Maggie’s Religion explained in a new way

[gigamortis]

A common saying about our past is that victors get to write all the history books. Keep that in mind when searching for various avenues of proof for things that happened before our lifetimes, religious or otherwise. Faith is much deeper than simple blind loyalty.

 

[BallisticPrimate]

As someone interested in religion and how beliefs are established I've enjoyed this thread. Kudos to all involved for keeping things civil. Many of the religious people in this thread have spoken about the rationale for their beliefs. I'm genuinely curious to know what evidence could be presented to you that would change your beliefs, or reduce your confidence in them?

 

[armorpl8chikn]

I'm genuinely curious to know what evidence could be presented to you that would change your beliefs, or reduce your confidence in them?

I would posit to you the same question.

 

[chrome]

I would posit to you the same question.

Great question. I get asked this question on this topic quite a bit. My honest answer is, I dont know what would change my mind with regards to believing in a deity. But I'd venture a guess if such a deity exists, he/she/it should know exactly what it would take to flip my mind to being a believer.

 

[armorpl8chikn]

Science(and I also am a scientist, I use standard method every day) acknowledges the stars, the planets, galaxies, black holes, quasars, dark matter, dark energy, etc. Ad nauseum as, The Universe. Science gas acknowledged this term for a very long time.

uni-
/ˈyo͞onē/
combining form
prefix: uni-

1. one; having or consisting of one.
   "unicellular"

Origin

from Latin unus ‘one’.

verse
/vərs/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: verse

1. writing arranged with a metrical rhythm, typically having a rhyme.
   "a lament in verse"
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   Similar:
   poetry
   
   
   versification
   
   metrical composition
   
   rhythmical composition
   
   rhyme
   
   
   rhyming
   
   
   balladry
   
   
   doggerel
   
   
   poems
   
   
   lyrics
   
   
   rhymes
   
   
   poesy
   
   
   Parnassus
   
   poem
   
   
   piece of poetry
   
   lyric
   
   
   sonnet
   
   
   ode
   
   
   limerick
   
   
   composition
   
   
   piece of doggerel
   
   ditty
   
   
   song
   
   
   jingle
   
   
   lay
   
   
   ballad
   
   
   tenson
   
   verselet
   
   
   Opposite:
   prose
   
   • a group of lines that form a unit in a poem or song; a stanza.
     plural noun: verses
     "the second verse"
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     Similar:
     stanza
     
     
     strophe
     
     
     stave
     
     
     canto
     
     
     couplet
     
     
     distich
     
     
     triplet
     
     
     tercet
     
     
     tetrastich
     
     
     part
     
     
     section
     
     
     portion
     
     
   • each of the short numbered divisions of a chapter in the Bible or other scripture.
   • a versicle.
   • ARCHAIC
     a line of poetry.
   • a passage in an anthem for a soloist or a small group of voices.

verb
ARCHAIC
verb: verse; 3rd person present: verses; past tense: versed; past participle: versed; gerund or present participle: versing

1. speak in or compose verse; versify.
   "he began to verse extemporaneously in her ear"
   

Origin

Old English fers, from Latin versus ‘a turn of the plow, a furrow, a line of writing’, from vertere ‘to turn’; reinforced in Middle English by Old French vers, from Latin versus .

So we basically exist in a single spoken sentence, or line of poetry, or line of song, etc.

 

[armorpl8chikn]

But I'd venture a guess if such a deity exists, he/she/it should know exactly what it would take to flip my mind to being a believer.

Hmmm.....that he/she would if he/she existed.

 

[chrome]

Hmmm.....that he/she would if he/she existed.

Valid point with "should" vs "would". Let me clarify, this deity "should know what would convince me", assuming this deity is omniscient.

 

[Rthur]

R

 

[armorpl8chikn]

Valid point with "should" vs "would". Let me clarify, this deity "should know what would convince me", assuming this deity is omniscient.

If it isn't omniscient, then could it be considered a true deity?

 

[armorpl8chikn]

R

If one is to consume meat, should it not be properly tenderized?

 

[chrome]

If it isn't omniscient, then could it be considered a true deity?

valid question! I use the word deity to reflect one of the gods inside abrahamic religions (judaism, islam, and christianity). And from my studies, it seems the followers of those religions would equate these deities to be omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. Obviously recognize there are 9,999+ more religions and even more deities attributed to these other religions, but for sake of ease, that is how i use it.

