After court ruling, activists push prayer into schools
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
They say church and state are already too separate
A Michigan superintendent is pondering whether coaches should lead students in pre-game prayer. A school board member in Florida wants her district to teach students about prayer and offer religious studies. In Hawaii, the leader of a faith- and family-focused activism group sees a path to altering state policy that says public-school employees cannot initiate prayer on campus.
A month has passed since the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Washington state football coach who knelt at midfield to pray and was joined by student-athletes. The court wrote, in a 6-3 decision, that Bremerton High School assistant coach Joseph Kennedy’s prayers were protected by the Constitution’s guarantees of free speech and religious exercise, and that the district was wrong to discipline him for what the majority saw as a private act.
In response, families, teachers and activists are preparing to push religious worship into public schools nationwide — working to blur the line dividing prayer and pedagogy and promising emotional, spiritual and educational benefits for students. Some school officials are listening: In at least three states,Illinois,AlabamaandOregon, school personnel have said they are reviewing their policies on employee prayer.
“Our nation has lost its way in having lost a belief of a higher power,” said Christi Fraga, a Miami-Dade school board member who in May successfully proposed establishing an annual day of prayer in her district. “So in my community, there has been a cry for help — a cry to allow prayer in our schools.” Fraga added of the court’s ruling: “I hope it brings back our country to its foundation.”
Those who say faith should play a role in public schools are thrilled with their gains and eager to push for more next school year. They cite not only the court’s decision for Kennedy but also a June ruling in which the courtdeclared that Maine cannot prevent religious schoolsfrom receiving public tuition grants permitted for other private schools.
In other places, though, educators say not much will change — largely because coach-led prayer at games and invocations before school board meetings were already happening.
The fiercest advocates for church-state separation also concede they were fighting an uphill battle even before the court’s ruling. Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-founder of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, said many districts routinely ignore the string of 1960s and 1970s Supreme Court decisions establishing that public schoolscannot require students to recite prayers,cannot allow teachers to lead students in prayerand generallycannot promote or inhibit religion at school.
Gaylor said her foundation, a nonprofit founded in the late 1970s, is constantly fighting back against coaches who lead prayers with students at school or school officials who schedule prayer into the school day. In an average year, school incidents make up 50 percent of the group’s caseload, she said.
“We were mopping up anyway; it was like whack-a-mole,” Gaylor said.
Some mothers and fathers also fear what the next school year may bring. Those who practice non-Christian religions warn that, in most of America, “prayer” will by default mean Christian prayer, leaving their children alienated and isolated — while those who do not practice any faith worry their children will be coerced into espousing values and beliefs their parents do not share.
Among them is Kristi Robertson, a 33-year-old atheistin Oklahoma whose daughter discovered God and Christianity when her third-grade public-school teacher led the class in daily prayer. Four years later, Aurora, alone in her family, still prays and goes to church.
“There is nothing I can do about that now; she has made her choices to be religious,” Robertson said. “And if she’s invited to pray at school, she’s going to. If I do hear about it, I would probably complain again — but for other students. It is too late for her.”
‘A little bit of a spirit helps you’
Bill DeFrance, superintendent of Eaton Rapids Public Schools in Michigan, has moonlighted for years as a high school soccer referee. When religious schools compete, he has listened as coaches intone team prayers before and after a game. Still, he has never seen a public-school coach lead a prayer.
But in light of the Supreme Court ruling, and pending guidance from state officials, DeFrance said he is open to the idea of coach-led prayer.
If the Michigan Department of Education or the Michigan High School Athletic Association “said they’d like to work … about how you can incorporate prayer into sports events for kids, I’d certainly take it to the [school] board to say, ‘We could help pilot this; we could try this,’ ” DeFrance said. (A spokesman for the state athletic association emailed The Washington Post, saying: “This is strictly an individual school district issue in Michigan. We have no part in this decision-making process.” A spokesman for the Education Department wrote in an email that his agency “has not sent any guidance to local school districts on this issue at this time. We have made a request of our state attorney general’s office for a review of the decision.”)
