recedite wrote: » There has always been an ebb and flow. The San bushmen are as stone age a people as you ever likely to meet. They live in a much more egalitarian society than we do. Their chats about tribal business around the camp fire seem more civilised than the Brexit antics in the House of Commons. They are far less prone to bribery and corruption than the delegates at UN vote. And generally they are happy with their lot (even though its not much at all).
The San people similarly did not regard homosexuality negatively, and various rock paintings depicting anal intercourse between men exist to this day.[4] The Tswana people, a Bantu ethnic group who make up the majority of Botswana's population, also have a local term to refer to homosexuality. The Tswana term matanyola, which literally translates to "anal sex", has long been used to refer to homosexuals. Prior to colonisation, Tswana society did not share the Western concepts of sexuality and gender. Many Tswana men would have sex with men, but also have wives. Homosexuality was not viewed as an antithesis to heterosexuality. Indeed, there was widespread liberty to move between the two, and engage in sexual activity with both men and women.[5] Traditional dikgosi (local Tswana chiefs) argue that homosexuality has always existed in Tswana society, and that such individuals should be respected.[6]This relative openness and indifference towards homosexuality disappeared after Botswana (then known as the Bechuanaland Protectorate) became a British protectorate in the 19th century and began enforcing Victorian era laws and social policies.
smacl wrote: » Christianity is syncretic, it 'borrows' ideas from all sorts of other religions and cultural practices in order to remain contextually relevant. Or as the OP might put it, it demonstrably follows the mood of the day.
batgoat wrote: » Folau's remarks can be incredibly damaging to gay teens and make it far more difficult for them to come.
antiskeptic wrote: » I'm not sure what has to do with what I posted. There is no truth or potential for same in athiesm. Even when he dies, if he's right about the belief that there is nothing after this, he'll never know he's right. There is in theism. All it takes is for God to exist. What I believe isn't relevant to that fact. Indeed if its true then I am not confined to belief anymore. The only issue is whether God exists or not.
antiskeptic wrote: » That presupposes that other religions and cultural practices have no relationship with the divine.
smacl wrote: » No it doesn't. Syncretism and assimilation are pragmatic methods of easing a new religious tradition into the place of an older one by keeping all of the major festivals and traditions and simply re-inventing the history that surrounds them.
smacl wrote: » The notion that a god exists is exactly as likely as any arbitrary fantasy you might care to imagine being true until such time as someone can provide some shred of objective evidence that this god does exist.
That objective evidence hasn't been forthcoming in the last couple of millennia so there is no objective reason to suggest that god exists. As such, if a theist lives there whole life on the basis of an afterlife they've just wasted their one and only life. That's not truth, it is delusion.
The theist wants their god to exist because they fear death, but unfortunately wanting something to exist does not make it so. It does also have the nasty side effect of devaluing one's own life and the lives of others, e.g. the religiously inspired suicide bomber.
antiskeptic wrote: » That's an acceptable approach for you to take. You've nailed your colours to the mast of empiricism.
antiskeptic wrote: robindch wrote: antiskeptic wrote: A flaw in athiest thinking is that modern means good and old equal bad [...] You're free to believe whatever crusty, old religious stories you happen to like, but where something can be figured out easily (say, by asking your fellow-posters), then perhaps you'd like to do this instead of telling us what we think? You seem to forget the fellow members aren't exactly a neutral viewpoint.
robindch wrote: antiskeptic wrote: A flaw in athiest thinking is that modern means good and old equal bad [...] You're free to believe whatever crusty, old religious stories you happen to like, but where something can be figured out easily (say, by asking your fellow-posters), then perhaps you'd like to do this instead of telling us what we think?
antiskeptic wrote: A flaw in athiest thinking is that modern means good and old equal bad [...]
antiskeptic wrote: » Forgive my lack of preciseness regarding the make up of your belief system.
antiskeptic wrote: » I'm trying to point out that since your system has no potential to demonstrate itself true you can't view yourself as other than a mere believer.
robindch wrote: » antiskeptic wrote: robindch wrote: antiskeptic wrote: A flaw in athiest thinking is that modern means good and old equal bad [...] You're free to believe whatever crusty, old religious stories you happen to like, but where something can be figured out easily (say, by asking your fellow-posters), then perhaps you'd like to do this instead of telling us what we think? You seem to forget the fellow members aren't exactly a neutral viewpoint. I'm not sure what you mean by a "neutral viewpoint". I am sure, however, that atheists do have some inkling concerning what they believe. Hence the gentle suggestion that you might engage in discussion - say - by asking them whether they believe that "modern means good and old equal bad", rather than telling them that they do. You might discover, for example, that you view of other posters is inaccurate. antiskeptic wrote: » Forgive my lack of preciseness regarding the make up of your belief system. Your inaccurate beliefs concerning non-religious is matched by your inaccurate use of language. antiskeptic wrote: » I'm trying to point out that since your system has no potential to demonstrate itself true you can't view yourself as other than a mere believer. Whereas you telling yourself that your beliefs are indisputably true because you believe that your interpretation of the bible is true - this somehow sidesteps the problem of belief?
antiskeptic wrote: » Forgive my lack of preciseness regarding the make up of your belief system. You yourself bracket my belief system as mystical spiritualism when you surely know that the empirical and rational contribute to my understanding and navigation of reality.
