This is getting quite long, so I'll give you a quick summary of what's about to follow. If you don't have time to respond to the rest of this, I guess just respond to this...something is better than no response at all, considering how long I spent writing this (as you can imagine, a very long time).
There are a few currents of thought going on here. First, there is the question of what extent to which religious people are allowed to believe in, practice, and preach their religious values in our society, and whether or not preaching that homosexuality is a sin, or stating this viewpoint as is what happened in the homosexuality thread, is/should be legal in our society. Second, there is the question of whether or not religion is fundamentally "bad." You think it is, I disagree. Not only do I think such a sweeping judgement is impossible, I think if it were possible, it would certainly come down to values and not be a matter of empiricism. Third, there is the question of whether or not societies/governments should be based on Enlightenment principles, particularly liberalism and secularism. I like some of these values, but I value democracy more and I believe that we shouldn't make the sweeping generalization that all societies/governments mustbase themselves on these principles, I think it is up to them, and there is nothing inherently wrong with a society/government based on religious principles (though you think there is). Again, this is a value judgement, not an objective, rational statement, which you think it is. You said that this was religion vs. Science, and you seem believe that liberalism and secularism (which come from the Enlightenment and believe themselves to be incredibly rational and scientific) are logically/empirically/scientifically correct principles of government.
Intelligence isn't a measure of rationality and logic. Just because they choose to have faith in it because they're intelligent, in no way means it is a logical decision. By definition belief in religion is an illogical thing. As I said many times a few pages back, why does society deem Santa Clause an irrational thing to believe in, and not God? When both of these have the EXACT same proof supporting them. If Santa is irrational and stupid, so is God, by society's standards. You have faith that your religion is correct, and you don't in Santa. Nothing more, nothing less.
First of all, I want to point out that I meant to say that "belief in religion is not extremely
irrational because there are many intelligent people that believe in it and justify it well," not rational as I said. It was a typo, although it looks like you understood what I meant and that it was a typo.
Anyway, I didn't say it was
the logical decision or the correct one, I said it was
a logical decision. There are a number of highly intelligent, logical people I've spoken to who believe in Christianity for one reason or another. They have the logic to back it up and do quite a good job of doing so. Even the ones that do so more on 'faith' have a logic behind it. They believe that since the connection they feel to God is so real, it is logical to believe that it is true. I'm not saying they're right, that it is the most logical decision or that even more than a few smart people would take such a route of logic, I'm just disagreeing with you that it was not a logical decision.
Indeed I do think it's a crock of ****. And since I do, and since many others do, why should we be forced to live in society that adheres to religious principles that we don't. As I say, if you were a gay man living in a society that was still controlled by religion, you'd be miserable. And for what reason? The UK isn't like this any more, we moved on. But it's still a fact that there are Islamic states that forbid it, the deep south in America is vehemently against it. These are all due to religious influences. That is why we should be basing the laws of the land on logic and not some **** blind faith. If we have logical laws, they were created to logically take care of everyone. If religion influences everything, they are designed to only cater to the believer's. Why should the atheist's out there, those who are people that religion condemns; be forced to live in society controlled by something they don't freakin' believe in, and something that has no evidence to support a belief in? It's nonsense.
You and I aren't forced to live in a society that adheres to religious principles, so it's a moot point, we're not here to argue about the criminalization of homosexuality in other countries or having religion forced upon us. We grew up in secular societies and don't have to deal with this, and since it's what we're accustomed to, of course it would seem horrible from our perspective. Some Islamic countries continue to live in countries that follow these ideas ideas, and it should be up to the people, not to us, to make these decisions, in my opinion. This is because I ultimately believe in democratic values more than liberal values. And I don't believe we should label their values as objectively "wrong," and in many places in your writing you claim that it is objectively wrong for society or government to hold these values.