If done well, DeFrance added, coach-led prayer could yield advantages for his district’s 2,000 students, serving as a way to learn about other cultures.
“I could see some real interesting things like, ‘Okay, Bill, you’re Hindu, you lead the prayer this week,’ and give some background about why Hindus pray,” he said. Plus, “I do think sometimes having a little bit of a spirit helps you to play.”
In Hawaii, Eva Andrade, president and chief executive of faith-based activist group the Hawaii Family Forum, is also eyeing ways to introduce prayer into schools and school competitions. People of faith feel unsafe at school, Andrade said, threatened by a 1947 Hawaii Board of Education policy that prohibits “prayer and other religious observances … organized or sponsored by schools.” The Supreme Court ruling, she said, offers the first chance in decades to change that policy — and her group is determined to take advantage of the opportunity.
“I would like them to allow people to bring their faith into their position without any fear,” Andrade said.
State-level advocacy is afoot in other places, too: In Ohio, an hour after the Supreme Court’s ruling was published, Lt. Gov. Jon Husted urgedschool districts to review and updatetheir policies on school prayer. And a few months before the ruling, in Kentucky, a Republican lawmaker and a Lexington rabbiteamed up on a bill requiring public-school students to silently pray, meditate or reflect in class.
Florida passeda similar law in June 2021that requires a moment of silence each day. Although the law drew strong criticism fromadvocates ofchurch-state separation, it thrilled Fraga, who persuaded her colleagues to hold a National Day of Prayer every May for the district’sroughly 330,000 students.
Fraga’s original proposal suggested school employees facilitate prayer-related events and programs. In an interview, she said she envisioned teachers taking the day to instruct students about the history of prayer and how different faiths worship.
Board vice chair Steve Gallon III, fearing violation of the Constitution, offered an amendment watering down the proposal. The versionthat passed in mid-April, Gallon said in an interview, simply “provides an opportunity for students to freely assemble and express themselves in honor of the National Day of Prayer. … Staff also has the right to do that, during non-duty times.”
Fraga still does not understand why it’s okay for the district to recognize LGBTQ History Month, with school-hosted events and celebrations, but not do something similar about prayer. Although she isrunning for mayor of the city of Doraland plans to leave the school board in November, she intends to continue her education advocacy — bolstered by the Supreme Court ruling, she says it may be possible to introduce more religion classes into public schools.
“I would love to see there be the ability to implement more religious teachings,” Fraga said. “There’s lessons that are taught right now in school that maybe certain families do not believe in, [and] students have to sit there and listen to what history has brought us to.”
Why not, she asked, also offer lessons on the Christianity, the “religion that has formed our nation”? As well as “the different types of religion,” she added.
‘I thought it was required’
In other places, educators are struggling to understand the fuss about the Supreme Court ruling, because prayer has long been part of sports events and school board meetings.
Amy Kruppe took over as superintendent in Hazel Park Schools, Mich., seven years ago. When she arrived from Illinois, she was surprised to find that school board members opened meetings with prayer — sometimes inviting “a man of the cloth” to lead proceedings.
“I said, ‘Wait a minute, this is not constitutional,’ ” Kruppe said. “But their feeling was it was important to them as an organization” — so to this day, the board opens its meetings with Christian prayer, Kruppe said.
Over the years, Kruppe has come around to the idea. There have never been complaints, apart from hers. She said coaches in Hazel Park also lead prayers at games, “and no one says anything about it.” She noted that Hazel Park, a district of about 3,200 students, is about 50 percent White, 50 percent Black and, as far as she can tell, nearly 100 percent Christian.
“I really think it’s the environment, the community you’re in,” Kruppe said. The ruling “just gives some individuals that might have already been doing it anyway the freedom to say, ‘It’s okay.’ ”
Steven Fogg, who sits on the school board of Clovis Unified School District in California, said coaches in hisdistrict of 43,000encourage prayer in a wink-wink-nod-nod sort of way. For example, the coach of his son’s high school football team allowed players five minutes of pre-game “team time,” widely understood as time for student-led prayer.
