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

Mark Levin hangs up on "intolerant" atheist caller

#41JonWood007(Topic Creator)Posted 3/21/2014 8:10:30 PM(edited)
Same thing with the end of that post:

Sorry if I am going on a massive rant here, I'm fired up after listening to several hours of talk radio. But honestly, no, I do not want us to be a country, institutionally based on faith in God. I want us to be based on logic and reason, and a sense of human betterment. We have problems in our society...and they're not going to be fixed with our current ideas...they're not gonna be fixed with mark levin's ideas. They can only be fixed if we apply critical thinking and free thought to our problems, and a rejection of "traditional values" in favor of a sense of human betterment.


Once again, the big problem is basing policy on broad values without an actual debate as to the validity of those values, or the policy at hand.

Or, let's look at post 23, where I reiterate my point:

I'm mainly aiming at Mark Levin's vision of faith in America here. Which is the idea that we are a country founded on God....that his vision of what America should be is based on his ideas of natural law, and how his idea for small government factors into the law. As I said, he seems to have the OW style of debate in which he automatically defines himself as correct and everyone else wrong, end of debate.


THAT is my issue. The "this is the way it should be, it's based on gawd, period."

Read my posts. I never said all religious people were the same. I was calling out mark levin's particular mindset, since it is so dominant in politics nowadays.


Here it is again.

Once again, I'm not against religious freedom, or charity, or whatever. If churches do good, that's fine. I'm talking about actual policy...actual visions for how our country should work. Please read what I'm actually arguing against. Im not against churches making positive change in their communities. I'm against them actually RUNNING THINGS. I'm against basing our policy decisions as a country, on some sense of divine authority. I want POLICIES that represent the FACTS, not FAITH.


And again. My problem is I want my policies based on facts and not faith. This is not to say faith can't inspire policies. But before we pass these things into law, we should have a RATIONAL DEBATE as to why this is a good idea. I'm explicitly arguing against basing our policies on faith WITHOUT looking at facts, data, reason, etc.

You have spent this whole topic arguing against me based on a complete misunderstanding of what I said. I know what I said, and I meant what I said. Maybe I was not clear enough in expressing the fact that I dont mind ideas that are indirectly inspired by religion, but it's abundantly clear that I want policies ultimately based on a sense of facts, data, reason, logic, science. That is my goal. To have policies based on these things. I dont care where the ideas come from, as long as they work and adhere to the lemon test.

I never contradicted myself. I only further explained the views I was originally expressing. I mean...why would I be against a good idea just because it can be religiously justified? That's stupid. The clintons, when they pushed for healthcare in the 90s, based their ideas on religion. My own opinions on income inequality and all are right in line with the likes of Pope Francis. I'd have to be a moron to be arguing what you thought I was arguing. My concerns are how the policies are being justified. I don't like the idea of basing policy on "God said so." I want policies to be justified in terms of "this policy leads to these outcomes, and this is good for society because..."
---
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
#42Faust_8Posted 3/21/2014 8:23:46 PM
ave1 posted...
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.


Reminds me of this pic.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/views.gif
---
"It's hard to reason people out of positions they didn't reason themselves into."
--JonWood
#43SSj4WingzeroPosted 3/21/2014 9:44:12 PM(edited)
You certainly think you know what you said, but I think you're comments are being misinterpreted by me for one major reason, and that is you don't realize the extent to which some people's sense of justice and righteousness is based on religious values. I don't expect you to accept that since you're an atheist, but it's something you should know.

Put it this way: Say a lawmaker believes that we need to be more compassionate towards people who have previously committed crimes. His motivation behind this comes from scripture, because the way he interprets the scripture is that we need to be more compassionate and forgiving towards everyone. He campaigns for this and works tirelessly to end what he perceives as injustice in society.

When you tell him that you don't want laws based around religion, guess what? Religion is his motivation. It is the source of his zeal. In your view, you're just saying you want secular justification to be at the center of it. But that's not what he hears. When you say "I don't want religion influencing policy" or "I want policies based on facts, not on faith", what he hears is "Please find a way to cut your motivation for doing good out of your system" and "Please refrain from that promoting that policy from which faith is your motivation."

You think you know what you say, but what you don't realize is that your comments are interpreted differently by people who share a different worldview. You need to realize this rather than simply accusing me of nitpicking. You did do a better job of finally clarifying your position (albeit while going on a meaningless rant about religious freedom which has never been the issue at hand here), but you need to realize that your statements, to somebody of faith, let alone someone who attempts to do good using faith as his main motivation, are extremely demonizing, hurtful, and counterproductive, regardless of how you think they should be interpreted.
---
Not changing this sig until the Knicks win the NBA Championship! Started...4/23/2011? Or was it 2010?
#44Reinbach_IIIPosted 3/22/2014 3:59:08 AM
ave1 posted...
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.


