.

Sounds like a creed .

 

[Roylion]

I’m satisfied you don't really know what your’re saying.

I know exactly what I'm saying

If you need a more straight-forward version refer to SBD's comment here, which of course you haven't answered.

 

[sdfc]

Once again. It is bureaucratic double speak. A catch all definition to demonstrate that those with no / a lack of religious belief cannot be discriminated against in society.

I'll repeat. It certainly doesn't mean that 'atheism' is a religious belief. In the same way 'agnosticism' is not a religious belief. The second of these by it's very definition most certainly cannot be a religious belief.

You refuse to explain how either Atheism or agnosticism are religious beliefs, despite repeated requests to do so. Seems to suggest that you can't.

Atheism and religion are dogmatic. They have that in common.

 

[Roylion]

Do atheists have a belief system regarding on how existence came about?

No. Athiests do not have a belief system into how existence came about. Whatever they believe is mostly not derived through pure faith alone.

Atheists have no (bar one) beliefs in common, no gods of any kind, nothing they worship, no scripture, no shared values, and no dogma. They have no clergy, no schools, and no sacred buildings. The only thing all atheists share is a lack of belief in gods of any kind.

Eg If you don’t believe it was a created by a creator with a purpose in mind by default does a atheist then have a belief that it was all an accident without any purpose or they just believe matter always existed ?

Probably a variety of possibilities, suggested by supporting scientific evidence.

Are atheists devoid of the ability to believe ?

In claims that are supported by significant robust evidence, then yes they can make a judgement that something is likely to be 'truth'.

This is why you should start you start your own thread and stop mooching on Christianity .

Christianity makes certain claims to 'truth'. Why shouldn't the veracity of those claims to 'truth' be critically examined?

I mean do you like Art ? Do you go out to discos and dance etc .

Well I regard myself as agnostic. But I quite like art. Discos were more a phenomena of my youth.

 

[Roylion]

Atheism and religion are dogmatic. They have that in common.

Certainly many atheists are. There's one sure way of changing their minds though.

 

[sdfc]

Certainly many atheists are. There's one sure way of changing their minds though.

I don't know enough to care what other people think about existential matters.

 

[Opine]

I know exaclty what I'm saying

If you need a more straight-forward version refer to SBD's here, which of course you havent answered.

I don't think you do. If you did, you would have known that the provision you attempted to explain earlier is not directed only at those absent a belief, as you suggested.

Also, quit making this an argument about definition of beliefs generally. I explained to you earlier, those definitions apply to the purposes for which that legislation exists/will exist; that's simply basic interpretation. To suggest it's bureaucratic double speak says to me that you lack the necessary understanding and integrity to comprehend that legsilation’s underlying purpose/s

Finally, neither I or anyone else, theist belief or otherwise, owe you an obliagtion of proof.

 

[Opine]

You're seriously saying that, because State and Commonwealth legislation make the perfectly reasonable point that just as it is illegal to discriminate against people for their religious beliefs, so it is illegal to discriminate against someone for not having religious beliefs... that that proves that atheism is a religion?

Is that seriously what you are saying?

No, as you well know, that wasn't the basis of my initial post yesterday morning.
The current discussion emerged following a quip from you about "old atheism as religion", to which I responded by referencing the related definition in anti-discrimination legislation.

Unfortunately, the debate has taken a while to conclude because the lion insisted on seeing that referenced provision then demanded additional explanation. My point has been that neither of you is owed additional explanation.