Second, you assume that liberal government is based on "logic," and that the governments of Muslim countries are based on irrational dogma, but ultimately liberalism is an ideology and a dogma. Liberalism certainly champions rationality and claims to be purely rational, but ultimately it is a philosophy based on its own values and assumptions. Sharia law is rationally based on the legal codes laid out by the Quran and Islamic scholars, and western law is rationally based on the legal codes laid out by liberal thinkers based on Enlightenment liberal philosophy. You can't rationally prove that the values and ideas of Hobbes, Locke, Kant, etc. are "correct." It is perfectly rational for some people to believe that their society should be governed by the same principles that it has for generations, and it is rational to not believe in the liberal dichotomy of public vs. private. Do I agree with this? No. But I don't think people that believe in it are inherently irrational or ignorant. These are normative value judgements, not objective right vs. objective wrong as you have portrayed it.
I never denied it didn't do this, you're still going to be ****** when there's nothing there when you die.
Nope, you'll be dead and have no consciousness, so you won't be able to be ******. But if you went through life thinking that you would go to the afterlife if you were a good, moral person, I think it would go a long way towards making you happy. Research seems to prove this.
This is what I've been saying. Religion issues control over people's lives with no evidence at all. Plus the chances that Christianity is actually correct is so, so tiny, it isn't worth your life being controlled in this way pointlessly.
There are an infinite amount of religions that existed before, exist now and will be thought of in the future. We can't prove or disprove any, so the chance of you picking the right religion to believe in is 1/infinity, which is zero. It's good to know that there are people who have been killed, who are currently seen as sinner's by their community, disowned and forced to live away from their home, over a 1/infinity chance. This isn't about fundamental ideals of liberalism or not, it's the fact that people are forced to live being unhappy due to their culture for no reason. And this isn't about the US or UK, it's about how we lived in the past, how Islamic states are now, and even the influence it has in our country's today. I'm perfectly fine with someone practising their religion in their own time, in private. I am not fine with it exerting force on other people's lives when they don't even believe in it.
In this society, religion doesn't control peoples' lives because they have religious choice. In other societies, this doesn't exist to a certain extent, but in many of these places they ultimately believe that religious institutions and customs should control society, and that without these institutions and customs, society descends into chaos. They look at the liberalism and consumerism of our countries and are disgusted by the lack of morality. It's a question of values, and in their countries, it's their choice to make, not ours. I don't believe in making them believe in liberalism, either by military force or by pressuring them to implement neoliberal economic principles, and I don't believe that their values are objectively "wrong" since they aren't based on the Enlightenment and liberalism. As for the claim that it "isn't worth your life being controlled in this way pointlessly," again this is your opinion and not theirs. Most of the world is religious and wouldn't have it any other way. And people who are religious are happier and live longer. So don't make this value judgement for them in the name of objectivity.
You claim that it isn't about the fundamentals of liberalism, but it is, this ultimately comes down to a question of values (and not rationality, as you are trying to claim). You believe in liberal government and believe that it is rationally, objectively the best form of government and superior to government that uses religious principles. Again, this is something that can't be proven, since it is a normative value judgement. You also believe that other people inherently must desire it as well. You assume that people are forced into religion when this is not the case in many places. Afghanistan and Iraq use sharia law despite the fact that we occupy these countries and abhor these practices (and went into the Middle East to begin to get rid of them, among other reasons). This is because the people desire it, they do not want a secular, liberal government, they don't buy into the liberal distinction of the public vs. private sphere, and they believe that society should be governed by traditional cultural practices. Not that crazy or radical when you think about it since this is what most people in history have desired, and the idea of secularism and atheism are new, and in the countries where these principles were adopted it took a long time: even though the US has been a secular government since the Revolution (not entirely, of course, since many churches were supported by state taxes for a while), society was still run in many ways by traditional cultural practices and it was a long time before the ideals of secularism became a huge part of the culture. We still don't even allow gay marriage, for example.
There are terrorist's influenced by Islam too, should we be tolerant of that too? Have extremist's not been arrested for preaching hate?
Since when was I arguing for the acceptance of terrorism? As far as free speech goes, it depends on the particular country...in some places, the advocation of terrorism is allowed because of their free speech, in others, speech that inspires violent behavior is not necessarily protected by free speech. In the US, I believe, blatantly inciting violent behavior or terrorism is not protected by the First Amendment. I'm not sure where I stand as far as that goes, but we're definitely not talking about that, we're talking about whether or not people are able to state their religious principles. That is definitely protected by the First Amendment, people are definitely allowed to say that homosexuality is a sin. They are simply expressing their religious views, and they are not being violent or calling for violence. Now if a preacher encouraged his congregation to kill gays, then no, it wouldn't be protected by the First Amendment. But that's definitely not the issue at hand.
