Comments by "Philip Rayment" (@PJRayment) on "European Court of Human Rights rules 'gay cake' case inadmissible" video.
-
19
-
@Sly News
"A business can refuse a customer, but it is not allowed to discriminate against race, gender, religion or sexual orientation."
Which they weren't doing anyway.
"I’m not religious,..."
Which probably means that you follow an atheist religious view. Atheists have this habit of labelling all worldviews except their own as 'religious'.
"...but it is my understanding that it is gods job to judge and not ours."
Not according to atheist religions. But I think you are talking about Christianity in particular (although for some reason are lumping all religions in together, despite their vast differences). However, in that case, you are wrong. God expects us humans to form governments and administer justice, which involves judging. We are told to judge righteously, which obviously requires judging.
"So they should make the cake for them without judgement and leave it to god to decide."
Why leave to God what God has already decreed? That would be saying that we don't believe God, or that we think God will flip and flop and make decisions different to what He's already said.
"But I get why they could be offended and [upset] being refused service because of what they do between the sheets."
It was actually over the required endorsement of an oxymoron: same-sex-marriage.
15
-
9
-
8
-
@sticktothefacts8905
"So if people shouldnt be forced to do something against their core beliefs, you are supporting twitter/facebook etc to not carry messages they dont agree with?"
I do support Twitter, Facebook, etc. to not carry messages that they don't agree with. As long as they come out publicly and say so. For example, saying something along the line of "We support progressive views and will not allow conservative, Christian or etc. views". If they'd say that up front, I think I'd be happy (my only hesitation is them saying that now after building their power base by being, or pretending to be, neutral).
The cake bakers were up front as to why they wouldn't bake the cake. Twitter, Facebook, etc. deny that they favour one side, but do anyway. They are being dishonest.
5
-
3
-
2
-
@sticktothefacts8905
I agree that this is a bit subjective, but I didn't just "decid[e] it isnt relevant to the baker issue" as though that was an arbitrary decision, I explained why it was a different situation.
However, this started with you asking the opening poster a question, and I chose to give my own answer, pointing out a difference—which I consider to be significant—in the two cases. You took exception to my response for some reason, including telling me to ask the original poster, even though I wasn't asking anything.
I also said that you were presuming an equivalence which was not there. I'll concede that I was too black-and-white about that. No two situations are ever identical, so the question is whether they are different enough to make a difference. If so, they are not equivalent. In my opinion, as I've explained, I think that they are different enough to make them not equivalent.
You said that you you didn't have to presume an equivalence, although clearly you were presuming one, as also shown by your subsequent comment saying that they were both provider choice issues covered by Sky.
Do you think the difference that I mentioned—one being up front with their views, the others hiding them—is irrelevant to whether or not they should both be allowed to do what they want? If so, I'd be interested in hearing your reasons for that. Otherwise, this is really an argument about nothing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marcelocoelho4107
"That is a matter of perspective really, if you consider believing gods exist as a fact, so atheists indeed "believe" it doesn't,..."
It's not clear what you're saying, but there is only one God. An atheist believes God doesn't exist just as I believe that fairies don't exist.
"... if you start from the perspective that all the evidence points that gods don't exist, then to consider their existence is a "belief",..."
If you start from the perspective that all the evidence points to God not existing, then you believe that God doesn't exist.
"keep in mind that one doesn't chose to "join" atheism, at least in my case, i just started questioning the "common" wisdom passed through my family and reached my own conclusions based on the available evidence."
All you're saying, I think, is that atheism is not an organised religion. But it's still something that you came to believe.
"Again, not "beliefs", there is simply what the geological and fossil evidence shows us,..."
So you believe. But in fact the geological and fossil evidence doesn't show that at all. The geological and fossil evidence just is, and we all try and explain how that came to be in some way. You believe that it came about naturally, whereas I believe that the supernatural was involved. Early geologists saw the rocks and explained them as the product of Noah's Flood. Later geologists who didn't believe in a personal God chose to believe that they occurred through processes we see happening today. The actual evidence doesn't say anything. (That's not to deny that some evidence is more consistent with one view or the other.)
"...and commonly accepted conclusions derived from then."
Not universally accepted, and of course being the majority view doesn't make it right.
"...morals are also partly determined by cultural norms, what is considered right or wrong varies greatly all over the world,..."
True enough. But my point is that if morals don't come from God, they are a matter of opinion. So all you're saying is that some people's morals don't come from God, but from cultural norm. However, that cultural norm is either from God or it's from opinion.