The difference is in the ism. Your belief system holds that reality can be (potentially) fully understood empirically and rationally, etc .. only. Its still a belief system.
Athiests typically share that view around here. I'm no fan of Dawkins but he comes from that same angle as you. He is obnoxious and inaccurate but he makes some relevant points. Baby bathwater. I talk of objectivity from the standpoint of your belief system not mine. I'm trying to point out that since your system has no potential to demonstrate itself true you can't view yourself as other than a mere believer. Rather than focus on the problems you think I face, you might concentrate on your. For that seems to be the m.o., deflect from own problems by pointing others percieved problems.
smacl wrote: » I'm not sure what you mean by reality here. If you're referring to the observable universe that precludes what you call "the divine" unless you happen to be a pantheist. If you exclude the divine than the divine is not real.
No I don't. Humanity and the sum of human knowledge is finite and while expanding will most probably will remain so. The totally of potential knowledge may or may not by infinite, but it is certainly orders of magnitude larger. We might understand a lot as the sum of human knowledge grows, but it seems reasonable that there is much more that we will never understand. A simple example of this is history. Short of inventing a time machine, we will never understand the totality of the past events in any great detail.
When dealing with open systems, science takes a position, which is continually being revised, of what is most probable based on observation and analysis. This is not a belief system, it is a method. I do not believe what science tells me is true in any absolute sense, I merely accept that the results of repeatable, peer reviewed emprical testing are more probably true than unsupported assumption. Where that unsupported assumption includes supernatural belief, and there is no evidence to support that belief, I take the position that the probability of the belief being true is negligible.
The only reason we're having this discussion is that you've seen fit to proselytise what most here consider to be specious mystical bunk, and defend religious homophobia, on an atheist forum. Why exactly would you do that? Is it an insecurity in your own belief system, which is an unusual one even by Christian standards in this country? Perhaps, like Folau, you're just keen to show us unbelievers how inferior we are to such an enlightened soul such as yourself.
The problems i face are all entirely mundane and I'm content in the knowledge that they'll die with me when that time comes.
Israel Folau has been found guilty of a "high level breach" of Rugby Australia's player code of conduct after he said "hell awaits" gay people in a social media post.
A three-person panel who presided over his hearing will now consider what punishment the 30-year-old will face.
The Waratahs full-back, contracted with RA until 2022, escaped punishment for similar comments last year.
....In April, Australian rugby league's governing body ruled out Folau returning to the NRL.
Cabaal wrote: » https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/48184011 So he had his chance and he still decided to spread hate speech,
SoundsRight wrote: » the definition of hate speech, unless the parameters have changed to include things that upset some people.
1.1 Your safety and the safety of your team mates and opponents comes first. Be aware of, and always comply with, the Rugby AU Safety Policies and Guidelines. 1.2 Be a good sport, displaying modesty in victory and graciousness in defeat. 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. 1.4 Do not repeatedly breach the Laws of the Game relating to Foul Play or Misconduct (as those terms are defined in World Rugby Regulations). 1.5 Accept and respect the authority of a referee, assistant referee, touch judge or other match or team official. Do not abuse, threaten or intimidate, use crude language or gestures, or show unnecessary obvious dissension, displeasure or disapproval towards a referee, touch judge or other match official, whether on or off the field, or a selector, coach, manager or other team official. 1.6 Do not make any public comment that is critical of the performance of a match official, player, team official, coach or employee/officer/volunteer of any club or a Union; or on any matter that is, or is likely to be, the subject of an investigation or disciplinary process; or otherwise make any public comment that would likely be detrimental to the best interests, image and welfare of the Game, a team, a club, a competition or Union. 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. 1.8 Do not otherwise act in a way that may adversely affect or reflect on, or bring you, your team, club, Rugby Body or Rugby into disrepute or discredit. If you commit a criminal offence, this is likely to adversely reflect on you and your team, club, Rugby Body and Rugby. 1.9 You must assist in any investigation or disciplinary proceedings and ensure that no inaccurate and/or misleading information is provided by you during the course of an investigation or hearing under this Code or in relation to any other disciplinary proceedings. 1.10 You must disclose any incident, matter or set of circumstances (irrespective of when it occurred) that does, or has the potential to, render you an unfit or improper person to be a Participant in Australian Rugby. This includes any incident, matter or set of circumstances that could damage the game of Rugby or bring into question the integrity and good character of its Participants.
recedite wrote: » Just looking at the actual code of conduct he is supposed to have breached (available for download here). Anyone care to guess which one they are using against him? 1.3 - mentions "gender identity" but then that would seem to be more for if Folau had been having a go at some particular player for being gay, which he wasn't. Also that clause would seem like it was designed to protect the religious beliefs of somebody like Folau, so it should not be used against him. 1.6 - Bans "public comment that would likely be detrimental to the best interests, image and welfare of the Game". That could be it, especially if you consider the interests of "sponsors" to be the same as the interests of the "game" 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." Its a bit vague but that could be it too, especially in conjunction with the above.
