Aussie Thread: Democracy Sausage

[Free Northman Reborn]

6 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I'm not wrong. I've read the exact passage Folau is paraphrasing, including examinations of the original language, and he's / his church / every gay hating church completely misrepresented it.

Incorrect. Agenda driven, revisionist  translations don’t make what you want it to say the truth.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Actually, he was referring to all humans, unless they accept salvation. Which is exactly what the Bible says.

The activists simply latched onto one small category within his much longer list. A list which includes every one of us, if we are honest.

There are Plenty gay Christians dude. 

Yeah, his hateful rhetoric targeted groups other than the LGBT community. 

Which includes Catholics, people suffering drug-addiction, and those who’ve had pre-marital sex etc. 

He certainly is loving when he says all those groups of people will be/ deserve to be tortured forever and mocking them for their “sins”.

Question, do you still not get why some people took offense at this idea that they deserve to be tortured? 

Like I’m genuinely curious if you’re still perplexed why some people might really dislike that. 

And please if I think my religion calls for discriminatory practices against people of certain races or women, should that be allowed with no possible consequence? 

Like if I advocate that women shouldn’t be allowed to participate in government, or hold a managerial position over a man, should the company I work for not be allowed to dismiss me from their employ based on that type of misogyny if I just say I think god agrees with me?

Same thing in terms of race: should government protect those who religiously  believe god requires that some races not have any authority in society, from being fired for expressing abhorrent views? How about if they then deny housing to an interracial couple. Should that be allowed too?

[sh_wulff]

If we are going to be an inclusive and welcoming society, if we show tolerance of speech that encourages exclusion or that one group hasdomination and is allowed dominion over others, then are we really an inclusive society.

Saying that someone deserves eternal hellfire and condemnation isn't said from love, it is said from a position that on has a right to tell others how to live.

 

no one is saying IF cannot say those things, just that he not keep his employment and say those things. I feel he had not been made famous by his rugby playing,  no one would even be taking any notice of waht he said.

 

this isn't about freedom of speech, it's about IF wanting his cake and eating it too.

[Stubby]

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Actually, he was referring to all humans, unless they accept salvation. Which is exactly what the Bible says.

The activists simply latched onto one small category within his much longer list. A list which includes every one of us, if we are honest.

Seriously?  Do you think that people should be tortured forever for not believing this crap?

[Squab]

Here’s a guy who lost his job running, jumping, catching a ball and using his head as a battering ram because he won’t shut up about his stupid beliefs. Then the outrage police have tried to shut down his request for donations to fight this in courts. Apparently it’s not enough the he is no longer able to earn a living because he refuses to be silent, they are now going after his wife as well. No wonder donations are over $2M already. Admittedly, its only dollaroos but its still a good start.

Has anyone got a copy of or can send a link to the contract he is said to have breached? Or even just the clauses?

[Jeor]

51 minutes ago, Stubby said:

Seriously?  Do you think that people should be tortured forever for not believing this crap?

Without getting too much into a theological debate, there are some varying understandings of the concept of hell. Catholics believe in purgatory, for instance, while some Christians believe that it's not so much torture as about not getting into heaven. That being said, the Bible does have plenty of passages that describe hell as a place where you don't want to be.

Now, for the people who constantly ridicule Christians for having such outrageous beliefs, I do consider atheists to have similarly outrageous beliefs. If there is no such thing as the supernatural, then clearly the thoughts and words I'm typing are simply the result of deterministic chemical reactions happening in my brain according to the physical laws of the universe. The idea of consciousness and free will must be an illusion. Now that, to me, is completely ridiculous.

[Squab]

28 minutes ago, Jeor said:

Now, for the people who constantly ridicule Christians for having such outrageous beliefs, I do consider atheists to have similarly outrageous beliefs. If there is no such thing as the supernatural, then clearly the thoughts and words I'm typing are simply the result of deterministic chemical reactions happening in my brain according to the physical laws of the universe. The idea of consciousness and free will must be an illusion. Now that, to me, is completely ridiculous.

Strawman. In the sky with beard.

Just because i see no evidence to believe in a God, does not mean believe in something else that has no evidence. If you were to present something that proved consciousness and free will were an illusion developed by chance that happened to instill empathy and foster group cooperation which thereby lead to group selection overcoming individual selection, i would believe it. At this stage, to my knowledge, its unproven, just like sky faeries.