"...and again I'm seeing a common bias here, keep in mind that the Abrahamic God is not the only one that people believe,..."
Of course not.
"...and in fact, Abrahamic religions have very low presence in places like Japan, if we assume that morals come from God as a fact, Japan would have none, which isn't the case."
Actually, that's a non-sequitur, because you've assumed that because most Japanese people today don't believe in God (i.e. the one, true God), then God has not influenced their thinking at all. However, everybody, including the Japanese, have descended from Adam and Eve and from Noah and his family. So you haven't eliminated the possibility that the Japanese cultural morals didn't originally derive from God.
"Yes, but all of then share a core set of beliefs,..."
As do atheists: That there is no God, and other beliefs that flow from that.
"...take for example the twitter crazies, more commonly know as "sjw", they are technically atheists, but my opinion of them is that they are insane, atheism is just a catch-all group for those that don't believe in gods, like your example, it would be the same as me saying that ALL religions share the same beliefs, ..."
I think you are arguing over a matter of degree. My point in my last comment is that beliefs within Christianity vary by X amount, whereas beliefs within 'religion' varies by Y amount, where Y is much larger than X. You're arguing that the differences within the atheism camp are closer to Y than X. That is of course something that can't be measured, so is a matter of judgment. I readily acknowledge that views within atheism have a fair range, whatever that range actually is.
However, let's look at it this way, assuming that it was possible to measure such things. Suppose that all Christians varied in their beliefs by 20%. That is, they agree on 80% of what they believe, and disagree on the other 20%.
Extending this (and still inventing figures), suppose instead of looking at Christians, we look at monotheists, and found that the disagreement figure was 35%. Then we look at all 'theistic' religions (as an atheist might describe that, including pantheistic and polytheistic views), and the figure jumps to 50%. If we add in atheistic religions/views, is the figure going to increase? I'm not sure that it would, at least by much. The point is that all, or at least most, religions/worldviews/philosophies fall somewhere into one of the following: pantheism (all is god); polytheism (many gods), monotheism (one God), or atheism (no God). Atheists tread the first three as 'religion' and separate out their own as non-religion, even though the 'religion' category encompasses everything except their own views. But further, do atheists really think that things like Scientology, Confucianism, Mary Baker Eddy's so-called Christian Science (which is neither), and Zen Buddhism are not religions? I think that they include those things into the 'religion' category, but very conveniently exclude 'standard' atheism. As such, it's really just special pleading.
1
-
@Sly News
"you do realise all Catholics are in that count right as well."
Yes. How does that change anything?
"You are the extremely biased Christian here, ..."
Biased in a good way or a bad way? If the latter, how so?
"...with so much loyalty to your religion flavouring your point of view."
Absolutely! I'm glad you noticed! The Bible teaches us to be honest, that evidence is important, and to check claims that are made even by our own side. So yes, my Christianity does flavour my point of view. Atheism, on the other hand, does not teach any of that (which is not to deny that many atheists will do that anyway), so they are free to slaughter millions (as Stalin, Mao, and others did) and lie (e.g. the lie that Christians used to believe in a flat earth), etc. So does your atheism flavour your point of view?
"Also like I said, literally in the article that you use to support the Christian persecution argument it literally says in ‘Muslim majority countries’..."
As I said, the BBC article I mentioned did not have the word "Muslim" in it. Which article are you talking about?
"...seeing most Christians ... live in a western countries founded by said religion."
I gave you figures suggesting otherwise.
"It can be stated yes outside of the few countries that they are killed, harassed, tortured in the vast majority aren’t persecuted."
Actually, you've just moved the goal posts. Outside those that are killed, harassed, and tortured, many other are still persecuted, albeit in less-violent ways. Jonathan Fox did a study of religious discrimination and an article on his research said that "...Western democracies such as France, Germany and Switzerland engage in more government-based religious discrimination than many countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America." That's apparently not talking about Christians in particular, but it's talking about Western countries in particular.
But apart from that, I'm not claiming that a majority of all Christians are persecuted; just that it's the most persecuted religion. I've offered evidence of that, which you've tried to minimise, but you've not offered evidence that Hinduism is more persecuted. Another report says that "almost 340 million Christians around the world—or 1 out of every 8—live in a country where they suffer some form of persecution, such as arbitrary arrest, violence, a full range of human rights violations and even murder."