1: Argument from ignorance, much?
2: If you're going to demand a "formidable challenger" for "Creation of life", please provide formidable evidence of it so that it actually needs one.
3: Please quote the statement I made that you are accusing me of making up.
---
I'm honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein. - George W. Bush
#45Faust_8Posted 3/22/2014 4:45:32 AM
SSj4Wingzero posted...
You certainly think you know what you said, but I think you're comments are being misinterpreted by me for one major reason, and that is you don't realize the extent to which some people's sense of justice and righteousness is based on religious values. I don't expect you to accept that since you're an atheist, but it's something you should know.

Put it this way: Say a lawmaker believes that we need to be more compassionate towards people who have previously committed crimes. His motivation behind this comes from scripture, because the way he interprets the scripture is that we need to be more compassionate and forgiving towards everyone. He campaigns for this and works tirelessly to end what he perceives as injustice in society.

When you tell him that you don't want laws based around religion, guess what? Religion is his motivation. It is the source of his zeal. In your view, you're just saying you want secular justification to be at the center of it. But that's not what he hears. When you say "I don't want religion influencing policy" or "I want policies based on facts, not on faith", what he hears is "Please find a way to cut your motivation for doing good out of your system" and "Please refrain from that promoting that policy from which faith is your motivation."

You think you know what you say, but what you don't realize is that your comments are interpreted differently by people who share a different worldview. You need to realize this rather than simply accusing me of nitpicking. You did do a better job of finally clarifying your position (albeit while going on a meaningless rant about religious freedom which has never been the issue at hand here), but you need to realize that your statements, to somebody of faith, let alone someone who attempts to do good using faith as his main motivation, are extremely demonizing, hurtful, and counterproductive, regardless of how you think they should be interpreted.


Do remember that for a lot of us, if the only reason a person cares about other people is because of their god, then someone did a bad job of raising that person.

Our thinking is, say your religion was 100% disproved. You'd still want to be compassionate towards people, right? Surely you'd have other motivations? If not, that person is simply a maladjusted, anti-social person.

We don't want someone in office who reverses everything if he suddenly has a crisis of faith.
---
"It's hard to reason people out of positions they didn't reason themselves into."
--JonWood
#46SSj4WingzeroPosted 3/22/2014 5:11:20 AM
There's a difference between having compassion for people and actually working to fight for the betterment of society. Sure, most people would probably feel bad for a homeless dude on the street, but how many folks actually take it further than "oh, poor guy"? The hedge fund managers and Silicon Valley entrepreneurs of the world would probably feel bad for a starving kid if they saw one, but how much do they actually care about helping? It takes a special kind of person with an extra zeal and/or motivation to actually go the extra mile and make sacrifices in order to help the people who need it. Whatever that motivation is, whether it be religious, based on personal experience, or whatever, it's a good thing. And of course, I'm not saying all religious people have this extra motivation to do good, but some people who do good are religious, and there's no reason we should be angry that religion is their motivation if they're doing good, since they're doing good and we should just be happy that they're doing good.

On the day that motivation doesn't exist? We boot their asses out of office since we can do that in America, and we pick someone who actually cares about the people. You're worried that an elected official might have a crisis of faith and thus stop caring about people? It's not as if religion is the only thing that could do that - politicians change due to self-interest, varying experiences, and other sorts of reasons too, so your fear that a Protestant politician might suddenly go against birth control since he goes ultra-conservative Catholic is just as silly as worrying about a politician suddenly turning into a communist. I mean, it's possible, but that's why we have, you know...elections.
---
Not changing this sig until the Knicks win the NBA Championship! Started...4/23/2011? Or was it 2010?
#47myzz7Posted 3/22/2014 6:03:29 AM
After hearing that, I'm done with Levin.

I liked him before because he would bring up libertarian topics, and reference Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman, but my god Levin was insufferable during that conversation with the caller.
---
http://s10.postimage.org/mxioonsd1/gildavatar.gif http://puu.sh/7f5f3/51ab963813.jpg
#48BMFTheJag22Posted 3/22/2014 6:58:38 AM
This just shows that any moron can get their own talk show. He's obviously everything that he was claiming the caller was, intolerant, not that smart and a punk. Guy should be a burger flipper, not on a national radio station (no offense to burger flippers).
---
"All it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man to lunacy. That's how far the world is from where I am. Just one bad day." -The Joker
#49JonWood007(Topic Creator)Posted 3/22/2014 9:22:14 AM(edited)
SSj4Wingzero posted...
You certainly think you know what you said, but I think you're comments are being misinterpreted by me for one major reason, and that is you don't realize the extent to which some people's sense of justice and righteousness is based on religious values. I don't expect you to accept that since you're an atheist, but it's something you should know.

....

You think you know what you say, but what you don't realize is that your comments are interpreted differently by people who share a different worldview. You need to realize this rather than simply accusing me of nitpicking. You did do a better job of finally clarifying your position (albeit while going on a meaningless rant about religious freedom which has never been the issue at hand here), but you need to realize that your statements, to somebody of faith, let alone someone who attempts to do good using faith as his main motivation, are extremely demonizing, hurtful, and counterproductive, regardless of how you think they should be interpreted.