[Jeor]

27 minutes ago, Squab said:

Strawman. In the sky with beard.

Just because i see no evidence to believe in a God, does not mean believe in something else that has no evidence. If you were to present something that proved consciousness and free will were an illusion developed by chance that happened to instill empathy and foster group cooperation which thereby lead to group selection overcoming individual selection, i would believe it. At this stage, to my knowledge, its unproven, just like sky faeries.

So how do you believe free will and consciousness works, then? (and I don't mean this to come off aggressively, I am actually just curious)

To me, those concepts are not something that physical science can explain, and I have a double major in Physics and Mathematics, so I'm not just making it up from a position of no science background. By a process of deduction, does that mean you believe something outside of science (or for wont of a better term, supernatural) might be possible or could exist?

[Squab]

6 minutes ago, Jeor said:

So how do you believe free will and consciousness works, then?

To me, those concepts are not something that physical science can explain (and I have a double major in Physics and Mathematics, so I'm not just making it up from a position of no science background). So by a process of deduction, does that mean you believe something supernatural might be possible?

Just because we/I cannot explain something, does not mean god or some other magic exists, or is even likely to. What isn't possible? Not much, i guess. Whats probable? This deserving a different thread but not god. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Jeor said:

Now, for the people who constantly ridicule Christians for having such outrageous beliefs, I do consider atheists to have similarly outrageous beliefs. I

Atheists simply don’t believe in a god.

A lack of belief=/belief.

Also, I don’t get why you’re immediately focusing on Atheists in response to some taking issue with the statement non-Christians and those who don’t act in some way deserve torture. 

1 hour ago, Jeor said:

If there is no such thing as the supernatural, then clearly the thoughts and words I'm typing are simply the result of deterministic chemical reactions happening in my brain according to the physical laws of the universe. 

You’re making  a false equivalence here

You do understand there are religions that don’t even have gods right? Paganism, sects of Buddhism(hell look up the Dali Llama’s answer on if Buddism allows for a god-he vehemently argues against the idea), Jainism, Taoism etc don’t really have a god.

Not believing in a god, hell even believing there is not a creator of the universe, does not equate to total disbelief in the supernatural.

1 hour ago, Jeor said:

The idea of consciousness and free will must be an illusion. Now that, to me, is completely ridiculous.

Neither the existence or lack of existence of a god or gods disproves or proves the concept of free-will or consciousness. If there is a god who created each individual to be a certain way and react a certain way in the settings it has placed them in, does free-will exist? I would say no more than a universe with no god of any kind.

If you desire to take the Deistic approach and say there was/is a god that merely designed the universe and left it’s creation to its devices I can’t say that’s really much better. I could just as justifiably say the thoughts you are typing,are the result of deterministic chemical reactions happening in my brain according to the physical laws of the universe designed by a god. 

See the inclusion of god really doesn’t do anything in regards to these questions.

22 minutes ago, Jeor said:

So how do you believe free will and consciousness works, then?

EDIT: And then, are you saying that you believe something supernatural might be possible?

Leprechauns are responsible for it all. You may laugh but honestly it’s as good an answer as simply saying “God”. 

We don’t know for sure how or even really if these things exist. We will probably never conclusively know if these are real things. And that’s fine quite frankly.

[Jeor]

23 minutes ago, Squab said:

Just because we/I cannot explain something, does not mean god or some other magic exists, or is even likely to. What isn't possible? Not much, i guess. Whats probable? This deserving a different thread but not god. 

Oh, I agree with you. I'm not actually meaning to go so far as to make an argument that God exists because science can't explain consciousness. I guess I'm just trying to point out that people who get on their high horse about how Christians believe in sky faeries or whatever as being patently ridiculous don't have much of an answer or explanation for things themselves, and that if you extend a non-belief in the supernatural or anything religious that can actually prove just as logically problematic.

Now to bring it back to the topic of Folau, I guess the idea is, "I may not know about religion and the validity of all of it, but I do know that I don't like this stuff that he says and I think it's wrong." A perfectly valid position to hold and quite an understandable one considering the effect it has on a particular group of people.

An interesting sideshow of the Folau case also comes from the fact that a tolerant and inclusive society actually means being intolerant of certain people. Saying that "we're inclusive of everyone" means that of course you'd have to boot out anyone who said "I'm not inclusive of everyone". Which is a semantic weirdness, but not one that I lose much sleep over - although I do know some Christians who find it hard to get over it.