1
-
1
-
@Sly News
"yes a bbc article can say that and Hindus can still be the most persecuted religion globally."
That's theoretically possible, yes? But what's your evidence to counter the research?
"So yes a small amount of Christians are getting very persecuted in some parts of the world, specifically the Middle East. But outside of there they got it pretty good."
The article doesn't say that. It says that Christianity faces being wiped out there, but doesn't say that it's "pretty good" everywhere else. According to research by Open Doors, the top ten countries where Christians face the most persecution are, in order, North Korea, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, Pakistan, Eritrea, Yemen, Iran, Nigeria, and India. (See the article "The 50 Countries Where It’s Most Dangerous to Follow Jesus in 2021")
"That doesn’t change from the fact that on a global scale Hindus are the most persecuted religion in the world."
What's your evidence for that "fact"?
"I didn’t say 2 different places or if I did I meant things."
That was a copy/paste quote, but I took it to mean 'things' anyway.
"It is illegal to refuse service based of ones personal views."
What law is that?
"At least in most first world countries. It’s part of the policy of retail in Australia."
Policy? Or Law? What law(s)?
"If you advertise you will provide a service, example ‘ice cakes and write a personal message’ then you are required to do so."
You may be right, but then this case was not in Oz, and apparently in the UK (a first world country) it's not the law.
"...the Woolworths store will still need to provide that service, whether it is by getting another staff member to do it or a manager. "
What law is that?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marcelocoelho4107
"you accuse others of "lumping all religions in together, despite their vast differences" and yet try to somehow standardize atheism?"
I was "standardizing" it? How?
"Please keep in mind, atheism isn't a set of dogmas or beliefs one subscribes too like religion, ..."
I disagree. But see below.
"... it's the lack of said dogmas and beliefs, so there isn't anything "according to atheism"..."
On the contrary, according to atheism, God doesn't exist. (If you think He might exist but aren't sure, that agnosticism.) And other beliefs necessarily flow from that. For example, the world was not created by God. People were not created by God. And so on. Further, moral standards—right and wrong—don't come from God, and therefore moral standards become, ultimately, a matter of opinion. These are all atheist beliefs (even if the last one is not well known).
"atheists will in fact often disagree with each other, ..."
As will Christians.
"...simply because we do not have some common shared belief set we all subscribe to"
You're making the very argument that you're criticising me over, but on a different scale. I wasn't complaining about people lumping all Christians in together, but all religions, because "we do not have some common shared belief set we all subscribe to". Even within Christianity, you have Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestant, and within Protestantism you have various different groups. What all those have in common is belief in God as described in the Bible. Sure, atheists don't agree on everything either, but they do have in common a belief in no God.
1
-
1
-
@Sly News
"... second least in fact."
That's a misleading claim, given that in that list it is the fourth most, apart from various other smaller religions that were lumped together in "Other" and "Folk Religions". If each religion was listed separately, Christians would be fourth on a much longer list.
But how relevant is this list to the original claim? Yes, Jews top the list, with 99% of Jews living in countries where they are harassed. But Jews make up 0.2% of the world population, so that's still a quite small figure.
But you have made something of a case (finally). I guess it depends on how you define "the most persecuted". By sheer numbers, by percent of the group that is harassed, by percent living in countries where they are harassed (which doesn't mean that 99% of Jews are harassed), or what.
The same article (assuming I found the same one you were looking at) said that Christians were harrassed in more countries (128) than any other religious group (next was Muslims at 125 and Jews at 74).
Back to relevancy: The claim was that Christians were the most discriminated-against religious group; it was not that more Christians lived in countries where discrimination occurs. So you're still trying to refute the original claim by making different claims, i.e. claims about different things.
"also while we are on the subject of proof."
We weren't. I was asking for evidence, not proof.
"You have not shown me one ounce of proof supporting your view that Christians are the most persecuted religion."
I have given you evidence. That is just blatantly false.
"You had one bbc article that talked about how persecuted Christians are in Muslim majority countries."
False. As I have said at least twice before, the article did not even contain the word Muslim. It was not about that.
"Then proceeded to use your lawyer speak to poke wholes in my statements,..."
What "lawyer speak"? I was just using rational argument.
1
-
1
-
@elemar5
"I did not make any claims."
You made some implied claims (i.e. in the form of loaded questions or opinion) and some actual claims.
Here are the claims you made:
* (implied) "Islam, Buddhism and many other religions" have "The same evidence", and "people of other religions have just as much evidence for their beliefs as you do have for yours"
* (implied) That God is a "fictional character".