Fogg said his school board used to open its meetings with prayer — until 2019,when they received a cease-and-desist letter from the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
“So we just moved our prayer to have it before the school board meeting, in a setting where there are no students,” Fogg said. He added that although the Supreme Court ruling will probably make religious employees less fearful to be themselves at school, it “changes nothing” policy-wise “because we already have a strong faith-based school board and administration and many of our coaches.”
Others, though, are appalled by what they see as an erosion of the boundary between church and state.
In Salt Lake City, 50-year-old Thayne Warner is remembering his son’s struggles in high school, when his football coach called on players to pray before every game and at team dinners. The family lived in Aurora, Colo., at the time, and Warner — a former Mormon, now an atheist — grew angry when he saw how the tradition was affecting his boy.
“He had been called on to pray and had to decline and felt terrible afterwards, because he didn’t really know how to pray in the way that everyone else was praying — Mormon praying is somewhat different,” Warner said. “He felt like everyone was looking at him and judging him for not participating.”
Things got so bad, he said, that his son considered quitting the team. Incensed, Warner filed a complaint in 2016 with the help of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. The prayer ceased, and the coach was later fired.
Warner’s three older children are past school-age, and his two youngest do not play sports. But the Supreme Court’s ruling has him worried for other students. He says it will be difficult — maybe impossible — for other parents to act like he did.
“I just think students like my son are just going to be further put in an uncomfortable position,” Warner said.
And in Oklahoma, Kristi Robertson is concerned that more families will undergo what hers did.
Robertson contacted the Freedom From Religion Foundation soon after her daughter told her about the third-grade teacher’s prayers, in which she was taught to thank Jesus for things like sunny days and good classroom behavior. The foundation submitted a complaint to the Mid-Del School District in May of 2019.
The family has since switched school districts, and Robertson is unsure what happened to the teacher, if anything. Rick Cobb, superintendent of the Mid-Del district, wrote in an email that he spoke “with school staff about the situation” but declined to share any more information, writing, “We do not discuss disciplinary issues involving students or employees.”
But she knows how the experience changed her daughter. On a video call, sitting beside her mother, Aurora said she enjoys praying and going to church with her best friend, a girl named Maria. She said that she believes in God and that she began believing in God when her third-grade teacher talked about God in class.
“The teacher, she said, ‘He is always watching you and offering forgiveness and stuff,’ ” Aurora said. At first, she thought praying “was a little weird, but I went along with it because I thought it was required.”
Tags
Who is online
94 visitors
The Christian Nationalists are coming, the Christian Nationalists are coming!
There's still time to repent of your wicked ways!
/s
There is nothing to repent, both Heaven and Hell have No Vacancy signs on their gates.
What if you don't want to pray or meditate? Reflecting? So daydreaming is allowed in schools now?
How do you think I learned French?
J'vous ai apporté des bonbons
Parce que les fleurs c'est périssable ...
Jacques Brel
bonbons = candy
fleurs = flowers
J'vous = you and me?
I thought French was required for all Canadiens
You're so sweet!
boon zhoor, niwiciwakan.
Asani rattles my drum!
Swahili I believe I think that dayewe'iged (Ojibwe) or taanboor (Michif/Cree) is more fitting for you.
Both mean drum beater or drummer.
What if you don't want to pray or meditate? Reflecting?
Maybe they could write "the US is a racist country" 100 times on the blackboard in the towns that have a CRT infested school board.
Is that Conservative Replacement Theory?
I have not heard about that being taught in schools but if it helps you sleep at night go for it.
Tucker has been schooling his viewers on it just about every night. It's better than drowsy-time tea.
I don't watch tucker so I don't know what he is talking about but I am pretty sure he is not in charge of any school boards.
Maybe we like Patton read Rommel's book.