If he made life unfair, makes people disadvantaged. Made it so people would be seen as sinner's in their community, then he is not a nice God, and not one I would want to believe in.
You personally believe that, most people don't though. The real world sucks because of original sin. The believers get eternal happiness in the end though, so it's pretty good, actually. Much less depressing of a worldview than atheism, where nothing really matters and in the end you die, ending your existence and consciousness. I'd say that's one reason that I don't think it's bad for people to be religious, at least it gives them hope.
The Pope also called Gay marriage an act of evil. So they're forbidden from having *** AND from expressing their love? I call that oppression. Your celibacy argument is poor. The catholic church is still trying to deny the human rights of one person due to them being gay. Even if it's "just" ***, straight people can do it, what gives the church the right to forbid it homosexually? It isn't "all that bad" their rights are still being denied, I don't see how you can defend it, I'm sure you know it's a poor argument too.
But for Catholics, it's not oppression, because we're all subject to the same morals and practices: marriage is for a man and woman, and *** is only to exist within a marriage. For the people who have more homosexual desires, this is tough, but you're supposed to get through it through prayer and self-control. If you do your best, God will probably let you into heaven. That certainly doesn't mean that you can't sin or never have *** if you want to go to heaven, because God forgives you, but the Catholic would say that you have to do your best and repent for your moral behavior. If you do so (do your best to remain celibate, or marry a woman), than you get to go to heaven. I'd say heaven is a pretty good trade-off for celibacy. I wish life were that good. Also, since when is having *** a "human right?" We live in a liberal society that protects this kind of freedom (and since I was raised in this society, I wouldn't want it any other way, although for a variety of reasons I won't get in to sometimes I think I would have been better off in a culture that wasn't like this, e.g. before the 1960's, where pre-marital *** was legal but condemned by society), and Catholics/Christians aren't calling for an end to liberalism. They aren't trying to make homosexuality illegal, they aren't trying to "forbid" it as you claim. They are simply stating their viewpoint on the position, and since I believe in free speech, I will defend their right to do so. Since you are very much a liberal, you should do the same.
God was so nice making life like this, makes me want to worship this all loving super power!!
See my answer in the paragraph before my last paragraph.
Indeed I am being hypocritical, so it's okay for extremist's to preach hate, and to threaten violence in order to get people to convert. Oh please.
It depends on what you define as "hate," but most of the time, you are allowed to express hatred. It's part of free speech. I hate the New York Yankees, the LA Lakers, one guy I went to high school with, Mario Balotelli (think he's a complete tool), Glenn Beck, a lot of parts of the Republican Party, and morcillo (don't know the word in English, but it's more or less coagulated pig's blood). I'm allowed to say this because of free speech. Now, as far as "threatening violence in order to get people to convert" goes, who was doing that here? Who does that in the US and UK? I'm pretty sure that's illegal in these countries. I obviously wasn't advocating for it. Even in strict Muslim countries this would be a violation of Sharia law, since the Quran explicitly states on so many occasions that Muslims are supposed to respect the "people of the book."
I'm not trying to take it away, practise it in private.
They are practicing in private, all they are doing is simply stating what they believe in, which is perfectly reasonable and protected by free speech in our countries. Since you are a liberal, you should believe in this. Yet it doesn't seem that you do, since you want us to be "intolerant of intolerance." Also, even doing more than practicing religion in private is protected by the First Amendment in the US. I'm not sure about what the law is in Britain (though I bet it's the same as it is in the US), but in the US, proselytizing is perfectly legal. It's annoying sometimes, but not really that much of an inconvience, you just tell them to go away. Do you not believe this is protected by freedom of speech and freedom of religion? And this is certainly a step farther than what the people in the thread were doing, they were merely stating what they believed in.
