(09-22-2010 09:03 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-22-2010 08:55 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  There is always the danger of absolute power corrupting absolutely. However, I would argue atheist/secular governments are far less likely to be oppressive or strongly centralized in nature.

...and your argument would be wrong. The most dangerous and oppressive governments in history have been secular to the point of atheism. Look to ANY Communist regime and you'll find one that, not only ostracizes religion and the theory of "God", but one that has been known to execute any believers in the faith as they compete with the government. I won't argue that many have been killed using organized religion as a reason, but to simply say atheism and secularism isn't as prone to be violent as organized religion is simply naive when there are boatloads of pages of history that discount those claims.

The Nazis. Proponents of Christianity. Had implicit backing from the Pope. Religious motivated extermination of Jews. Hitler himself praised Christianity often in his speeches. Hitler was raised Roman Catholic and eventually leaned more towards being a Protestant, though he liked the very very strong central power structure Catholicism has. The only statements purported to be of Hitler rejecting Christianity were second hand reports of private conservations, were are dubious in validity at best.

Irish Protestant-Catholic terrorism. (IRA, etc, etc).

Israeli-Palestinian terrorism/war. (Hamas, etc, etc).

Arab-Israeli War

Six Day War

Yom Kippur War

9/11

Abortion clinic bombings

Every suicide bombing

Spanish train bombing

London mass transit bombing


So that's all off the top of my head. I'm sure I could dig up at least a few dozen religious wars prior to 1900, to say nothing of quoting the Quaran and Bible when it speaks of eradicating those who don't share your invisible friend. The Muslims are just as militant as the Christians use to be, they're just 450 years late to the party.


I'll give you Stalin on the flip side ... but Stalin was correct in saying religion is opiate for the masses, but his enforcement was obviously disgusting. I still think you'll find the number of religious people he killed to be quite a bit fewer than just the number of Jews the nazis murdered. Got anything else on your side? Mussolini was atheist, but he mainly censored Catholic press and denounced religion publicly. However, he did not go to war or persecute over religion. He went to war because he was a national socialist dick, to be specific.

(09-22-2010 10:35 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-22-2010 08:55 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  http://marriage.about.com/cs/marriagelic...excomp.htm

There's nothing on that list that contradicts what I said.

You're making a logical fallacy GTS, you are trying to change the discussion toward validating "same-sex marriage".

I'm pointing out the indisputable fact that the current laws are being applied equally (once again, better than equally).

And we arrive at the "gotcha".

So if a same sex couple wants to get married, and file their state taxes as a married couple, but are legally prohibited from doing so ... you see things as still identical?

(09-22-2010 10:42 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-22-2010 10:35 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-22-2010 08:55 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  http://marriage.about.com/cs/marriagelic...excomp.htm

There's nothing on that list that contradicts what I said.

You're making a logical fallacy GTS, you are trying to change the discussion toward validating "same-sex marriage".

I'm pointing out the indisputable fact that the current laws are being applied equally (once again, better than equally).

And we arrive at the "gotcha".

So if a same sex couple wants to get married, and file their state taxes as a married couple, but are legally prohibited from doing so ... you see things as still identical?

i'd kinda like Torch's answer to this as well. I don't really understand how he arrives at his conclusion

(09-22-2010 10:39 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-22-2010 09:03 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-22-2010 08:55 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  There is always the danger of absolute power corrupting absolutely. However, I would argue atheist/secular governments are far less likely to be oppressive or strongly centralized in nature.

...and your argument would be wrong. The most dangerous and oppressive governments in history have been secular to the point of atheism. Look to ANY Communist regime and you'll find one that, not only ostracizes religion and the theory of "God", but one that has been known to execute any believers in the faith as they compete with the government. I won't argue that many have been killed using organized religion as a reason, but to simply say atheism and secularism isn't as prone to be violent as organized religion is simply naive when there are boatloads of pages of history that discount those claims.

The Nazis. Proponents of Christianity. Had implicit backing from the Pope. Religious motivated extermination of Jews. Hitler himself praised Christianity often in his speeches. Hitler was raised Roman Catholic and eventually leaned more towards being a Protestant, though he liked the very very strong central power structure Catholicism has. The only statements purported to be of Hitler rejecting Christianity were second hand reports of private conservations, were are dubious in validity at best.

Irish Protestant-Catholic terrorism. (IRA, etc, etc).

Israeli-Palestinian terrorism/war. (Hamas, etc, etc).

Arab-Israeli War

Six Day War

Yom Kippur War

9/11

Abortion clinic bombings

Every suicide bombing

Spanish train bombing

London mass transit bombing


So that's all off the top of my head. I'm sure I could dig up at least a few dozen religious wars prior to 1900, to say nothing of quoting the Quaran and Bible when it speaks of eradicating those who don't share your invisible friend. The Muslims are just as militant as the Christians use to be, they're just 450 years late to the party.


