A van has slammed into people gathered for Berlin’s famed LGBTQ+ event, killing one person, injuring at least 16 others and prompting police to call off the celebrations and a concert in the German capital hours after they had begun.
💭 To consider antireligion instead of atheism
“The harm of religion is historically evident whereas the presence or absence of gods is not. Ultimately, the continued existence of religion is predicated on the indoctrination of children and suppression of rational thought. Therefore I am against religion but not necessarily against the idea of gods. For all we know gods are computer scientists and we are in their video game.” ―https://www.arscyni.cc/file/antireligion.html
and these realities are not superstituous? i mean there are plenty non-religious ideologies around and at least where i live they have much more impact.
Even though colleague A said people are free to do whatever they please, following it up with “homosexuality is a sin” arguably exposes his feigned tolerance. […]
is a non-sequitur argument. Or at least it has an unspoken premise, of what it means for something to be a sin.
People are usually free to commit sins, and other religious people tolerate their sinning. As long as they’re the socially accepted kind of sins in that religious community, like drinking alcohol, hitting your children, coveting your neighbours wife, you name it.
Hypocrisy is an integral element of any religious community I know.
But the hypocrisy here is not, that homesexuality is called a sin. It is, that it is usually regarded as a graver sin than all the others that are happily tolerated.
I think I have to disagree, but I understand where you’re coming from, hence the “arguably”. Believing something is a sin indeed doesn’t equal taking someone’s freedom to do so. However, his revulsion was uttered with such conviction and certain facial expressions that it signaled if he had free rein, he would not tolerate homosexuality at all, i.e., would prohibit it.
💭 To consider antireligion instead of atheism
“The harm of religion is historically evident whereas the presence or absence of gods is not. Ultimately, the continued existence of religion is predicated on the indoctrination of children and suppression of rational thought. Therefore I am against religion but not necessarily against the idea of gods. For all we know gods are computer scientists and we are in their video game.” ―https://www.arscyni.cc/file/antireligion.html
I am against religion and the idea of gods, as well as every other superstition.
I wish everyone would quit making shit up and focus on reality.
and these realities are not superstituous? i mean there are plenty non-religious ideologies around and at least where i live they have much more impact.
I am in favor of making decisions based on measurable evidence.
that’s one of them.
freedom of religion is a requirement for freedom from religion.
“freedom of
religionbrainwashing is a requirement for freedom fromreligionbrainwashing.”A spurious but innocuous sounding argument.
nah, for your judgement you had to replace terms in the sentence.
They’re synonyms.
No, it is not. Freedom to pick a bullet caliber to shoot your neighbour is not a requirement to NOT shoot your neighbours
People can do what they like. Doesn’t mean other people have to be okay with it though.
Isn’t that what tolerance is about? The live and let live thing? So you kinda have to be okay with other people doing what they like.
Doesn’t mean you have to do the same though.
Not gonna defend religion or anything, but this
is a non-sequitur argument. Or at least it has an unspoken premise, of what it means for something to be a sin.
People are usually free to commit sins, and other religious people tolerate their sinning. As long as they’re the socially accepted kind of sins in that religious community, like drinking alcohol, hitting your children, coveting your neighbours wife, you name it. Hypocrisy is an integral element of any religious community I know.
But the hypocrisy here is not, that homesexuality is called a sin. It is, that it is usually regarded as a graver sin than all the others that are happily tolerated.
I think I have to disagree, but I understand where you’re coming from, hence the “arguably”. Believing something is a sin indeed doesn’t equal taking someone’s freedom to do so. However, his revulsion was uttered with such conviction and certain facial expressions that it signaled if he had free rein, he would not tolerate homosexuality at all, i.e., would prohibit it.