* "You have not provided any evidence,..."
* "you are repeating the hearsay you have been indoctrinated with"
* "You have not provided any concrete evidence..."
* "...and continue to put the onus on me"
There were more, but they are perhaps the main ones. The main one of concern here is your claim that I have not provided any evidence. That is, literally, a claim of yours, that you have not provided any evidence for.
But even that is not too much of an issue to me. My main point is that I have provide some basic evidence of my claim, and you first simply denied it, then, although implicitly acknowledging it, still ignored it.
So no, I'm not mental.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Sly News
"so you randomly quoted countries and numbers. While ignore like the 900million in Europe."
False. I quoted the top ten countries. Nothing random about that. Europe is not a country. Further, your 900 million figure is incorrect. The current population of Europe is about 750 million, and of that about 76% are Christians, which comes to about 570 million.
"also you know your “genocide’ is just mass migration btw."
First, that is patently false. They are two different things. The article says that the first causes the second, not that the first IS the second. Second, I wasn't making a point about genocide, so your comment is not only wrong, but irrelevant.
"idk how my atheism could be effecting my point of view."
I pointed out how it could be. If you still don't know, it means that you didn't read what I said.
"If anything I could be the most impartial about who is the most persecuted."
Yes, you could be. And you also might not be. I'm at least presenting figures and conclusions of studies. You're not (or are getting them wrong).
"Christians aren’t that persecuted in the grand scheme of things."
Authorities say otherwise, and you're not offering evidence to refute that.
"The figures you have literally do support my argument."
That depends on your argument, which you've shifted on.
"You listed like 1 billion Christians mostly in first world countries..."
Your claim was "first world western countries". This is an example of you shifting your argument. It's hard to argue against a moving target like that. My figures did NOT support that claim. What do you consider "first world"? One source I found said that "There is no universal way to define a first-world country." So without defining what you mean, you're making a claim that could mean almost anything.
"...and forgot the other billion also in first world countries that are Catholics."
I forgot nothing. I listed the top ten countries for Christians, which includes Catholics.
"Just because they don’t make the top 10 doesn’t mean they don’t all as up."
I never said that they did. But you claimed that "1.5 billion of them live in the first world western countries", which would leave 700 million in other countries, yet I showed that just in the top ten countries there were 625 million in countries that are not "first world western countries", which strongly indicates that your claim is false. Of course, you are now changing your claim.
"Second off whether you believe in higher power has zero to do with how evil you are ."
Evidence?
"Yes Stalin and mao may have been atheist. But literally every other tyrant in history believed in a higher power so that’s a null point."
No, it's not a null point. And I wasn't talking about just any "higher power", but specifically about God/Jesus. Christians who are tyrants are acting inconsistently with Christianity/the Bible, because it teaches that people should not be tyrants. Stalin and Mao were acting consistently with atheism, because it has no such teaching. Instead, it teaches that right and wrong is down to human opinion. Their opinion was that it was okay to slaughter millions.
"Ghengis khan was a spiritual man, killed millions."
He wasn't a Christian. Some say he was a Tengrist, while another source says that he was a deist. Perhaps he was both. A deist is a bit like an atheist—he believes that there is a God that created, but then had nothing further to do with His creation. That is, the Deist god is not a personal god like that of the Bible; so he sets no standards of right and wrong. If anything Genghis Khan tends to support my case.
"So stop playing the victim like some sjw."
I'm just giving you the evidence that I'm aware of. You're not giving any evidence to support your basic claims.
"Yes Christians are persecuted. No they are not the most persecuted. Not even top 5."
Not according to the studies that I've referred to. And you haven't presented any evidence that they are wrong. You're just nibbling around the edges.
"Why are you even arguing with me."
In order to correct the misinformation you're presenting. Why are you arguing with me?
"Save yourself some time and just google most persecuted religion and read."
I did. And I told you what it said. For some reason you're not taking your own advice.
"let’s just agree to disagree."
You can stop arguing any time you like, and I'll stop too. But if agreeing to disagree implies that we are both unable to show the other to be wrong, then I can't agree to that. I have presented evidence, and you have not successfully countered it.
"Conversation like this are best done in person, way to much writing for a smart phone."
They aren't the only options. I use a desktop computer.
"Especially when I can’t read it as I’m replying to you as to make sure I got everything."
And yet you keep missing my requests for evidence for your claims. Funny about that.
1