No, once again youre strawmanning my position, only an idiot would actually argue what you thought I was arguing. I mean, I say this as an ex-Christian who STILL has parts of his political worldview based on the (good) parts of Christianity. Keep in mind I used to be a Christian myself. I understand that. You're the one twisting my worldview and taking it out of context. I just spent 2 posts EXPLAINING, with quotes and all, PRECISELY why it was taken out of context. I never, ever, said that I was against people being religious inspired, I said I didn't want laws BASED on faith (particularly the kinds of faith Mark levin was talking about), but rather reason.

There's a difference between having compassion for people and actually working to fight for the betterment of society. Sure, most people would probably feel bad for a homeless dude on the street, but how many folks actually take it further than "oh, poor guy"? The hedge fund managers and Silicon Valley entrepreneurs of the world would probably feel bad for a starving kid if they saw one, but how much do they actually care about helping? It takes a special kind of person with an extra zeal and/or motivation to actually go the extra mile and make sacrifices in order to help the people who need it. Whatever that motivation is, whether it be religious, based on personal experience, or whatever, it's a good thing. And of course, I'm not saying all religious people have this extra motivation to do good, but some people who do good are religious, and there's no reason we should be angry that religion is their motivation if they're doing good, since they're doing good and we should just be happy that they're doing good.


Ok, I'm just gonna link you to this.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/03/19/must-you-be-religious-to-be-moral-a-worldwide-survey-and-its-lesson/

Some of the most compassionate countries in the world, are the most secular. They have the best welfare systems, they care the most about their own citizens. What of us? We are backwards for a first world country, which is not made entirely clear in that article, but is clear if you dig deeper into the US vs other similar countries. And a lot of this comes from mark levin's brand of conservatism, which, as I've demonstrated, is based on his form of theism. We have insane income inequality, and many people refuse to even admit it's a problem. We might be more religious than those other countries, but at the same time, the US is a country of PHARISEES. We are callous toward the poor, and many of the people who bash the poor the most are also the most vocally religious. It's been said in the Bible you can't serve both God and money. Many of the most vocally religious people actually serve money, and not "God."
#50SSj4WingzeroPosted 3/22/2014 10:14:30 AM
Yeah, see, if someone's motivation is based on faith, and he writes the law that can be justified with your precious logic by someone else, then is the law based on faith or logic? This is why your words can easily be misinterpreted in other ways, but there's no need for us to argue over semantics anymore.

Some of the most compassionate countries in the world are the most secular? Some of the most uncompassionate (if that's a word) countries in the world are also the most secular. I live in China, one of the few countries in which government actively sponsors and encourages atheism, and it's one of the least compassionate places in the world - over here, you regularly hear about people killing other people for frivolous reasons, or people standing by and watching babies getting run over in the street by cars.

And I'm not going to go and bother to read the article, but I'm going to assume many of those countries are European? You know what those secular countries also have? Race problems the likes of which make America and its jailing of marijuana users look tame by comparison. A Dutch classmate of mine recently showed me a link of a far-right-wing politician who noted that he was going to "make sure that there would be fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands." They also have unemployment out the ass and some of their economies are about to collapse.

Listen, I'm not going to argue that America is perfect, or we're some sort of God-blessed land that stands out above others because of divine providence. But these countries you talk about have many problems too. There's a reason we haven't simply adopted their systems, and it's not because we all believe God doesn't want us to.

And, of course, that certainly ignores the fact that the greatest periods of progress in social justice in America have been when the country was at its most religious (mid-19th century, early-20th century). If you want to talk about secularism, America is at its most secular point in history, and the gap between rich and poor is wider than it's ever been. That correlation is not evidence for causation, but it's about as equally flawed as your assertion that European countries are better off since they're more secular. They have a welfare system, but they also have their own problems. As someone who's lived outside the US for the past two years, I've seen that every place has its pros and cons.

Taiwan, for example, has one of the best healthcare systems in the world, a good social welfare system, and some amazing, incredible food. Most people who go there love it. But you know what Taiwan also has? No job opportunities, housing prices so high that people generally have to live with their parents until they're at least 35, incredibly low salaries that make it difficult for people to purchase everyday goods, and an educational system based on rote memorization and testing so rigorous that students are weeded out of the system as early as 10-12 years old. That's right...you could be disqualified from entering certain universities just because you didn't get into the right high school.

China is even worse. It's far more secular, but what that means in China is nobody actually gives a damn about anybody else. In China, nobody gives any consideration to other people when they do things. This is why the per capita GDP of China is still incredibly low and yet government officials buy their kids Ferraris and store their money in offshore bank accounts. I'm not saying that secular countries suck more, but anybody who thinks that religion is to blame for America's problems can come live in Hebei Province for a few months and see how a truly secular society lives. Obviously, there are more factors at play than religiosity.
---
Not changing this sig until the Knicks win the NBA Championship! Started...4/23/2011? Or was it 2010?