Stop twisting my words please, religion should have less influence. It's irrational, illogical and produces socially unacceptable viewpoints. As I said, why is it okay for someone to be a bigot that is protected by religion, and just a bigot. I see no difference between these apart from an artificial story, so why should religion be allowed to hold these views, when you are not allowed if you just think that? That is what I'm saying, I'm perfectly fine with opinions and free speech, just not religious doctrine influencing hate. I fail to see how this is something to condemn me for either.
Except religion doesn't have much influence in the legal systems of our countries, since they are secular (although of course they do in many indirect ways, since ultimately liberalism and secularism are products of western culture that was Christian for most of its history), and I wasn't calling for getting rid of secularism in the US and UK. As far as your second sentences goes, that is your opinion, and it is irrelevant, since our legal systems protect their right to have and express these beliefs. As far as it being "socially unacceptable," well that's by your standards. Go down to a Christian area in the US and it is socially acceptable. What is socially acceptable depends on the culture/society/community/whatever in question.
As for why is it OK for someone to be a bigot and protected by religion, it's OK for a few reasons. First of all, to clear things up, they aren't necessarily "bigots" since they don't hate gays (of course some do, but that's very anti-Christian behavior), they just think homosexuality is a sin. Second, it is OK because they have the right in our countries to hold and express these beliefs. Third, it's OK because I have sympathy for them. If their Bible/Church tells them homosexuality is a sin, and this is what they believe in, I don't blame them for it or think they're bad people. Fourth, it depends on the culture, because in many societies these viewpoints are considered 'OK.' Ultimately it depends on what 'OK' is...I know a lot of people who are bigots who aren't necessarily bad people, they just believe in the ideology of their time period. Our founding fathers were racists and had slaves...does that mean they were bad people? Not necessarily, they just believed in the ideology of the time period. And of course it assumes that 'OK' is rational and objective, which it clearly isn't, it's a normative value judgement.
I didn't say staying religious would cause us to descend into chaos, I was referring to the fact that we have to be intolerant of the intolerant, that hypocrisy must exist. Someone has to stand up and say "no, this is just wrong." They are being intolerant, but they're doing it for the right reason. A murderer was intolerant of someone's right to live, should we be tolerant of them? You're saying everyone should be able to do whatever the **** they want because they have freedom and opinions, this is why society would descend into chaos. I can't believe you can deny that either.
Well you said if we weren't intolerant of the intolerant, society would descend into chaos. Since the Catholic Church has its position on homosexuality and probably won't change it, at least for a long time (the textual evidence for it as well as the tradition is too strong, and it takes a long, long time for the Catholic Church to move, make changes, and get things done, since it's a 2000 year old institution), most Protestants probably won't change their mind either, and I doubt Muslims would either (won't comment on the Hindus since I don't know anything about their religion), Confucians won't allow it (although this religion/culture/whatever you want to call it is dying out)...you're basically calling for us to be intolerant of religions and their viewpoints, which is something I don't agree with.
Also, this along with much of what you have said implies that if society is influenced by religion it will descend into chaos (you seem to be very against the idea of religion influencing society). Society was inseparable from religion for most of history, and secularism and atheism are recent concepts (the only time and place atheism has been prevalent is in western Europe since they 60's or so), so I don't think influence from religion will cause society to descend into chaos. For example, the US, although it has a secular government, has a very religious society, and it is not "intolerant of the intolerant" since many people believe that homosexuality is a sin, and in many regions this belief is perfectly acceptable. Do I like this? No. But I don't think our society lives in chaos because it is less liberal and more religious than Britain's.
Also, your murderer argument is a very poor example. A murderer violates someone's right to live, which is illegal in our countries since our legal system has the idea of the right to life. Believing in Christianity and that homosexuality is a sin and stating your beliefs is not a violation of anyone's rights, and it is protected by the freedoms of religion and conscious. I never said anywhere that "should be able to do whatever the **** they want because they have freedom and opinions, this is why society would descend into chaos." I'm not calling for an end to law, I'm just arguing that we should follow the laws in our own countries, and in our countries, Christians' right to believe that homosexuality is a sin and to state this belief is protected by our laws. In the case of other countries, I believe they should be able to decide their own legality and not have western, liberal, secular values forced upon them, or declare that their own customs and values are objectively "wrong, and that our liberal, secular, Enlightenment values are objectively "right."