 

[W54/XM-388]

I'm genuinely curious to know what evidence could be presented to you that would change your beliefs, or reduce your confidence in them?

I wouldn't bother there is nothing you could add that some militant believer in the Atheist religion has not / is not already loudly proclaiming to the world as being "enlightened" and there is plenty of "Woke" SJW types all waiting to congratulate anyone that denounces Christian religion

Smaller amounts of kudos and congratulations seem to also be in order from the same parties for anyone that "converts" from being a Christian to being a Muslim, or any other religion currently in favour with the SJW crowd.

Strangely no great public praise and kudos is given by the "Woke", SJW, Atheist crowd for people leaving the Muslim religion or any other religion, just a grudging okay fine you are now not whatever you were before.

So if you are wanting to be a missionary for the Athiest religion, basically get in line, there are plenty already doing their best to preach the Athiest religion with all the best arguments they can think up & have been at it for over 100 years already.

 

[chrome]

I wouldn't bother there is nothing you could add that some militant believer in the Atheist religion has not / is not already loudly proclaiming to the world as being "enlightened" and there is plenty of "Woke" SJW types all waiting to congratulate anyone that denounces Christian religion

Smaller amounts of kudos and congratulations seem to also be in order from the same parties for anyone that "converts" from being a Christian to being a Muslim, or any other religion currently in favour with the SJW crowd.

Strangely no great public praise and kudos is given by the "Woke", SJW, Atheist crowd for people leaving the Muslim religion or any other religion, just a grudging okay fine you are now not whatever you were before.

So if you are wanting to be a missionary for the Athiest religion, basically get in line, there are plenty already doing their best to preach the Athiest religion with all the best arguments they can think up & have been at it for over 100 years already.

By definition, atheism isn't a religion. It is a lack of belief, which cannot be a religion. I also find your labels of "SJW" and "Woke" interesting. Are those directed to myself or anyone who isn't a believer or are you more generalizing a group of people?

Edit to Add: Atheists, non-believes, etc., have existed as long as believers have, if not longer. So the "100 year time frame" seems incorrect.

 

[Rthur]

By definition, atheism isn't a religion. It is a lack of belief, which cannot be a religion. I also find your labels of "SJW" and "Woke" interesting. Are those directed to myself or anyone who isn't a believer or are you more generalizing a group of people?

Whether you believe in religion or not you are still following system of beliefs.
By your assertion you believe in the lack of intelligent design.
As I'm sure you haven't done the long math you believe in the theory of the big bang as well.
Both are acts of "faith" based upon your belief in their scientific skills and results.

R

 

[chrome]

Whether you believe in religion or not you are still following system of beliefs.
By your assertion you believe in the lack of intelligent design.
As I'm sure you haven't done the long math you believe in the theory of the big bang as well.
Both are acts of "faith" based upon your belief in their scientific skills and results.

R

I've heard this charge before, but I disagree. These are not acts of faith or systems of belief. They are a body of methods that continue to generate reproducible results of understanding what is true, not true, or false, not false. I've mentioned before things scientific inquiry have gotten wrong, and there are self-correcting processes within the scientific method that allow for new information and theories to be revised and/or developed.

But Faith (defined by believing in something without good evidence and/or good reason), is not a path to understanding or knowledge, as any position could be supported by faith.

You are correct, I do not believe in intelligent design. This would require a deity, which hasn't been proven to exist. Also correct, I haven't done the long math/calculus on the big bang, but I have been able to understand the spread and expansion of the cosmic radiation discussed in the literature which aligns with the big bang theory, and other variables such as the event horizon, planet migrations, as well that do not necessarily require me to re-learn calculus. By no means am I a cosmologist, but I do download and read the scientific literature on topics I find interesting w/this topic.

 

[Rthur]

I've heard this charge before, but I disagree. These are not acts of faith or systems of belief. They are a body of methods that continue to generate reproducible results of understanding what is true, not true, or false, not false.

Faith is not a path to understanding or knowledge, as any position could be supported by faith. as defined by believing in something without good evidence and/or good reason.