I'll give you Stalin on the flip side ... but Stalin was correct in saying religion is opiate for the masses, but his enforcement was obviously disgusting. I still think you'll find the number of religious people he killed to be quite a bit fewer than just the number of Jews the nazis murdered. Got anything else on your side? Mussolini was atheist, but he mainly censored Catholic press and denounced religion publicly. However, he did not go to war or persecute over religion. He went to war because he was a national socialist ****, to be specific.

You think Israel is fighting a war of religion?

(09-22-2010 10:42 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-22-2010 10:35 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-22-2010 08:55 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  http://marriage.about.com/cs/marriagelic...excomp.htm

There's nothing on that list that contradicts what I said.

You're making a logical fallacy GTS, you are trying to change the discussion toward validating "same-sex marriage".

I'm pointing out the indisputable fact that the current laws are being applied equally (once again, better than equally).

And we arrive at the "gotcha".

So if a same sex couple wants to get married, and file their state taxes as a married couple, but are legally prohibited from doing so ... you see things as still identical?

Yes. I couldn't do it. You couldn't do it. They can't do it. Identical.

More to the point, there is absolutlely NOTHING that prevents them from getting married, using the same guidelines/restrictions that I did. Identical.

This is an easy logic problem. Even though I was public schooled, don't expect me to fall for crude semantics to try to make it hard.

(09-22-2010 10:53 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  You think Israel is fighting a war of religion?

Do you think they're fighting because Israel wouldn't share the Tonka bulldozer?

Or could it be because they're ultimately fighting over holy land? Judaism and Islam's most holy places ... ARE THE SAME PLACE. Literally, the same damn building to be exact.

(09-22-2010 10:39 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-22-2010 09:03 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-22-2010 08:55 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  There is always the danger of absolute power corrupting absolutely. However, I would argue atheist/secular governments are far less likely to be oppressive or strongly centralized in nature.

...and your argument would be wrong. The most dangerous and oppressive governments in history have been secular to the point of atheism. Look to ANY Communist regime and you'll find one that, not only ostracizes religion and the theory of "God", but one that has been known to execute any believers in the faith as they compete with the government. I won't argue that many have been killed using organized religion as a reason, but to simply say atheism and secularism isn't as prone to be violent as organized religion is simply naive when there are boatloads of pages of history that discount those claims.

The Nazis. Proponents of Christianity. Had implicit backing from the Pope. Religious motivated extermination of Jews. Hitler himself praised Christianity often in his speeches. Hitler was raised Roman Catholic and eventually leaned more towards being a Protestant, though he liked the very very strong central power structure Catholicism has. The only statements purported to be of Hitler rejecting Christianity were second hand reports of private conservations, were are dubious in validity at best.

For the record, most of this is fiction.

(09-22-2010 10:59 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Yes. I couldn't do it. You couldn't do it. They can't do it. Identical.

More to the point, there is absolutlely NOTHING that prevents them from getting married, using the same guidelines/restrictions that I did. Identical.

This is an easy logic problem. Even though I was public schooled, don't expect me to fall for crude semantics to try to make it hard.

So to recap:

Non-Gay:
1) Get married
2) File taxes as a married couple
3) Get tax break
4) Have spouse receive benefits like 401K if the other dies

Gay:
1) Get married
2) File taxes as a married couple
3) Get told by the state no, we don't recognize you
4) Get screwed every year in taxes
5) Spouse doesn't receive benefits like 401K if the other dies

You're saying those two are IDENTICAL?

Clearly you don't think Stalin was the only Communist leader that committed these atrocities.

(09-22-2010 11:05 AM)Rebel Wrote:  Clearly you don't think Stalin was the only Communist leader that committed these atrocities.

Kruschev continued the oppression and censorship, but he didn't do purges.

(09-22-2010 11:08 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-22-2010 11:05 AM)Rebel Wrote:  Clearly you don't think Stalin was the only Communist leader that committed these atrocities.

Kruschev continued the oppression and censorship, but he didn't do purges.

Let me rephrase. Clearly you don't think the only Communist country that committed atrocities was the USSR.

(09-22-2010 11:08 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-22-2010 11:08 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-22-2010 11:05 AM)Rebel Wrote:  Clearly you don't think Stalin was the only Communist leader that committed these atrocities.

Kruschev continued the oppression and censorship, but he didn't do purges.

Let me rephrase. Clearly you don't think the only Communist country that committed atrocities was the USSR.

Mao gave smaller rations to religious people, along with rich workers, political enemies, landlords, and anybody else who had power he perceived as a threat when organized.

Morality is subjective. Why must I accept YOUR values, GTS?