It is irrational. Fact. I have always said practise it in your own place, I never said I wanted to get rid of it. You're reading FAR too much into what I say and basing everything on inference rather than what I've actually put. My whole arguments before were that society's laws should be run by logic and not by blind faith in a religion. Would you prefer to live in a place where schools teach the Earth is flat, or where we logically teach what we have evidence to support? That is all I'm saying, I'm perfectly fine with religion's existence, just don't force it on me.
It may be irrational for you, but many people don't believe they are being irrational. You have said "practice it in your own place," but our law does more than that. You can practice religion in public, you can express your views, you can even proselytize. This is protected by our legal systems, and I support their right to do so. As for you never saying you want to get rid of it, you've basically been saying this all over more or less. You've said that religion is irrational and illogical and that society shouldn't be based on these principles (not just government, in many cases you said society), which by implication means that people shouldn't be religious...sure, they could be religious in their own time, but part of being religious is being part of a religious society that shares your beliefs. Such a society will be influenced by religion. Also, I don't believe that society or society's laws (as you claim in the quote above) necessarily shouldn't be influenced by religion. This is a question of values, of course (not rationality, which you seem to believe it is), and I value democracy over secularism and liberalism. I don't think people should be forced into liberalism, or that we should look down upon them for not having a secular society.
Additionally, your entire tract of thought has been more or less that "religion is bad." I'm not claiming that you are trying to make atheism forcible by law, but I am disagreeing with you that they should only be allowed to hold their beliefs "in private": they should be allowed to worship in public, express their viewpoints in public, and proselytize in public (in this sense, they sort of can force it on you, but obviously not by force, which would be illegal, and anyways, no one was forcing their beliefs on you in any of these threads, they simply stated their beliefs, something that many people found offensive). The US protects these rights and our political and legal philosophies do as well. I also disagree with your idea that religion is "bad," I'm not sure if it's good or bad and I doubt we can make such a sweeping claim, but instinctively, at this point in my life I'm quicker to say it's good than bad. Of course this is a question of values, not empiricism.
And as far as teaching science in schools, our governments are secular and don't teach religion or creationism, and since we have those values, I'm not disagreeing with this. If people want to go to religious schooling though, they're more than welcome to, and if a society desires its government funded schools to be religious (as is the case in some countries), they can make that decision. I personally might not want to go to such a school (although it may not be such a bad thing, I went to Catholic school as an atheist), but I don't believe in making these objective statements that such an idea is wrong.
Oh, and as far as reading in to what you said goes, you have to be more specific as to where I have done that. At times I may be arguing with what your arguments mean by implication, and that's something that people do to demonstrate the fallacies of their logic. One has to do this though when the other person is unclear. I think at several points you were a bit unclear as to what exactly you were arguing. For example, what you meant by "being intolerant of intolerance" was never very clear, and one could go wild with the implications of such a statement.
That's a Religion vs. Science argument not a social one. I'm atheist, I'm putting forth arguments why religion doesn't need to exist. This in no way means I'm saying get rid of it, and it's starting to **** me off that you keep making me out to look like some evil dictator. I could put forth arguments why everyone should buy an Audi, doesn't mean I want everyone to get rid of a BMW does it?
Already answered this more or less, I'm not claiming you're calling for laws that force people to be atheist, but you seem to not want people to express their views in public, and you're whole "intolerance of intolerance" seems to call for us as a society to get rid of religion. You have claimed many times that religion is inherently "bad" and that government and society shouldn't base their principles on it, and this is more or less what I'm disagreeing with. I don't think religion is inherently bad (or that we can make such a sweeing claim), and I don't think we can objectively claim that society shouldn't be based on religious principles, since it is a value judgement. Our societies are secular and I believe in secularism, so I'm glad they are the way they are, but I don't think this is a question of rationality or objectivity, it's a question of values. I personally value democracy over liberalism/secularism, but that too is a question of values. You value liberalism and secularism very, very much, which I'm fine with, but it's when you claim that this is rational and not a question of values, and that all societies should be founded upon these values, that I disagree with you.