You are correct, I do not believe in intelligent design. This would require a deity, which hasn't been proven to exist. Also correct, I haven't done the long math/calculus on the big bang, but I have been able to understand the spread and expansion of the cosmic radiation discussed in the literature which aligns with the big bang theory, and other variables such as the event horizon, planet migrations, as well that do not require me to re-learn calculus. By no means am I a cosmologist, but I do download and read the scientific literature on topics I find interesting w/this topic.

Good evidence is in fact a belief if one hasn't done the work for themselves.
Science once asserted that the Earth was flat.
While this may seem basic is is what was accepted as a result of their current technological level
could prove.
The above is an example of the problem with answers we find as absolutes until newer technologies can refute
the previous findings.
A "recent" example would be the existence of black holes.


R

 

[chrome]

Good evidence is in fact a belief if one hasn't done the work for themselves.
Science once asserted that the Earth was flat.
While this may seem basic is is what was accepted as a result of their current technological level
could prove.
The above is an example of the problem with answers we find as absolutes until newer technologies can refute
the previous findings.
A "recent" example would be the existence of black holes.


R

Re-read my post right before this one (I edited it not too shortly before your post) and prior posts in this thread regarding the self-correction processes the scientific method has built in.

I am not sure I follow your first sentence. Maybe defining terms would help me, specifically what you mean by "belief" and "evidence" in the context of this discussion. Are you using 'belief' to be synonymous with "faith" ?

As I mentioned before, faith is not a pathway to truth as defined earlier. The scientific method is not a set of "beliefs", it is a set of methods which has shown time and time again what is true, not true, false, not false. More often than not, science is a process of eliminating things that are not true, leaving what is "most likely true".

I don't subscribe to "absolutes", such as absolute morality (the origin of this entire discussion), absolute knowledge, absolute certainty etc. I don't attest to ANYTHING being 100% certain, I scale my confidence in something based on the amount and type of evidence, how it was collected, and if it can be verified/demonstrated.

 

[Rthur]

Re-read my post right before this one (I edited it not too shortly before your post) and prior posts in this thread regarding the self-correction processes the scientific method has built in.

I am not sure I follow your first sentence. Maybe defining terms would help me, specifically what you mean by "belief" and "evidence" in the context of this discussion. Are you using 'belief' to be synonymous with "faith" ?

As I mentioned before, faith is not a pathway to truth as defined earlier. The scientific method is not a set of "beliefs", it is a set of methods which has shown time and time again what is true, not true, false, not false. More often than not, science is a process of eliminating things that are not true, leaving what is "most likely true".

I don't subscribe to "absolutes", such as absolute morality (the origin of this entire discussion), absolute knowledge, absolute certainty etc. I don't attest to ANYTHING being 100% certain, I scale my confidence in something based on the amount and type of evidence, how it was collected, and if it can be verified/demonstrated.

You have been presented with "evidence" that you believe/ have belief in that intellegent design is a farce.

Truth is what the person deciding with their collection of the "facts" are in relation to their experience.

While science used to be against absolutes they have lost that obojectivity- settle science
So if you don't believe in any absolutes it is entirely possible that all of your assertions are
subject to complete disproval with future information.
"I am absolutely sure in the lack of a higher entity/diety existence"...

R

 

[W54/XM-388]

Those who say they believe in no religion, I personally usually define in two ways.

There are those that simply believe nothing exists and as such they don't care much about what anyone else says or does and most specifically don't go getting all offended by religious folks and are not angered by religious symbols in public places and are not busy preaching non belief.
Those I class as honestly not having any religion they follow, and usually just don't want to believe in anything or don't care at all about it at all.

However I personally tend to define most militant Atheists as their own religion because they have their own dogmatic faith in having no faith and tend to go about it with religious zeal as far as they can get away with in trying to first persuade others of their own belief and then if allowed, start doing full on religious style intolerance of other religions. Often starting with changing "freedom to worship as you please" to a state sponsored "You must be free from religion" to whatever extent they can. That betrays someone who is following a dogmatic religion rather than one simply thinks something doesn't exist. Perhaps you haven't seen the hateful side of the Militant Atheist Religion, but I've run across it plenty & you'll find folks in full Communist countries or even hard Socialist countries run up against it pretty quick.