I cant help think back to my basic training days , we were given a choice , go to services or not , after a couple weeks most went to services , because those that did not were assigned KP of the barracks . My TI explained it in a way many of the recruits could understand , even if the service was not of our chosen faith , most military services were suppose to be non denominational , it was also instilling a sense of respect for others beliefs even IF we were only getting out of busy work created for us . we all ended up doing that busy work anyway after services .
Even though we may have gone , didnt mean wer had to listen , but the lesson of respecting others did sink in .
I went to services during basic so I didn't get stuck cleaning toilets. It was a good way to get away from the TI for an hour and nobody screaming at you. But once I got to Tech School, Sundays were for sleeping
non- denominational what? Christian?
What about all of the other major world belief systems?
If the goal is to make US military recruits respect other belief systems, then why weren't they taught to respect ALL of them - including the ones that do not worship a mythical being?
Of course i can not speak for what happens now , my memories of basic are 40 years old at best now .
what i can say is when a basic training class back then was brought in for induction , everyone basically said what their faith was , and the trainers also asked .
what i can say is being christianity was the majority faith , but with different sects , the non denominational part focused on that back then , sort of a generic service .
those that observed other faiths were also allowed to worship and gather to observe their faiths the groups were just smaller .
and military chaplins usually are also versed in other faiths practices, and if they are not they were at my time there , ecouraged to do so . even if they didnt practice that faith .
keep in mind , military and civilian is 2 different worlds , so one has to try and figure out where faith s place is in the military , where the structure is about authoritarian good order in the ranks .
lol so you were not the "latrine queen ".....
me i was the chow runner , what was funny is i also had a profile to gain 40 pounds , if you remember , the chow runner presented the class to the attending chowhall TIs in the snake pit , and ate last after the class was seated or relieved by the next classes chow runner ..... I had to inhale my chow to get out with the others in my class ...
There have been major changes that better reflect the US society of today.
Do you think that the recruits of today will manage to learn to respect other faiths?
I’m not at all religious and have been since around 12, but I’m respectful of the religious beliefs of others. If NT is an indicator, the respect of other or any religious beliefs is on the wane.
That entirely is up to the individual , just as it is in civilian society, also known as personal choice . and the unenumerated right to freely choose whom to associate with . which is limited or non existant in the military structure .
I was deck* sweeper. Did you go to Lackland? If so, then you remember the "deck" underneath the dorms (the dorms created an overhang). That was my chore. I liked it because I got to talk to the men in my flight
*It was called the PAD!
Religious belief in the USA is on the wane.
And this poll does not measure how much a religious person really believes. I suspect quite a few religious people include a healthy does of agnostic factors.
As we learn more (typically via science) it is only natural that people will question what their religions have taught them and, in response, find their religious truths to not necessarily be so.
Is it difficult to understand why adults in today's world don't respect a belief system that teaches mankind is born wicked and must be saved by jumping through hoops to please a being there is zero evidence of existing?
But the people that were being forced to attend were not being respected, so that lesson went out the window.
We didn't get ice cream until the second day
When I went to basic training (Army) it was mandatory to purchase a bible. I wasn't Christian but if you didn't buy one they would be very hard on you.
Meantime I couldn't use the USO club in Augusta GA. because I was the ''wrong'' color.
Water fountains, restaurants et al were segregated in town, on base they were not but the segregation was alive and well.
Ah yes, those Christians were quite the jokers.
Augusta huh. I arrived there in 1976 for my officer basic course. As a young man from Ohio, GA was a new experience. In my current and last job, I have been back many time over the past two decades. Big changes for the better but with room to continue to grow.
You should have been there in 1958/59. I've been back a few times none of which was by choice. It's improved in the cities get out in the boondocks and it hasn't changed much at all. I was stuck at Benning for basic, AIT, and jump school, not a thrilling experience. Didn't mind the military or the training but the area including the entire state of GA was a shit hole as far as one being non-white.
But they were God-fearing Christians. Hallelujah
yup sure did 3709 , LOL and the small "smoking area and its buttcan where one had to "field strip" their butts ?