And it isn't a Religion vs. Science argument, it is a social one. This debate started in the homosexuality in sports thread, and I'm not trying to prove/disprove the existence of God. The fact that you perceive this as a Religion vs. Science argument shows your very problem. You think the questions of whether or not religion is "good," whether or not countries/societies should adopt the liberal, secular values of the Enlightenment, are questions of Science and Rationality. But they aren't. These are normative value questions. Liberals such as yourself, because their philosophy is straight out of the Enlightenment, have an incredible amount of faith in rationality and in the rationality and objective truth of their own philosophy. But of course their own philosophy is based on certain philosophical assumptions that are founded upon inherent value decisions, as are everyone's. It's not that I'm claiming that you're "wrong" or necessarily that I even disagree with you in your values, because I do too believe (somewhat, not dogmatically) in the Enlightenment and liberalism, and I'm a pretty big fan of secularism, but I'm not trying to pass this off as objectively correct or inherently rational, and I'm not making claims that all societies should follow my values. Also, I believe in democracy or popular sovereignty more or less, at least more than liberalism, so that's another reason I have disagreed with your notion that all countries should be secular and liberal.
2000 years ago the Earth had been around for 2000 years and was flat. Show me a Christian that believes that now.
My main gripe with religion is that it teaches to be unsatisfied with not knowing, some are fine with that. I am not.
As for the first part, I'm not exactly sure what it's an argument for. Most Christians don't reject science or rationality, they just believe in its limits and that it doesn't entirely explain the world (and it doesn't, any prudent scientist would tell you how much they don't know), and they also believe in God and their religion. They think some things may be explained by science (such as the earth being round). They don't think everything is though. But it's a bit off topic, since it's not like I'm trying to prove religion or anything.
As for the second part, that's fine with me, why does it bother you so much than that other people are religious? You seem to be pretty annoyed that people don't place as much faith in rationality and science as you do. Also, you have done more than claim it's just your gripe, you have made sweeping claims about society and that it shouldn't have religious values, and that religion is somehow objectively "bad" in many ways.
Just so you know, I do Physics at college, and want to study it further at University, so your clever little "They seem to grasp how little we know much better than the economist who thinks he can disprove the existence of God." remark is stupid. And you think I don't comprehend the size of the universe? I know that current estimates show that there are 500 billion galaxies in the universe alone, and we haven't even ventured past our own solar system. There are roughly 300 billion stars per galaxy (given estimates on our galaxy and others we can see.) So there are 1.5*10^19 possible orbital systems where other life can exist. Given a conservative estimate of 4 stars per planet, there's 6*10^19 possibilities for other life to exist. This other life is most likely to have other religions too, you know? The chances of one of our religions to be correct is slim, very slim. I also know that there are theists within Physics and Science. I also know that the majority aren't. Just because a theist exists in Science proves nothing. I accept that there may be a "greater being", most scientist's do. Hawking did until very recently. But a mythological book? Most see past that. Most Physicists that are theist adhere to its principles rather than its teachings on creation. If you want to casually throw insulting remarks in, then I can't be bothered arguing.
A few things here. First of all, as for the science part, I wasn't claiming you didn't understand the size of the universe, nor that physicists didn't. That's only a small part of the universe and how it works. Most of the universe is comprised of dark matter or energy, which we don't even begin to understand. I was simply making the claim that no one understands how the universe works, and physicists know this better than anyone, which is why more of them are theists than any of the disciplines in math or science. Taking this into account, believing in God isn't as ridiculous as your claim. Not sure what the drake equation has to do with any of this, and if life exists elsewhere, than a lot of it should, right, because the size of the universe? If so, why haven't they visited us? Of course this is entirely relevant to our discussion. Sure you've studied physics in high school, and may plan on doing so in college, but if the leading physicists in the world claim to know very little of how the universe works, I doubt you do. So to get offended at something like this is quite an overreaction. And it's not a "stupid" remark either, since it's a remark that physicists/astronomers would agree with.