If you wonder how to sort quickly here is a couple quick tests:
If they are angry or upset, or uncomfortable that somebody put up a religious symbol on a public place or such -- Religious in their unbelief
If they get angry, uncomfortable or upset when you give them a religious based greeting -- Religious in their unbelief
If they hate religious based greetings & decorations for holidays public or private or greetings as such -- Religious in their unbelief
If they go on about "Freedom From Religion" or demand removal of any public religious references -- Religious in their unbelief
If they go on about protecting the children from religion and not wanting children brainwashed with religion -- Communist

As far as the timing, if you look at the history in this country, it's been about the last 100 years that the push of Militant Atheism has taken root & the courts / laws got corrupted to suit the attack on Christianity. It was slow in starting but is now in full on swing. What I do find interesting is many of the same ones with no tolerance for Christians are happy to fawn over Muslims

Not all unbelievers/Atheists are Woke/SJW/Communists etc. (Full Communists do tend however to be militant Atheists with no tolerance for any dissent)
However if you just look at this country & the western world around you, you'll see that it's plainly evident that a hatred for Christ/Christians and all things related is a big, worshiped and celebrated part of Woke/SJW/Communist culture, and they will fawn over any other religion as long as it's not the dreaded "Christians".

 

[chrome]

You have been presented with "evidence" that you believe/ have belief in that intellegent design is a farce.

Truth is what the person deciding with their collection of the "facts" are in relation to their experience.

While science used to be against absolutes they have lost that obojectivity- settle science
So if you don't believe in any absolutes it is entirely possible that all of your assertions are
subject to complete disproval with future information.
"I am absolutely sure in the lack of a higher entity/diety existence"...

R

Apologies, not trying to be obstinate, but still not completely tracking. The evidence, or lack there of, reduces my confidence dramatically that intelligent design is true, so low that I dont currently consider it an option. There is a lot that would change my level of confidence, but until then, that is my current position.

I am not sure what you mean by science losing its objectivity? Science isn't a person or an authority, there are no scientific authorities, only scientific consensus.

I'll go back through my earlier posts in this thread, but I dont think that quote is from me (if that is what you are insuating?). I currently reject the existence of deity based on the available evidence. I've posted earlier in this thread that I would never claim a god DID NOT exist, as that is a claim to truth in which I could not support. I only reject the claim that it does, there is a difference.

Hope this helps?

 

[chrome]

Those who say they believe in no religion, I personally usually define in two ways.

There are those that simply believe nothing exists and as such they don't care much about what anyone else says or does and most specifically don't go getting all offended by religious folks and are not angered by religious symbols in public places and are not busy preaching non belief.
Those I class as honestly not having any religion they follow, and usually just don't want to believe in anything or don't care at all about it at all.

However I personally tend to define most militant Atheists as their own religion because they have their own dogmatic faith in having no faith and tend to go about it with religious zeal as far as they can get away with in trying to first persuade others of their own belief and then if allowed, start doing full on religious style intolerance of other religions. Often starting with changing "freedom to worship as you please" to a state sponsored "You must be free from religion" to whatever extent they can. That betrays someone who is following a dogmatic religion rather than one simply thinks something doesn't exist. Perhaps you haven't seen the hateful side of the Militant Atheist Religion, but I've run across it plenty & you'll find folks in full Communist countries or even hard Socialist countries run up against it pretty quick.

If you wonder how to sort quickly here is a couple quick tests:
If they are angry or upset, or uncomfortable that somebody put up a religious symbol on a public place or such -- Religious in their unbelief
If they get angry, uncomfortable or upset when you give them a religious based greeting -- Religious in their unbelief
If they hate religious based greetings & decorations for holidays public or private or greetings as such -- Religious in their unbelief
If they go on about "Freedom From Religion" or demand removal of any public religious references -- Religious in their unbelief
If they go on about protecting the children from religion and not wanting children brainwashed with religion -- Communist

As far as the timing, if you look at the history in this country, it's been about the last 100 years that the push of Militant Atheism has taken root & the courts / laws got corrupted to suit the attack on Christianity. It was slow in starting but is now in full on swing. What I do find interesting is many of the same ones with no tolerance for Christians are happy to fawn over Muslims

Not all unbelievers/Atheists are Woke/SJW/Communists etc. (Full Communists do tend however to be militant Atheists with no tolerance for any dissent)
However if you just look at this country & the western world around you, you'll see that it's plainly evident that a hatred for Christ/Christians and all things related is a big, worshiped and celebrated part of Woke/SJW/Communist culture, and they will fawn over any other religion as long as it's not the dreaded "Christians".

