kabbes
First intersubjective, then internalised
... which is why it’s useful to consider what researchers have found about how certain attitudes and behaviours are formed and entrenched.
See? I knew we’d get there in the end.
Terrorist attacks and beheadings in France
- Thread starter Spymaster
- Start date
See? I knew we’d get there in the end.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
They have freedoms and rights but that also includes the freedoms and rights to practice whatever religion others see fit.
And stop its with this "magic man in the sky" nonsense, ffs. It makes you sound like an idiot.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
You missed my point rather, though. If your aim is to reduce the influence and power of organised religion (no easy task), a defence of secular values has to be the starting point.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
He's driven you dotty
No, we didn't.
There is no excuse for fuckwits beheading people in the name of someone who doesn't exist.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Good point
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Er a definition of secular values might be a start so you know what you're defending
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
Zealot
Do you have any evidence that there is a god? If not STFU.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
And you I suppose have evidence to the contrary
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I gave one a few posts ago.
Evidence there there is no god?
Wouldn't that need proof there is one in the first place? There isn't unless you are going to supply it.
I wait with bated breath for you to find some.....
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
You're moving against the power of organised religion at quite a pace this weekend. Now you've defined what you're defending how are you moving forwards with the defence of sv in the wider world?
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
No, no it wouldn't
kabbes
First intersubjective, then internalised
For the record, my secular values include not making policy decisions that prevent religious people undertaking their cultural norms (such as banning the wearing of headscarves) or informing immigrant populations that their beliefs in general have no place in my society.
So you have no evidence for god then. Not really surprised.
I take it you are also against beheading people because they do?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
First part I largely agree. Second part is not so straightforward because you still have to address how to support people within those populations who are smothered by certain repressive beliefs. How do you protect both group and individual freedom? These things are often in conflict.
kabbes
First intersubjective, then internalised
You don’t do it by cementing a “them and us” mentality, for a start.
Choose the parts you have a moral objection to and focus on attacking those specific actions, I would say, with evidence and reason. No moral relativism but also no blanket dismissal.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Exactly so. And that is what certain forms of multiculturalism do. Point being that secular values are for everyone - non-religious and religious.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
That’s not the point, you dribbling fanatic
kabbes
First intersubjective, then internalised
Oh, I’m a long way from being an enthusiastic supporter of multiculturalism in all its forms. There are many ways of formulating multiculturalist theories, however. They don’t necessarily require separation of community identity — quite the reverse, in fact.
Last edited:
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
No one has ever been beheaded because they had proof of a god's existence
Astounding insights here. Thanks for contributing.
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
Athos
Well-Known Member
Beheading people in the name of someone who does exist, though ....
Something we can get behind.
tim
EXPLODED TIM! (Help me!!!)
Don't be a cunt because you don't believe in a magic person of any or no gender in the sky would be a good piece of advice, don't you think?
Last edited:
Similar threads