(09-22-2010 08:55 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  There is always the danger of absolute power corrupting absolutely. However, I would argue atheist/secular governments are far less likely to be oppressive or strongly centralized in nature.

You can argue it all you want but *every* government that espoused atheism as a virtue has been totalitarian and strongly central.

Were not talking secular government that are agnostic on the whole thing. But when Atheism is a vaule the result is the USSR and China..

Quote:I mean the absence of discourse is to the point of the absurd.

What happened to people who tried to have discourse on the policies of the state in the USSR?

Quote:Discussion of the Noah's Ark taken literally should be followed by a lengthy "How in the world can you believe that?!" discussion

So the only acceptable discourse is 'wow you're an ignorant fool'... yea that's discourse for you.

Quote:The Nazis. Proponents of Christianity. Had implicit backing from the Pope. Religious motivated extermination of Jews.

Not at all, if you read up enough on those who knew Hitler you will see had had an extreme contempt for Christianity. The man was not religious but was quite content to use religion to get people behind him. Does the Catholic Church own a lot of this, hell yes...

But then again nobody here is saying that religious people are immune, or even less likey, to abuse power...

(09-22-2010 11:04 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-22-2010 10:59 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Yes. I couldn't do it. You couldn't do it. They can't do it. Identical.

More to the point, there is absolutlely NOTHING that prevents them from getting married, using the same guidelines/restrictions that I did. Identical.

This is an easy logic problem. Even though I was public schooled, don't expect me to fall for crude semantics to try to make it hard.

So to recap:

Non-Gay:
1) Get married
2) File taxes as a married couple
3) Get tax break
4) Have spouse receive benefits like 401K if the other dies

Gay:
1) Get married
2) File taxes as a married couple
3) Get told by the state no, we don't recognize you
4) Get screwed every year in taxes
5) Spouse doesn't receive benefits like 401K if the other dies

You're saying those two are IDENTICAL?

No. I'm saying your recap is purposely flawed. You don't like the answer, so you keep trying to smuggle in a logical fallacy. Sort of like that old riddle where someone "proves" that 1=2 because they smuggle in division by zero.

BTW, while I understand state taxes differ widely, for Federal taxes, being married usually comes as a penalty.

(09-22-2010 11:13 AM)niucob86 Wrote:  Morality is subjective. Why must I accept YOUR values, GTS?

Show me where I said you had to.

(09-22-2010 11:16 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  You can argue it all you want but *every* government that espoused atheism as a virtue has been totalitarian and strongly central.

Were not talking secular government that are agnostic on the whole thing. But when Atheism is a vaule the result is the USSR and China..

So from two ... literally two (and the China one is weak) ... nations who were atheistic but also more importantly EXTREMELY collectivist ... you extrapolate atheist style rule? I would furthermore offer as counterexamples the icelandic countries which have the lowest counts of religious people and highest counts of atheists in the world. I would also state that personally I think the ideal government, in keeping with my libertarian philosophy, would be secular. It's not the government's business to decide these things.

Quote:What happened to people who tried to have discourse on the policies of the state in the USSR?

I'm not talking about the USSR 60 years ago ... I'm talking about today in the US.

Quote:So the only acceptable discourse is 'wow you're an ignorant fool'... yea that's discourse for you.

The point is, it's not even questioned. And to question it is taboo. For some reason we put religion upon this pedestal and put it above question in public. Dawkins talks about this at length when making the case that even the peaceful religious person feeds into an environment that breeds the extremists.

Quote:Not at all, if you read up enough on those who knew Hitler you will see had had an extreme contempt for Christianity. The man was not religious but was quite content to use religion to get people behind him. Does the Catholic Church own a lot of this, hell yes...

Do link me to some sources, b/c I have never seen anything of validity about it regarding Hitler's contempt for Christianity. Only second hand stuff.

Quote:But then again nobody here is saying that religious people are immune, or even less likey, to abuse power...

My entire point is that they are more likely, not that atheists are somehow immune. I think you'll find the quality atheists govern within secular governments.

(09-22-2010 10:59 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  BTW, while I understand state taxes differ widely, for Federal taxes, being married usually comes as a penalty.

I'll be generous and assume it's always a penalty.

You still don't think it wrong for the spouse to get screwed out of 401K and benefits?

i finally see what torch is saying, he just isn't in the business of helping anybody get there. He's not saying the current marriage laws are right or wrong, he's just saying each individual person has the same opportunities under the current laws.

(09-22-2010 11:41 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-22-2010 10:59 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  BTW, while I understand state taxes differ widely, for Federal taxes, being married usually comes as a penalty.

I'll be generous and assume it's always a penalty.

You still don't think it wrong for the spouse to get screwed out of 401K and benefits?

401k can assign beneficiaries. What benefits?