Super helpful post above, thanks for breaking that out. I still disagree with the way you are combining "religious with their unbelief", but I see how you are utilizing the phrase above and I understand it better now.

Lets see where I fall:

1.) If they are angry or upset, or uncomfortable that somebody put up a religious symbol on a public place or such -- Religious in their unbelief - I'd need more context, but in general, I'd prefer the U.S. Government remain agnostic towards ALL religions, and not be seen endorsing one religion over another. I mentioned this in an earlier post, a secular government as constantly demonstrated that it protect religious freedom FOR EVERYONE, and it goes the furthest to protect everyone's religious choices for the long-term. This is also my understanding behind the First Amendment and the Establishment clause.

2.) If they get angry, uncomfortable or upset when you give them a religious based greeting -- Religious in their unbelief - This does not bother me one bit.

3.) If they hate religious based greetings & decorations for holidays public or private or greetings as such -- Religious in their unbelief - Takes a lot for me to "hate" something, but similar to #1, I'd prefer public spaces (assuming they are government backed), to remain agnostic to specific religions and not endorse one over the other. Same rationale as above.

4.) If they go on about "Freedom From Religion" or demand removal of any public religious references -- Seems similar to #1 and #3, would need more context to definitively say either way, but ideally the government shows no preference for any one religion, or they include ALL religions of the community, as that also ensures impartiality.

5.) If they go on about protecting the children from religion and not wanting children brainwashed with religion -- Would need more context, but I'd prefer no governmental education funds should be used to teach the tenants of any one religion inside publicly funded schools, same rationale as #1,3,5. Obviously, history of religion courses can teach the evolution of the world's religions, that would be fine, but to actually teach the scripture/tenants/holy orders/etc, that would violate the 1A/Establishment clause in my mind.

Private schools can absolutely choose how to educate the children who opt-in to their specific curriculum, and ideally do not receive public funding.

Where do I fall based on my answers above, in your honest opinion?

As far as the timing, if you look at the history in this country, it's been about the last 100 years that the push of Militant Atheism has taken root & the courts / laws got corrupted to suit the attack on Christianity.

Which laws, courts, judge corruption are you referring to specifically? I'd be interested in learning more.

To your last paragraphs, hopefully my comments in this thread are not interpreted as hateful or hating any religion or group of ideas. By far and away the exact opposite. I dont subscribe to political labels, but if I was forced to self-identify, I'd say I am about as a constitutionalist/libertarian as one can get, and everyone should be able to worship as they see fit, so long as they dont impede on the constitutional rights of others, and so long as my tax money isn't used to support any one single religion.

These discussions are enlightening to me, and I honestly think our society is regressing away from having these types of chats, so I really appreciate the dialogue.

 

[FishDr]

That does clarify your position.
To (hopefully) clarify another point in this thread, I think we misunderstand the common usage of “faith”.
Faith is generally Not considered a belief in something or someone for which there is no evidence, Faith is believing in a person/system/etc which is not visible (I.e. for which there is no empirical repeatable observation).
For the agnostic, atheist, etc- this is often a belief in a primordial bang or expansion.
For the Abrahamic religions, this is generally creation and/or intelligent design.

Often the follow-on observations are similar, it is the interpretation of those which are vastly different. For instance, see all of the scientific research published by a group called Institute for Creation Research, and compare with works published on similar topics by National Academy of Science or other journals.
We are all entitled to our own set of opinions, but not our own facts.

 

[W54/XM-388]

Which laws, courts, judge corruption are you referring to specifically? I'd be interested in learning more.

I like to do the mirror test to determine if things are fair/just/equal etc. It works well but most "Politically correct" types hate it.
Basically just flip the actors or positions and see what the mood/outcome/feelings/rulings/laws would be and there you have it.

If you don't already know in depth about the war that against Christians/Christ/Christianity that has been raging for some time, it would take a lot to go over the details and there are a lot of well researched books on the subject.