SoundsRight wrote: » It doesn't meet the definition of hate speech, unless the parameters have changed to include things that upset some people. I hope he drags it out as long as possible, costing the ARU a fortune and hurting the teams preparation for the WC.
Bannasidhe wrote: » You seem to have missed these: They are part of the code under Inclusion....
1.8 While this Policy has a focus on homophobia and makes specific reference to gay, lesbian and bisexual people, the overarching principles and intention of the policy is to make a positive statement on the importance of inclusion for all, and the importance of eliminating all forms of discrimination in our game.
1.6 Rugby AU’s policy on inclusion is simple: Rugby has and must continue to be a sport where players, officials, volunteers, supporters and administrators have the right and freedom to participate regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion and without fear of exclusion. There is no place for homophobia or any form of discrimination in our game and our actions and words both on and off the field must reflect this.
recedite wrote: » I did miss that one. In my innocence I thought there was only one code of conduct! The "Inclusion Policy" has obviously been made up by some LGBT activists and was then rubber stamped by Rugby Australia... after all, who could possibly argue against the LGBT lobby. The only thing is, what happens when religion and the LGBT definition of homophobia collide? This is the crux of the matter. Elsewhere in the "Inclusion" policy I see this bit... I ask two questions. 1. Did Folau harass or bully any LBGT player, or did he seek to prevent any such player from participating in the game? IMO the answer is No. 2. Did anyone else harass or bully Folau on account of his religious beliefs, or did they seek to prevent him from participating in the game? IMO the answer is Yes. Its an interesting clash of "human rights". I have a feeling we'll be seeing a lot more of this sort of clash in future, as the LGBT lobby gets stronger and the religious lobby gets weaker. And not just in Australia, nor only in rugby.
Bannasidhe wrote: » It may come as a surprise to you that some organisations have inclusive policies because they do not believe minorities should be bullied by the majority just for being different. Religion does not give you a free pass - if it did then what is people's issue with Sharia? They believe the crap they spout too. There is no clash of rights. There are organisations adopting 'Don't be a Dick' codes. They are telling people that should you wish to publicly 'be a dick' towards people you have an aversion to then you are not welcome in this organisation, should your aversion lead you to believe you have the right to regard them as lesser than you than there is no place for you in this organisation. Folau did not say "we are ALL sinners". Folau pointed the finger at other people and said YOU are sinners. Folau acted the dick. No-one told him he could not believe what he believes. He was told that while we was employed by a certain organisation he was subject to a code of conduct that mean he had to not make other people feel less welcome. He signed the contract. He was warned. But Folau had to be a dick about it. I don't think there is any need to protect the rights of people to be dicks. I find that dicks are dicks at every opportunity regardless.
recedite wrote: » Normally I would find your demonisation of dicks to be a form of misandrous hate speech, but for the purposes of this thread I have chosen to identify as a lesbian, so I'll let it slide this time. So yes, you can have a "code of conduct", which is a well established thing in many professions and activities. More recently there has been a fad for adding in an "inclusion policy".It has been reported that Folau is being disciplined for breaching the player code of conduct, not the inclusion policy. Maybe that BBC report is inaccurate, and maybe he is being disciplined for breaching the inclusion policy. Either way, I'm just saying, maybe it would be a good idea for people to check that these inclusion policies are not self-contradictory. This one was produced by the LGBT lobby and also mentions race and religion. Supposing the church hierarchy had produced the inclusion policy, and it had included a ban on discrimination based on race and sexual orientation. What would that have looked like? Probably no mention of words that can be interpreted in various ways, such as "gender" and "homophobia".
Bannasidhe wrote: » Because in both those cases an individual is pointing a judgmental finger at people they 'disagree' with. In both cases an individual would have been acting like a dick. It's as simple as that.
recedite wrote: » Normally I would find your demonisation of dicks to be a form of misandrous hate speech, but for the purposes of this thread I have chosen to identify as a lesbian, so I'll let it slide this time. ...
recedite wrote: » Kind of ironic though, when you use an inclusion policy to judge Folau (on the basis of his "outdated" religious beliefs) and then exclude him from playing the game he loves and is so good at.
