This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Mark Levin hangs up on "intolerant" atheist caller

#31SSj4WingzeroPosted 3/21/2014 11:58:01 AM
Yeah, uh, he's a tool, no doubt about that one. Most radio show hosts are...they pander to audiences that agree with what they say and love it when people take the bait and call in to criticize them. Just makes them more money in the end.
---
Not changing this sig until the Knicks win the NBA Championship! Started...4/23/2011? Or was it 2010?
#32JonWood007(Topic Creator)Posted 3/21/2014 1:10:19 PM
Good, you've admitted that you're contradicting yourself. In the first half of your post you say you don't want policies based on faith, but then in the latter half you admit that policies constructed around faith are acceptable so long as they benefit everyone and aren't out to infringe on other people's rights to worship or not and also have secular justification


READ MY ****ING POSTS.

I said it's okay as long as you can justify the policies via logic and reason, ie, without religion. On the other hand, I ripped levin for pushing policies because he believes that they are "objectively" correct because they are based upon a divinely inspired natural law.

Holy ****. Stop trying to take my posts out of context to make me look like crap. You do it again I'm not gonna debate you.

There are some other bits that make no sense. You say that religion cannot consistently do good? Is there any damned thing on the entire Earth that can consistently do good?


The point I'm trying to make is the methodology of faith is inconsistent, and often divorced from true goodness and badness. If a religious policy it's good, it's not because of the religious justification for it, it's because it happens to be good, it happens to coincide with reality and goodness. When you base your views on evidence and a more utilitarian approach, I think you are acting in a more consistent manner. You could argue differently, but in doing so, you're likely using SOME FORM OF REASON in your arguments. If you say "you're wrong because God said so", that's not a debate, and that's a crappy reason to say someone is wrong. This is my problem with mark levin. He's basing his views not on reason or evidence, but on what he sees are objective, divinely inspired principles. You can reason with him all day and he'll just say "but but but...natural law says..."...that's not a reasoned discussion or debate. That is an attempt to shove one's view down everyones' throat REGARDLESS of what the facts say.

Again, we're in agreement once you actually clarify what you mean, but your initial post where you say "religion influencing policy is disturbing" is actually NOT what you meant, because you're OK with religion influencing policy so long as the policy has a secular purpose that actually benefits people...


Once again, you're trying to twist my words. What I'm arguing is I don't want my governmental institutions and policies to be based on religion or theism. In other words, I want the constitution, as it has been interpreted since the 1940s with everson vs board of education, to be strictly upheld. THAT, in a nutshell, is what I'm arguing. This is not to say religion won't necessarily influence policy INDIRECTLY, but the weight of making policy decisions should be given to the evidence and ultimate intentions of the proposed policy. That being said, if you can't defend your religiously inspired policy in a secular manner, then you have no business proposing it or trying to force it on anyone else.

PS, I would appreciate it if you, and the other crop of Christians like OW and PC, would stop trying to troll me and trip me up intentionally by taking my posts out of context in order to be like HURR HURR JON CONTRADICTED HIMSELF. It's annoying. I know you're doing it out of spite because I love to poke holes in your Christian worldviews, which in themselves are taken out of their original contexts and put in a nice sounding theistic one.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768
#33Hustle KongPosted 3/21/2014 1:34:09 PM
I love to poke holes in your Christian worldview


Lol. Gonna be funny when this guy kts'.
---
Shooting Game never die.
It prays that the clover of luck be always in your mind.
#34hunter_gohanPosted 3/21/2014 2:28:51 PM(edited)
SSj4Wingzero posted...
The abolition of slavery? Chalk up another point for the religious folks. Most of the prominent abolitionists were devout Christians (in some cases, downright fanatical like John Brown), and at the time, the Civil War was largely viewed by many in the North (which was then the more religious part of the country) as a holy war against the Godless folk of the south who would allow such an abomination like slavery to exist.


I forgot, which constitution directly attributes itself to Almighty God? The United States one or the Confederate one?

Edit: Ok so that it's more then just a smart ass question:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/preamble

"We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting for itself, and in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our poesterity--to which ends we invoke the favor and guidance of Almighty God--do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America."
http://tinyurl.com/nwk6kup
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.
#35Heineken14Posted 3/21/2014 2:43:12 PM
ave1 posted...
You're wrong. He doesn't believe in man-made global warming because it's leftist propaganda that lacks enough evidence to give it validity.


So he's completely ignorant of climate change? Cool.
---
Rage is a hell of an anesthetic.
#36Reinbach_IIIPosted 3/21/2014 3:46:31 PM
ave1 posted...
He doesn't believe in man-made global warming because it's leftist propaganda that lacks enough evidence to give it validity.

Aren't you also a creationist? What are you going to do next; tell us that sex is a myth and that babies are delivered by storks?
---
I'm honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein. - George W. Bush
#37ave1Posted 3/21/2014 6:46:57 PM
Reinbach_III posted...
ave1 posted...
He doesn't believe in man-made global warming because it's leftist propaganda that lacks enough evidence to give it validity.

Aren't you also a creationist? What are you going to do next; tell us that sex is a myth and that babies are delivered by storks?