My TIs waited 4 whole days to say smokers fall to the rear , I had a pack Kool super longs that were all bummed off me because no one thought to bring a pack .
After 2 drags of those menthol bastages , everyone was on their kiesters and dizzy .
Actually they are given a choice which leads to another lesson, not all choices will be what you want or expect , and all choices have consequenses.
can any former military relate to this scene?
Back into the iggy bin ozzy , see? i just made a choice right there. one to take you out to answer and another to put you back in .
I went to jump school after Gordon and a 15 week class at Sill. I enjoyed jump school but kept getting dropped for laughing at the shit the black hats said:
- I’m going to tell you what I tell my wife every morning when I leave for work, keep your feet and knees together.
- Check can of peas
- Every morning I kick my dog in the ribs and ask, who do you love? He always replies Yoooooo!
Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em.
Now it’s take a knee, drink water.
Knees in the breeze, trooper.
Wasn't Jody part of their repertoire?
Jody was there when I left.
You're right!
Are you actually trying to justify this by comparing high school football to the military? Really?
TBH, that seems like a lousy policy. Kinda like giving smokers extra paid breaks at work over non-smokers. It's punishing people for doing something that's not at all wrong or against any rules.
When the consequence is a punishment from the government, that's a civil rights issue.
It's always been allowed.
Maybe where you went to school. But I was always being told to come back down to Earth and pay attention
We have laws to protect minors from the dangers of alcohol and tobacco use on their developing minds and bodies.
We should add laws to protect minors from indoctrination into religious cults.
Absolutely!
I speak as a survivor of this evil kind of child abuse
As least you survived, just a miniscule example of the people who didn't.
Warning: There are pictures of the dead at the link below.
Below is a good example of how easy it is to radicalize youth into jumping into waging/supporting war based on religious beliefs.
We have enough division in the US without promoting even more of it in our public schools.
"Under the bill, the moment of silence or reflection of at least one minute, but not to exceed two minutes, will be observed.
The policy must ensure that all students remain seated and silent without distracting anyone so that all may, "in the exercise of his or her individual choice," meditate, pray, or engage in any other silent activity which does not interfere with individual choice."
Horrifying. Up to two whole minutes of silence. The world is ending.
2 minutes of silence will not stop the world from ending with a bang and a whimper.
But what if standing and dancing the whatootsie is your way of reflecting?
But it is not individual choice, since they are being told what choices they can make.
Apparently since the people sponsoring this process feel the world would end if they aren't given those 2 minutes.
I taught public school. I was known as the teacher who could get even the worst kids to behave. Two minutes of silence every day isn't happening. Not a chance in hell.
98% of the faculty in any public school isn't going to be able to enforce it....nor should they. Good teachers engage kids, not suppress them because some moron who has never taught school thinks it's a good idea.
If a kid can't sit quietly for a minute a day, he shouldn't be in regular schooling. That's as damning a statement as one can make about a student. That's almost a total lack of self control.
As I I think about it, you've changed me from a "who cares about a minute" to believing it's actually would be a great benefit. IF a kid lacks the ability to control himself for a minute, nothing else is really possible. It's like teaching a baby to roll over before trying to teach the 100 meter hurdles.
ood teachers engage kids, not suppress them because some moron who has never taught school thinks it's a good idea.
So. so much time is wasted during a day, it seems ludicrous to believe a single minute or two will somehow negatively impact performance. And given sitting quietly isn't a skill they've mastered, it seems like teaching that should be the focus until kids have a minimum of self control.
Bow to Baphomet bitches!
and if one says no?
He'll tickle you with his horns
Good luck with that. Very few can say no to Life and Love.
Life and love are full of choices , problem some people have is they cant force others to make the choices that they want them to.
ever see a polled goat ?
if he tries to tickle , he will be lookin for his nubs ....
Which is what the dumb religious fuckers in the article are trying to do. If they want to try and force their flavor of religion on others, that leaves them open for others to do the same to them.