I prefer to think of the Folau case as more about the boundaries between the workplace and the personal, rather than about free speech and freedom of religion etc. 

[Jeor]

1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Leprechauns are responsible for it all. You may laugh but honestly it’s as good an answer as simply saying “God”. 

We don’t know for sure how or even really if these things exist. We will probably never conclusively know if these are real things. And that’s fine quite frankly.

I think my previous post might answer some of your questions. I didn't mean to say that an openness to the supernatural automatically means a God must exist. However, I do take issue with atheists who claim that theirs is not a belief system and that therefore there is no onus on them to explain anything - they have to explain the concept of free will and consciousness at least, inasmuch as they test Christians on what they believe, some of that stuff still comes back the other way. 

Now an agnostic who says they don't know, that's a different kettle of fish and I don't have much issue with them compared to atheists (and to be sure, I think most people who say they're atheists actually mean they're agnostics). And by what you're saying, @Varysblackfyre321, I take it you're an agnostic - and I don't have an issue with that.

Folau and the ACL have paused the donation campaign, stopping it at $2m gathered from 20,000 different donors. As a Christian, I'm actually a bit saddened that the money isn't going to better causes, or at least ones that will have more of a positive impact.

[Varysblackfyre321]

58 minutes ago, Jeor said:

I think my previous post might answer some of your questions. I didn't mean to say that an openness to the supernatural automatically means a God must exist. However, I do take issue with atheists who claim that theirs is not a belief system and that therefore there is no onus on them to explain anything - they have to explain the concept of free will and consciousness at least, inasmuch as they test Christians on what they believe, some of that stuff still comes back the other way.

Again not believing=/ belief. Being an atheist merely means someone does not believe in the existence of a god. There’s beliefs that follow because of that. 

Seriously you might as well say those who don’t in a Santa Clause have are showcasing a belief system. 

The person making the claim bears the burden of proof. If I claim there is a god it is my duty to provide the evidence. Not the person who simply does not believe me.

You do not have to prove Bigfoots aren’t real in response to me declaring they are.

And again the concept of free-will, consciousness are not attached to the question of if there is a god. 

I don’t mean to say you’re immature for believing in a god.

That would be wrong. 

But I do think you’re mistaken in this idea of atheists and theists generally having the same level of burden here.

I think you’ve confused atheists with anti-theists. Anti-theists certainly are atheists but they’re more a “extreme” subset of the group. Instead of simply not believing in the existence of a god they argue that gods do in fact not exist. 

58 minutes ago, Jeor said:

Now an agnostic who says they don't know, that's a different kettle of fish and I don't have much issue with them compared to atheists (and to be sure, I think most people who say they're atheists actually mean they're agnostics)

A person could literally be an agnostic anything. The question “agnosticism” really looks at is knowledge not just belief. 

A person could believe something yet acknowledge they don’t know something or that the thing they believe really can’t be proven true one way or other. I’ve met self-professed a agnostic-Christian. Nice enough bloke quite frankly.

I think some atheists just say they’re  “Agnostic” when asked about if they believe in god, because of less negative connotations associated with the term. 

58 minutes ago, Jeor said:

@Varysblackfyre321, I take it you're an agnostic - and I don't have an issue with that.

Or I could be an agnostic theist, or anti-theist, or a Desist or perhaps a Buddhist monk.

I would imagine I would have contention with these arguments regardless of my personal belief or lack of belief concerning the existence of a god. 

Honestly, I think if asked specifically about you’re knowledge(not just belief)  of there being a god, you’d probably profess to being agnostic. I don’t mean this as a dig. I think such such admissions could show real humility. 

 

[Jeor]

11 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Honestly, I think if asked specifically about you’re knowledge(not just belief)  of there being a god, you’d probably profess to being agnostic. I don’t mean this as a dig. I think such such admissions could show real humility. 

I think by the nature of what faith is, there is an implicit assumption of some uncertainty/doubt/etc. Some Christians see doubt as a weakness, but I see it as a completely natural thing. I think the difference between me and an agnostic is that while I can't profess to know something for an absolute certainty, I do still choose something in particular and don't just leave it in the "don't know" category. Some people may find that bewildering or borderline arrogant, but I think it gives me a good framework and direction for my life. But you're right, there is an element of "don't know for sure" so by some definitions of agnosticism, sure, that works.