However I think perhaps a simple recent case may clearly illustrate the point:

Supreme Court rejects case of Christian teen forced to write Islamic conversion prayer

Supreme Court rejects case of Christian Maryland student forced to write Muslim conversion prayer.

www.foxnews.com

U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Resolve Public Schools’ Double Standard in Promoting Islam while Disparaging Christianity - Thomas More Law Center

ANN ARBOR, MI—The U.S. Supreme Court today declined to review the case of Caleigh Wood, a Christian eleventh-grade public high school student in Maryland who, despite threats of receiving a failing grade, refused to deny her faith by making a written profession of the Muslim conversion prayer...

www.thomasmore.org

The Islamicization of Public Education Continues Apace

On October 15, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition presented by the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) to hear Wood v. Arnold, a case brought by Caleigh Wood, a Christian student in the 11th grade at…

www.crisismagazine.com

To Summarize:
A Taxpayer funded government run school which children are forced to attend unless their parents can afford private education
(And I word that very specifically because that is how it's explained and championed when it's all about "social justice")
So this clearly is the Government, no ifs ands or buts about it. Government, and enforced by The King's Men with guns "just doing their duty".
So as much "Government" / "State" as there could ever be.

School invites MUSLIM religious leader to speak to the children and forces them to attend the class

Muslim proselytizer proceeds to proselytize their faith to a captive audience with or without their agreement or that of their parents. Clearly going far beyond an academic non-religious discussion of the cultural beliefs of a certain group.

Children of a Christian faith object to being forced to write the Muslim conversion creed which according to real hardline Muslim religious leaders means you have submitted to the faith (Either spoken or written while knowing what you write) and are now a Muslim.

Child is punished harshly for refusing to essentially say they will convert to another religion and is segregated for punishment by the school officials and FORCED to watch Muslim indoctrination videos.

It SHOULD be a slam dunk case of civil rights violation... yet the courts are like... no problem... and all the SJW/Liberals/Woke folks rejoice.

NOW imagine for a moment if you flipped the roles and a Muslim Child was subjected to the EXACT same things but by a Christian pastor at school and forced to listen to a religious conversion sermon, then forced to repeat or write a statement of Christian faith and then harshly punished and forced to watch Christian evangelical conversion films....

The public outrage would be deafening and the courts would be all over themselves to write huge virtue signalling judgments against the school district and lawyers would be flying in from the whole country fighting to get a piece of the multi-million dollar guaranteed payout...

That is just a single isolated event, and this kind of stuff goes on every day all over the country.
The government/courts/judges using the power of the state and the public coffers to force compliance with any belief they wish upon Christians while making as many excuses as possible for anybody else.

 

[BallisticPrimate]

I would posit to you the same question.

While acknowledging the fact that I am a primate trying to understand a mystery, it's relatively easy to change my mind with evidence and reason. This means that I try to establish truth (or the closest approximation of it) based on the available data. I think Hume said it best when he stated that "A wise man proportions his beliefs to the evidence". My confidence in any belief is a sliding scale, and there are very few things about which I'm absolutely certain. With regards to a deity, I could be convinced that one existed in the same way I can be convinced of anything, which is to say simply show me the evidence. In reading this thread it does seem to me that many religious people tend to establish two very different means of knowing. Where they utilise reason and logic to decide if something is true outside of religion, they don't apply the same consistency of logic to establish what they believe about supernatural claims. I do find this very interesting but I wonder if it's driven by deep emotional attachments to in-group acceptance etc.

 

[W54/XM-388]

but I wonder if it's driven by deep emotional attachments to in-group acceptance etc.

You might find that a large amount of human beliefs have emotional/group/historic attachments/underpinnings/enhancements and such.
I wouldn't say it's at all unique to religious beliefs. I bet you and most others have at least some other ideas/beliefs that you have some similar non completely objective attachments to. Just start with the various feelings towards "rights".

 

[BallisticPrimate]

You might find that a large amount of human beliefs have emotional/group/historic attachments/underpinnings/enhancements and such.
I wouldn't say it's at all unique to religious beliefs. I bet you and most others have at least some other ideas/beliefs that you have some similar non completely objective attachments to. Just start with the various feelings towards "rights".

Oh I completely agree with all of that. I'm not at all immune to bias and blind spots. Trust me

 

[armorpl8chikn]

I would never claim a god DID NOT exist, as that is a claim to truth in which I could not support. I only reject the claim that it does, there is a difference.

?????.

Ok fellas, I'm done here.