It has been my experience that one doesnt have to be religious to be a dumb mother fucker that attempts to force others to their will and do things the way that the DFs want .. i am going to disagree that a 1-2 min moment of silence is forced religious reflection or anything except what it is , a 1-2 min moment of silence where one can do as they please , whatever that is as long as it in silence . it took me longer to contemplate your reply , and then contemplate my response and then type this out and post than those 2 mins , oh and i did all that , silently..
True, but not the topic of the article.
There is more to the article than 1-2 minutes of silence. There are mentions of pushing other boundaries and outright denial of separation of church and state in schools and school sports. From "intelligent design" to 2 minutes of silence; these are nothing more than an opening for more religion to creep in elsewhere. There are too many places where it's pray to play.
At present by law there are no barriers for students to follow their religious beliefs. They don't need any help or nods from faculty and any hinderance of such is as wrong as teachers/faculty/coaches implying they should acquiesce.
One has to credit it the author for focusing on an example from years ago, that was unconstitutional then and remains unconstitutional now, and using it to represent the type of "prayer" that's supposedly trying to be imposed on schools in order to scare gullible readers. She knows her audience.
How will this make kids smarter?
It doesn't make they smarter, but it does make them more controllable as adult voters.
It won’t. It’ll just seems to trigger more haters. And by the way, most don’t participate in sports to get smarter. Classroom time was for that. Extracurricular activities were for enjoyment, camaraderie, character development, etc, etc.
In the never ending quest to dumb down the American populace as early and efficiently as possible, is anyone really surprised that time in school is now minute by minute being stolen from practical education and handed over to evangelism? To those who mock that it’s only two minutes, imagine yourselves being forced into silence to observe the dumbest thing you can think of while in school. Yes, to nonbelievers the concept of god can be extremely stupid. To those who have mocked those warning of a coming Dominionism, we told you so.
Yep, and the sky is falling
Some people consider snake handling their worship.
I sat let them bring rattlesnakes to school to show their faith.
Wait until someone in class brings up sex magic.
Christians do that every time they preach/teach about the supposed 'immaculate conception'...
Young virgin female, "Abracadabra!" and poof, she's pregnant... sex magic! A show like that would kill in Vegas...
It will also be a good excuse for all the young girls now living in red States where abortion is banned to tell their fundamentalist parents that got pregnant by "magic"...
Brilliant!
I hope they tell us in advance....
I say let them put those rattlesnakes in their boxers...
Yikes 125+ comments and nary a deletion! I must be doing something wrong.
Amazing! Whatever is happing, I will be silent for 2 minutes to keep this good behavior up.
I spoke too soon ...
I wonder if Ms. Robertson would feel the same way about her daughter choosing a new gender.
Pretty much only old people belong to or attend a church.
Could this be one of the major reasons the church hierarchy is pushing to get access to children in public schools since the majority of their parents don't attend church?
more info on the Gallup poll at their website .
What will be the penalty for non compliance with this?
What will happen to a kid who laughs out loud doing this time?
What if he is laughing because the kid in the next seat farted?
If you have ever had to deal with middle schoolers, you know this will cause problems and high schoolers will be worse.
I don’t recall it ever being a problem in any of the schools that I attended. But then again, society in general tends to be more triggered these days.
Always with the persecution complex.
Does this mean that they don't have faith that their supernatural being isn't powerful enough to protect them from harm?
Either they need more faith or a more powerful supernatural being or treatment for their paranoia that the world is out to get them.
The world is indifferent to the survival of any species, including our own.
Other people are rarely a threat unless they are paranoid or have other mental issues that make them prone to violence.
Ironic, eh?
The Christians, in the US, have more faith in guns than their God, the Vatican used to have its own army before taking over governments and using those armies to force people to swear allegiance to the Pope.
Christianity is not a peaceful religion - never has been.
Christianity is a doomsday religion that believes everyone will eventually die, but then their souls will come to life again. Their souls will be judged, and their souls will then either spend eternity worshipping the God that judged them or spend eternity being tormented by the God that found them not worthy of spending eternity worshipping it.
