Armed activists show up to library and demand they ban books

[Age]

The trouble with being deeply embedden in religion is that you don't have the option of being open to reason.

A BELIEF of ANY thing does NOT leave the option of being OPEN to reason.

An ASSUMPTION of ANY thing ALSO does NOT leave the option of being OPEN to reason. But to a lesser extent, as will be SHOWN.

[Age]

]Misuse of guns. Do you think it is appropriate to intimidate librarians because of books they don't even have in their library?

Nope. Not sure why I am even fielding this question.

Destroying people economically is also pretty terrible.

No doubt. What has that got to do with libraries?

It has to do with people on 'both' sides who don't believe in freedom of speech and expression.

Not sure how you're doing the maths. Are the people using threats of violence equal to the others who don't?

Well, actually both the left and right use violence against speech, but there is also, my point, economic violence. Pen it mightier and all that....

and.....yeah, it was irony.

That seems less likely in light of the above.

Perhaps you want me to me an enemy or something. But it was irony.

I know, I'm supposed to pick a side and hate the other side and overlook anything 'my team' does. It can be hard for many people when this isn't done. In fact, this is a related phenomenon to the disdain for and silencing of free speech. But perhaps I was not as clear as I could have been.

'you' are still NOT being clear "iwannaplato". There NEEDS to be forms of censorship, right?

[Age]

The trouble with being deeply embedden in religion is that you don't have the option of being open to reason.

Well, as I keep saying, people will use their reason to develop their stories. So you start with a premise - god exists, for example, add a few things on your wish list, eternal life perhaps, persecution of people whose habits you disapprove of, or it might be love and empathy for all humankind. Whatever, anyone who creates a god does so in their own image and they can give you any number of reasons why they are right.

Now here, my friends, is WHERE the ACTUAL issues BEGIN. That is; by starting with a so-called 'premise', of which 'actual proof' has NOT YET BEEN OBTAINED, and building your OWN MADE UP stories from 'there'.

[Age]

Well, as I keep saying, people will use their reason to develop their stories. So you start with a premise - god exists, for example, add a few things on your wish list, eternal life perhaps, persecution of people whose habits you disapprove of, or it might be love and empathy for all humankind. Whatever, anyone who creates a god does so in their own image and they can give you any number of reasons why they are right.

But these people believe that what they disapprove of is set in stone. It isn't their role to have an opinion, their purpose is to enforce God's opinion. And God's opinion is whatever the crazy man in the pulpit, waving the Bible about, says it is.

My attitude, since early adulthood, towards homosexuality has gone from not really knowing anything about it but being amused by it, to learning more and being revolted by it, to being influenced by changing social attitudes towards it and beginning to tolerate it, and finally to completely accepting it. That is because I consider myself free to question my attitudes and opinions, and I have revised them, rather than having to wait until God revises his.

Are you still OPEN to the fact that homosexuality could be completely and utterly Wrong?

This is why I condemn religion, you can't reason with it.

Is there a BELIEF that you could reason with?

If yes, then what would that BELIEF be, EXACTLY?

[Age]

The trouble with being deeply embedden in religion is that you don't have the option of being open to reason.

I suppose you are right.

He is totally right. Anyone that is stupid enough to accept religious doctrine to the depth of not challenging it, is NOT open to reason.

Name one person who has a BELIEF of ANY thing and who is still OPEN to reason.

ALL BELIEF can be classed as a 'religious doctrine'.

EVERYTHING should be challenged with reason, even if it was a GOD that gave us an intelligent mind to challenge GOD supposed doctrines in their own right.

Other_wise we are not worthy of God or just pure products of a random universe.

[Harbal]

The trouble with being deeply embedden in religion is that you don't have the option of being open to reason.

A BELIEF of ANY thing does NOT leave the option of being OPEN to reason.

An ASSUMPTION of ANY thing ALSO does NOT leave the option of being OPEN to reason. But to a lesser extent, as will be SHOWN.

A person who is commited to a religion is bound by its tenets, which are constant. A devout Christian has to accord with the Bible, and the Bible isn't going to change. A secular belief does not have the same rigid constraints. You might believe in Marxism, for example, but if there are some aspects of it that you don't agree with, there is no authority compelling you to accept them.

[Harbal]

Are you still OPEN to the fact that homosexuality could be completely and utterly Wrong?

I am not commited to any particular view of homosexuality. All I can say is that it does not violate my own sense of right and wrong, and although I can't see any reason for that to change, I cannot discount the possibility that it might, just as any other view I have might change.

Is there a BELIEF that you could reason with?

If yes, then what would that BELIEF be, EXACTLY?

A belief that does not have the authority of God behind it is more likely to be such a belief.

[Walker]

God knows the religious right can be offended by pretty much anything. If the Bible wasn't their Bible, the sex, violence, incest and aspersions cast upon God would likely get it banned.

Probably not in the libraries that host frightening caricatures of women to entertain the children, in close physical contact.

[Harbal]

Probably not in the libraries that host frightening caricatures of women to entertain the children, in close physical contact.

What reason is there to be frightened by such a "caricature" unless you have been taught to be frightened by it? And what reason is there to teach children to be frightened by such things?

[Walker]

Probably not in the libraries that host frightening caricatures of women to entertain the children, in close physical contact.

What reason is there to be frightened by such a "caricature" unless you have been taught to be frightened by it? And what reason is there to teach children to be frightened by such things?

Children are naturally frightened of those creatures, but are taught to not be frightened. That's why they're allowed to be up close and personal with the impressionable little children.

[Walker]

[Harbal]

Children are naturally frightened of those creatures, but are taught to not be frightened. That's why they're allowed to be up close and personal with the impressionable little children.

What "creatures" are we talking about here, and in what way are they allowed to be up close and personal?

[Walker]

Sorry, is that your wife in the picture?



Sure looks like a creature to me.

[Harbal]

What "creatures" are we talking about here, and in what way are they allowed to be up close and personal?

Ah, I see you have posted a picture. I admit, it's not a pretty sight, but nobody seems to be particularly alarmed.

[Walker]

but nobody seems to be particularly alarmed.

Come on Harbal, pay attention. They have been taught to not be alarmed, which is the purpose of the reading, which is the purpose of close contact.