Gay marriage should never be recognize by the state because...

[MOBIUS]

I'm talking about in the west as a whole. It's completely acceptable to say and do what you want to Christianity, but you can't even print cartoons about Islam lest the PC police jump out and tell you you are an insensitive racist. I guess it's fine though. Eventually it will boil over into a violent backlash as the majority of the population is oppressed by the minority. That suits my purposes just fine.

In many ways I think it is a far superior religion, or at least it was. Today the adherents of much more extremist and militant versions of belief are becoming far more prevalent...

[MikeH]

There are some obvious practical problems with that. Lets take medical decision making-- Which of my 4 spouses decide for me if they deadlock 2-2 and I have not done a healthcare directive and am not competent to make my own decision . . . Do my 4 spouses continue to live together on my death? What if they all chose different new spouses etc etc? Nothing insurmountable but usually marriage makes many of these things EASIER by creating a set of rights for the single individual known as the 'spouse"

Marriage rules today in most jurisdictions would allow an anullment of a coercive marriage but the test for coercion can be tough-- If I wish to wed some 20 year old from sub-Saharan Africa and she wishes it since she knows my western affluence will mean her whole family will be lifted from poverty . .. there was no coercion but hell it isn't a marriage of equals either. But this type of thing will go on no matter if its state, religious, tradiditional or even some new form of union.

What happens now if 2 parents disagree over a treatment decision for a child? Same thing. Similarly, who gets guardianship of any children etc. It's not a reason not to allow it, it's just something that needs to be addressed.

[MikeH]

Islam is attacked all the time. This is a bit of a "political correctness gone mad" argument that I don't think washes.

[C0ckney]

Why is religion itself not nuts? It is based on fiction, to insist that some made up mumbo jumbo is real and should be worshipped is nuts - plain and simple!

So, tell me, why is religion not nuts then...?

there's really very little point in going down this road with you as you've already made up your mind.

believe what you like, it's no skin off my nose. it's only when you try to inflict your terrible critique of religion on the rest of us that i object.

[MikeH]

Luckily we live in countries that value free speech so we can give our views and you can object.

And it's not like there haven't been 2000 years of non-believers being forcibly converted, preached at, persecuted, discriminated against and even killed for not being religious. Us saying we think it's all a bit stupid is trivial compared to what athiests have been subjected to. Get over it.

[Jon Miller]

Err, is there any evidence that there was a significant nonbeliever population at any time in earth's history other than the last 200 years?

JM

[Lorizael]

Err, is there any evidence that there was a significant nonbeliever population at any time in earth's history other than the last 200 years?

JM

Wikipedia seems to think so.

[MOBIUS]

there's really very little point in going down this road with you as you've already made up your mind.

I've only made my mind up because no one has come close to proving otherwise. You yourself duck this challenge by saying there's no point - why are you trying to defend something that you know cannot be defended?

Is that why you are so frustrated? That you know that you are powerless to prove me wrong about religion being based on fiction and made up mumbo jumbo...?

[C0ckney]

Luckily we live in countries that value free speech so we can give our views and you can object.

which is exactly what's happened here.

And it's not like there haven't been 2000 years of non-believers being forcibly converted, preached at, persecuted, discriminated against and even killed for not being religious. Us saying we think it's all a bit stupid is trivial compared to what athiests have been subjected to. Get over it.

yes, i'm sure you (personally) have been very oppressed mike. get over it.

[MOBIUS]

yes, i'm sure you (personally) have been very oppressed mike. get over it.

I was oppressed as a young child at a morning nursery run by Catholic nuns that I went to for a short time in the south of France, where I was forcibly made to write right-handed because of their stupid, nutty, superstitions. I wasn't there for very long, only a few weeks until my mother realised what was happening, but the damage and trauma inflicted was sufficient to make me do everything, apart holding my knife and fork, right-handed...

[MOBIUS]

Not to mention my imaginary snails and the circus strong man incident...

[Jon Miller]

Wikipedia seems to think so.

Did you actually read the article? Most of those, in particular the older groups, are not atheist.

They are just not believers in a Christian style God, which is true of most religions that aren't Christianity/Judaism/Islam. Not believing in an omnipotent creator doesn't mean the same thing as atheist.

JM

[C0ckney]

I've only made my mind up because no one has come close to proving otherwise. You yourself duck this challenge by saying there's no point - why are you trying to defend something that you know cannot be defended?

Is that why you are so frustrated? That you know that you are powerless to prove me wrong about religion being based on fiction and made up mumbo jumbo...?

i'm not trying to convince you of anything. i'm simply saying that there's no point in having this debate with you. for much the same reason that there's no point in having a debate with drinksnacks about barack obama or what socialism is...

[Lorizael]

Did you actually read the article? Most of those, in particular the older groups, are not atheist.

They are just not believers in a Christian style God, which is true of most religions that aren't Christianity/Judaism/Islam. Not believing in an omnipotent creator doesn't mean the same thing as atheist.

JM

You didn't ask for a population of atheists, which, as the article points out, is a term that only originated in the 16th century; you asked whether there were populations of non-believers.

And there certainly have been. From the less mystical sects of Buddhism to certain schools of Hinduism to Greek materialists and Sophists, there have clearly been segments of the populations that were without a belief in a god.

[Proteus_MST]

I'm talking about in the west as a whole. It's completely acceptable to say and do what you want to Christianity, but you can't even print cartoons about Islam lest the PC police jump out and tell you you are an insensitive racist. I guess it's fine though. Eventually it will boil over into a violent backlash as the majority of the population is oppressed by the minority. That suits my purposes just fine.

Not true everywhere in the west (especially in europe).
putting cartoons about muhammed/islam into newspapers
it might lead to some fanatical clerics issuing a fatwa demanding your death, however
(but those are usual outside of the country where said cartoons were made/published, but often in islamist countries, so it is nothing, western nations could influence in any way)