 

[Maser]

I swear you boys over complicate things!

 

[chrome]

?????.

Ok fellas, I'm done here.

What about my comment do not understand? I'll say it again but differently:

Some atheists are adamant that a deity does not exist. This is a claim requiring a burden of proof to be satisfied, andI have no evidence that a deity doesn't exist, so I wouldn't take that position. Also, proving a negative is obviously complicated for any situation.

Deists make a claim that a deity exists, so this comes with a burden of proof to support this claim. I have seen no evidence to suggest a deity exists, therefor the claim hasn't met its burden of proof, therefor I reject it. Rejecting a claim vs stating the negative is true should not be equated.

 

[chrome]

I like to do the mirror test to determine if things are fair/just/equal etc. It works well but most "Politically correct" types hate it.
Basically just flip the actors or positions and see what the mood/outcome/feelings/rulings/laws would be and there you have it.

If you don't already know in depth about the war that against Christians/Christ/Christianity that has been raging for some time, it would take a lot to go over the details and there are a lot of well researched books on the subject.

However I think perhaps a simple recent case may clearly illustrate the point:

Supreme Court rejects case of Christian teen forced to write Islamic conversion prayer

Supreme Court rejects case of Christian Maryland student forced to write Muslim conversion prayer.

www.foxnews.com

U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Resolve Public Schools’ Double Standard in Promoting Islam while Disparaging Christianity - Thomas More Law Center

ANN ARBOR, MI—The U.S. Supreme Court today declined to review the case of Caleigh Wood, a Christian eleventh-grade public high school student in Maryland who, despite threats of receiving a failing grade, refused to deny her faith by making a written profession of the Muslim conversion prayer...

www.thomasmore.org

The Islamicization of Public Education Continues Apace

On October 15, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition presented by the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) to hear Wood v. Arnold, a case brought by Caleigh Wood, a Christian student in the 11th grade at…

www.crisismagazine.com

To Summarize:
A Taxpayer funded government run school which children are forced to attend unless their parents can afford private education
(And I word that very specifically because that is how it's explained and championed when it's all about "social justice")
So this clearly is the Government, no ifs ands or buts about it. Government, and enforced by The King's Men with guns "just doing their duty".
So as much "Government" / "State" as there could ever be.

School invites MUSLIM religious leader to speak to the children and forces them to attend the class

Muslim proselytizer proceeds to proselytize their faith to a captive audience with or without their agreement or that of their parents. Clearly going far beyond an academic non-religious discussion of the cultural beliefs of a certain group.

Children of a Christian faith object to being forced to write the Muslim conversion creed which according to real hardline Muslim religious leaders means you have submitted to the faith (Either spoken or written while knowing what you write) and are now a Muslim.

Child is punished harshly for refusing to essentially say they will convert to another religion and is segregated for punishment by the school officials and FORCED to watch Muslim indoctrination videos.

It SHOULD be a slam dunk case of civil rights violation... yet the courts are like... no problem... and all the SJW/Liberals/Woke folks rejoice.

NOW imagine for a moment if you flipped the roles and a Muslim Child was subjected to the EXACT same things but by a Christian pastor at school and forced to listen to a religious conversion sermon, then forced to repeat or write a statement of Christian faith and then harshly punished and forced to watch Christian evangelical conversion films....

The public outrage would be deafening and the courts would be all over themselves to write huge virtue signalling judgments against the school district and lawyers would be flying in from the whole country fighting to get a piece of the multi-million dollar guaranteed payout...

That is just a single isolated event, and this kind of stuff goes on every day all over the country.
The government/courts/judges using the power of the state and the public coffers to force compliance with any belief they wish upon Christians while making as many excuses as possible for anybody else.

After quick spot check on these links and stories, I am obviously siding with you on this with the available information. This, in my eyes, violated this student's 1A rights, their right to association under the 1A, and blatantly goes against the Establishment clause.

2 quick questions for clarification:

1.) based on my prior responses, how would you grade my potential militantism?
2.) Taking this story above, if it were to be reversed, and a christian teacher made a muslim/jewish/hindu/etc student do somethign as egregious, how would you feel about it?