Well, why don't you explain how cells with the capability to take in food/gas as well as reproduce came into existence without thought being put into it. If you can support this point, I will concede that Creation of life has a formidable challenger. Otherwise, you are just making stuff up.
---
If a tree falls in a forest and you hear it, but your eyes are closed, how do you know it's not just fifty porcupines sliding down a hill?
#38JonWood007(Topic Creator)Posted 3/21/2014 7:34:04 PM
We don't know. But just saying "God did it" is intellectually lazy.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768
#39SSj4WingzeroPosted 3/21/2014 7:35:16 PM
Jon, many of your posts can be so easily taken out of context that you need to do a better job of what you're saying. It's obvious you're not that anti-religion, but if you read the first line of your posts, it's very difficult to discern that. It took me a bunch of posts to get that out of you. You weren't ripping Levin originally, you were making generalizations against religion in politics in general, and if you deny that, well, then it's not really worth my time to point it out anymore.

And a law can be "based" on religion but still have secular value and secular justification. You say that you don't want our laws or our institutions to be based on faith. What you REALLY meant to say is that you don't want our laws our institutions and policies to be based solely on faith without any other justification. You did a poor job of justifying that initially.

What I'm arguing is I don't want my governmental institutions and policies to be based on religion or theism.

See, that's not what you're ACTUALLY arguing. You don't want policies to be based ONLY on religion or theism. Policies that are based on religion can be beneficial if they have secular justifications and arguments. If a congressman tries to introduce a law calling for reducing incarceration periods for marijuana smokers and his reasoning is that we should be more forgiving since Jesus said so, that would indeed be a law based on religious faith, but I also hope that you'd realize that said law is a good thing that you should support instead of getting all caught up on his reasoning for supporting it.

If you say "I don't want our policies to be based on religion", what you are EFFECTIVELY saying is that you want any policymaker who has a religious justification for his proposals to be excluded from the decisionmaking process. I don't think you realize just how demonizing your initial statements were. It's good that that's not what you mean, but it can be so easily taken out of context, and you don't seem to realize that.

hunter_gohan, look at the abolitionists of the 1850's, the songs that were popular then (i.e. the Battle Hymn of the Republic, John Brown's Body), for an idea. Look at the prominent ministers of the Second Great Awakening which occurred in the years prior to the Civil War and take a look at where they lived and preached. They were overwhelmingly northerners. Hell, Charles Finney, arguably the most noted preacher of the time, taught at Oberlin College for thirty years, where he admitted people of all races and genders and spent most of his time smuggling freed slaves across the Ohio river.
---
Not changing this sig until the Knicks win the NBA Championship! Started...4/23/2011? Or was it 2010?
#40JonWood007(Topic Creator)Posted 3/21/2014 8:03:41 PM
Quite frankly, there were a lot of key words that should've set you off where you should've known what I meant with my original post. I tried to make very clearly, even deciding to go a little extra and make a second post in my original post that I am not opposed to religious freedom. I am opposed to basing our institutions and policies on religion. That is what I said. I tried to make this very clear. I explicitly mentioned institutions and policies, and I clearly ripped levin for saying that we should base our ideas on a theistic natural law.

I stand by what I said, and I think that I did a good job in trying to explain it. Maybe I didn't make the point you brought up clear enough, but if you read between the lines, it should've been clear PRECISELY what I was against. I gave examples of it. I defined exactly what I had against Mark's position.

It seems to be you failed to properly interpret what I was trying to say.

I'm gonna quote post 10 again in particular.

But yeah, to clarify, don't confuse me of saying I'm against religious freedom, I'm not, I just don't believe that America should be governed by religious principles. Or that one's political perspective should masquerade as inalienable religious principles that we MUST follow. We need to be a country that governs based on what policies produce the best outcomes for humanity. We must follow the evidence. Think pragmatically, rather than on abstract principle.


1) I said I'm not against religious freedom, I was clarifying.

2) I explicitly mentioned being opposed to basing our country as a whole on religious principles. This does NOT mean I am against a secular policy that has a religious justification behind it for some.

3) Third sentence....we shouldn't base our whole country on a theistically derived set of inalienable rights.

4) We need policies that work best for humanity. If this happens to have some sort of religious justification, that's ok, but the policies MUST be able to be justified via reason.

5) last sentence sums it up. We should not base our country's policies on abstract, theistic principles. We should base them on what works. Once again, this is not to say that policies that happen to support a theistic position are not worthwhile...it's just that they MUST be based on reason. Reason and faith, in terms of morality, aren't mutually exclusive. If you have a policy that can be religiously inspired that happens to be very well justified based on reason, that's okay.

I mean, for crying out loud. I quote Pope Francis on criticizing trickle down economics from time to time.

Or here's this gem from post 9:


So yes, you can bet I have a big problem with America based on faith..especially coming out of the mouth of a conservative. Because that amounts to the OW style of moral argument in which they just define their position as right, and all other positions wrong, PERIOD.


THIS SUMS UP MY ARGUMENT. I'm against basing policies on religious principle. If you can defend those same policies based on logic, reason and evidence, that's cool in my book.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768