[Stubby]

1 hour ago, Jeor said:

Now an agnostic who says they don't know, that's a different kettle of fish and I don't have much issue with them compared to atheists (and to be sure, I think most people who say they're atheists actually mean they're agnostics).

Atheism & agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

Theism = Belief
Atheism = Without Belief
Gnosis = Knowledge
Agnosis = Without Knowledge

It is possible to be:
1. Agnostic atheist - concedes that one does not know if there is a god, but not believing that there is. (My position).
2. Agnostic theist - concedes that one does not know there is a god, but believes there is.
3. Gnostic atheist - claims to know there is no god and does not believe there is.
4. Gnostic theist - claims to know god exists and believes it exists.

Personally, I think anyone who claims to come from positions 3 and 4 are not being intellectually honest.

[Stubby]

3 hours ago, Squab said:

Has anyone got a copy of or can send a link to the contract he is said to have breached? Or even just the clauses?

He was determined to have repeatedly breached these clauses of the code of conduct:

ARU Code of Conduct, Part 2,

Clause 1.3:
"Treat everyone equally, fairly and with dignity regardless of gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, cultural or religious background, age or disability. Any form of bullying, harassment or discrimination has no place in Rugby."

Clause 1.7:
"Use Social Media appropriately. By all means share your positive experiences of Rugby but do not use Social Media as a means to breach any of the expectations and requirements of you as a player contained in this Code or in any Union, club or competition rules and regulations."

Those repeated breaches were determined to amount to a breach of contract.

[Jeor]

2 hours ago, Stubby said:

Atheism & agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

Theism = Belief
Atheism = Without Belief
Gnosis = Knowledge
Agnosis = Without Knowledge

It is possible to be:
1. Agnostic atheist - concedes that one does not know if there is a god, but not believing that there is. (My position).
2. Agnostic theist - concedes that one does not know there is a god, but believes there is.
3. Gnostic atheist - claims to know there is no god and does not believe there is.
4. Gnostic theist - claims to know god exists and believes it exists.

Personally, I think anyone who claims to come from positions 3 and 4 are not being intellectually honest.

Stubby, clear as ever with your lawyer mind! I'm in (2).

2 hours ago, Stubby said:

He was determined to have repeatedly breached these clauses of the code of conduct:

ARU Code of Conduct, Part 2,

Clause 1.3:
"Treat everyone equally, fairly and with dignity regardless of gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, cultural or religious background, age or disability. Any form of bullying, harassment or discrimination has no place in Rugby."

Clause 1.7:
"Use Social Media appropriately. By all means share your positive experiences of Rugby but do not use Social Media as a means to breach any of the expectations and requirements of you as a player contained in this Code or in any Union, club or competition rules and regulations."

Those repeated breaches were determined to amount to a breach of contract.

I have to admit those clauses sound to be pretty definitive for the Folau case.

[maarsen]

5 hours ago, Stubby said:

Atheism & agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

Theism = Belief
Atheism = Without Belief
Gnosis = Knowledge
Agnosis = Without Knowledge

It is possible to be:
1. Agnostic atheist - concedes that one does not know if there is a god, but not believing that there is. (My position).
2. Agnostic theist - concedes that one does not know there is a god, but believes there is.
3. Gnostic atheist - claims to know there is no god and does not believe there is.
4. Gnostic theist - claims to know god exists and believes it exists.

Personally, I think anyone who claims to come from positions 3 and 4 are not being intellectually honest.

I have to take exception to your last line. If someone can prove that any being cannot both understand the physics of the universe, and interact with the same universe, then any god as we understand them cannot exist.. Accepting such a proof does not make me dishonest.. And yes such a proof exists. 

[Paxter]

8 hours ago, Jeor said:

Now, for the people who constantly ridicule Christians for having such outrageous beliefs, I do consider atheists to have similarly outrageous beliefs. 

Agnosticism FTW. 

Also, Squab, since when were you allowed to make sense in this thread!?

Look, I can see both sides of the Folau thing. Sometimes I think maybe RA went a bit too far sacking him. But he was probably going to continue doing this - using his platform to make gay kids and adults feel crap about themselves when they already have a much higher incidence of poor mental health.  And doing that when it is in breach of a Code that he signed up for. On balance I think he just needs to earn a living with an employer who is OK with that. 

[Paxter]

2 minutes ago, maarsen said:

And yes such a proof exists. 

May I see it?