As for the next part, when I referred to the economist not knowing the nature of the universe, I wasn't even referring to you. I was just referring to the fact that people in the social sciences, especially economists, are very atheistic and seem to believe that they know how the universe works, when they really don't. I do find it amusing that you immediately assumed when I said "economist" I was referring to you...an economist would be someone who is paid for his economic analysis in some way or another...aren't you like 18 and a student? Also, not sure how this is even an insult, either calling you an economist or saying that you don't know how the universe works. If the leading physicists don't know how the universe works, I don't mind telling a high schooler who has taken one physics class in his life that he doesn't know how it works. And I don't think anything I've said is insulting, definitely not as insulting/belittling as some of the remarks you have made about religion...not that I mind or feel insulted (though I'm sure some religious people would). I'm not chastising you for it, it's the internet for one thing, but don't accuse me of being insulting. TBH I think you're being insecure.
I frankly can't be bothered to reply to the rest now, you're repeating yourself over and over again. I don't believe in getting rid of religion, I accept people may believe in what they like, I accept we all have freedom. I do not accept religion imposing itself on society, telling us what to behave like. I'm atheist, I don't believe I should be forced to live by religious principles. That is all I have said, the rest is my typical atheistic statements against God, which most atheist's do as well. I don't see why you are trying so hard to make it seem like because I said them, I'm non-liberal and taking away people's rights.
Well yeah, that's because my argument is usually the same to many of your posts. We're generally repeating the same thing, you have your liberal values and I have my own, and that's what this comes down to. Over and over again you make claims about religion, liberalism, and secularism that are value judgements and not objective truths, but you seem to claim that they are. You also make claims of how Christians are allowed to express their religion, which I think fundamentally violate our principles and are legal systems, which is more of an objective question on which I think you are incorrect.
Again, I'm not claiming you're claiming you want to force people to be atheist, but you certainly seem to believe it is inherently "bad" and you want to discourage it. You also want to confine it to the private sphere as much as possible, which I believe violates our liberal principles and as well as legality (you are allowed to be religious in public in our countries). You also seem to think that secularism is an inherently "good" principle that everyone should base their societies and governments on, which is a value judgement, not an objective truth as you seem to think it is.
As far as religion "imposing itself on society, telling us what to behave like," that's what religion has to do. If it didn't, it would be meaningless. People desire to have a set of values and moral principles that they must follow, that their community follows. This is a human need, and it's why people cling to religion despite all of the scientific evidence/education that tells us it is a crock of ****. If religion didn't tell us what to behave like, it would have no purpose. All religions offer us a moral code, they tell us what to behave like. This is what religions do, it is close to the very heart of religion. Because we believe in the freedom of religion and speech, religious people are allowed to voice their beliefs. They are allowed to tell us what their religion tells them, what its rules are, how it believes individuals and societies should act.
Are they allowed to force these beliefs on us? Make laws based on these beliefs? Not in our countries, and no one in the homosexuality thread was doing so, neither do most Christians in our countries. In my country, many of them want our government to be influenced by Christianity, but it's something that's relatively harmless since ultimately such decisions are left to the courts, who are secular and liberal. You claimed that you didn't want to have these beliefs "forced on you," and they aren't and can't be in our countries. The only thing that happened in the thread was that people stated their beliefs, which offended the PC crowd, who don't like to hear dissenting opinions (yet they claim to be tolerant). In other countries, religions do impose on the people and tell them how to act in a much stronger way since their legal systems are based on these religions. But that's up to them, not us, ultimately, and it's a value judgement. You can't objectively claim that secularism is "correct" and that they should adopt these principles.
As for you being anti-liberal, many of your statements have seemed anti-liberal. "Intolerance of the intolerant" seemed very anti-liberal, as was you telling us that we shouldn't accept the viewpoints of Christians who thought homosexual behavior was a sin, especially since tolerance (what you were claiming to uphold) is very much a liberal value...these beliefs and their expression (verbal and written) are protected by liberal rights. You also claimed that religion should be "kept in private" and that the religious "shouldn't be allowed to preach hate" (I'm assuming you categorized preaching that homosexuality is a sin as preaching hate), and since you were making these claims in response to people in the other thread simply stating their view that homosexual behaviors were a sin according to their religions, it sounds like you don't want people to be able to make these claims in public. That sounds pretty illbiberal to me.
It seems that you're very much an Enlightenment thinker and a classical liberal...so why then are you so against weed?!?!?! That's one issue on which I can almost always count on liberals to be on my side. Oh well, maybe you'll try it someday and change your mind.