 

[armorpl8chikn]

What about my comment do not understand? I'll say it again but differently:

Some atheists are adamant that a deity does not exist. This is a claim requiring a burden of proof to be satisfied, andI have no evidence that a deity doesn't exist, so I wouldn't take that position. Also, proving a negative is obviously complicated for any situation.

Deists make a claim that a deity exists, so this comes with a burden of proof to support this claim. I have seen no evidence to suggest a deity exists, therefor the claim hasn't met its burden of proof, therefor I reject it. Rejecting a claim vs stating the negative is true should not be equated.

?

 

[chrome]

?

Not following, but thanks for playing.

 

[W54/XM-388]

2.) Taking this story above, if it were to be reversed, and a christian teacher made a muslim/jewish/hindu/etc student do somethign as egregious, how would you feel about it?

Well in this country, if what you ask what my feelings would be if your mentioned situation happened, what I would most likely actually do is sit back with the popcorn and watch the ensuring circus while commenting that the people involved were beyond dumb and are probably going to wind up broke and out of work in short order, at best. Since I would know for a fact there would be nothing extra I could possibly add to the explosion of rage & virtuous displays of righteous indignation that would be coming down on them from basically everybody in the government/court/media/public opinion. Not to mention the lawyers who will make their lives a real pain.

Now as to what I would do if it was up to me, the best way to answer that would be to say that I've done the proselytizing for my faith in the past, as has my family, for many years in many countries, and forcing folks to listen to you proselytize is pointless and usually a very bad idea.
Forcing your religious views on children without their parent's consent is usually also a very bad idea and depending on the country could get you killed. So if you want to convert/teach school kids about your religion, you setup a religious school and then get the parents to beg to let their kids come to your school for the better education and prestige (over the standard government schools), or run after school programs that parents / kids willingly go to. Or you can be handing out things they want and are willing to sit and listen to get.

 

[Rthur]

Apologies, not trying to be obstinate, but still not completely tracking. The evidence, or lack there of, reduces my confidence dramatically that intelligent design is true, so low that I dont currently consider it an option. There is a lot that would change my level of confidence, but until then, that is my current position.

I am not sure what you mean by science losing its objectivity? Science isn't a person or an authority, there are no scientific authorities, only scientific consensus.

I'll go back through my earlier posts in this thread, but I dont think that quote is from me (if that is what you are insuating?). I currently reject the existence of deity based on the available evidence. I've posted earlier in this thread that I would never claim a god DID NOT exist, as that is a claim to truth in which I could not support. I only reject the claim that it does, there is a difference.

Hope this helps?

The above was really an exercise in different perspectivies and beliefs.
I doubt I'll change your beliefs or perspectives as you'll not change mine.
Just because Spock tried to use "logic" for any and all doesn't mean it is always the best.

R

 

[chrome]

Well in this country, if what you ask what my feelings would be if your mentioned situation happened, what I would most likely actually do is sit back with the popcorn and watch the ensuring circus while commenting that the people involved were beyond dumb and are probably going to wind up broke and out of work in short order, at best. Since I would know for a fact there would be nothing extra I could possibly add to the explosion of rage & virtuous displays of righteous indignation that would be coming down on them from basically everybody in the government/court/media/public opinion. Not to mention the lawyers who will make their lives a real pain.

Now as to what I would do if it was up to me, the best way to answer that would be to say that I've done the proselytizing for my faith in the past, as has my family, for many years in many countries, and forcing folks to listen to you proselytize is pointless and usually a very bad idea.
Forcing your religious views on children without their parent's consent is usually also a very bad idea and depending on the country could get you killed. So if you want to convert/teach school kids about your religion, you setup a religious school and then get the parents to beg to let their kids come to your school for the better education and prestige (over the standard government schools), or run after school programs that parents / kids willingly go to. Or you can be handing out things they want and are willing to sit and listen to get.

I appreciate the response above. In conversations like these I find it is always good to try search for middle ground, and even better when we find it. And I think we found it on this particular situation. Thanks for the chat.

 

[chrome]

The above was really an exercise in different perspectivies and beliefs.
I doubt I'll change your beliefs or perspectives as you'll not change mine.
Just because Spock tried to use "logic" for any and all doesn't mean it is always the best.

R

Got it, and likewise, I am not here to change minds, just like having in-depth discussion. Interesting quote about logic, that dives into the presuppositions of arguments in general. Probably worthy of an entirely different thread.