Depending on the sect, during Armageddon, there will be huge amounts of suffering by the wicked before they die as God tortures them to make them worship it. The Earth may or may not be destroyed. The Earth may be destroyed and "renewed" as the eternal paradise. Heaven may or may not be in this dimension. Heaven may be a celestial body where the most faithful will have their very own planet for eternity. People's souls may or may not be reunited with their body.
Just about everything in the Christian religion is ambiguous when it comes to how the world will end and how God will reward the faithful.
It is crystal clear that the Christian God despises just about everyone it ever created and only bothers to converse with a few men so they can tell everyone else how awful their Creator views its creations.
This is psychological warfare. No one should be subjected to being told that this type thinking has any place in their life.
No one who believes in the Christian Armageddon should be commanding armies or have control of nuclear weapons. They are on the same threat level to our lives as the Muslim zealots that we are supposed to eradicate in the Middle East.
I dont think anyone can know the nature of God. After all, by definition God encompasses everything we do know or could ever know, and more. If God is real, it is beyond human understanding.
Human religions are cultural expressions, and as such are neither inherently right or wrong. They just are.
The "failings" of religion are less connected to doctrine than they are to the individual people who promote them.
That is your belief and you are entitled to that belief. Some of us want a clear, concise definition of God so we can understand if that God is even possible. It is fairly easy for most of us to dismiss the probability of unicorns, leprechauns, and other myths.
There is no way to test that theory. None.
Then any religion that claims to speak for a God would be illogical.
By definition God is a supernatural entity, which means God wholly or partly exists beyond nature. Nature is human beings physical experience of existence.
No one will ever know God's true properties, if there is a God.
Why should anyone care if there is a God or not?
“Why should anyone care if there is a God or not?”
Tis a salve for those that desire definition, require guidance, seek assurance and ultimately salvation. All well and good as anything it takes to navigate their lives, but never assume those beliefs are to be put upon anyone else.
For others, simply accepting that our time here is finite is enough. Knowing it is finite is actually liberating…for it allows one to appreciate every single moment, encounter and experience. It also allows one to share those moments, encounters, and experiences with every other soul in a sense of brotherhood and sisterhood. Peace.
This is why if people really studied world religions, they could probably find one that is far more mentally soothing to their existence than Christianity.
I like aspects of Buddhism - especially where the goal is work on self (instead of others) to achieve the ultimate peace and escape rebirth.
If there is a god ('whatever that word means') then we might know its properties. Not sure I would preclude that. We likely would not be able to fully understand this god, but we certainly could know more than what we know now (which, basically, is nothing if said god is a deity).
Now, if god were defined as: 'that which enabled the universe to form' then I think we could define god as essentially energy and as we proceed with science, we will naturally learn more about god's true properties.
I would like to know. Essentially, to me, the question of 'what is god' is entirely in line with scientific research. Science is on the bleeding edge of knowledge regarding reality and the more we learn through science the better chance we have of answering that question (at least in part). I am, of course, considering 'god' as the agent of creation (of the universe) but not presuming god to be sentient (not precluding it either).
To meditate (through any form that brings one relaxation; art, music, literature, exercise, etc.) is essential if one is to survive in this world. Only when one is grounded and comfortable in their being is one properly equipped to engage with others in a mutually beneficial way. The ultimate goal really.
And that is not saying when you encounter hate, ignorance, or dishonesty that you look the other way…just the opposite, for those traits serve no purpose and only act as a disease, personally and societally.
Name it, claim it, and embrace it…good and bad and without judgement (the truly difficult part) should be the mantra. Not sure what ‘religion’ that copies or adheres to, but as another agnostic, it works for me. Always enjoy your comments, friend.
Probably, humanism might apply.
Thank you, sincerely.
That depends on whether or not you believe God is "supernatural". If it is supernatural , meaning outside this nature, then we cannot know the ultimate properties of God. It would be impossible for us to understand anything which is outside of our experience, or nature.
Supernatural is a very important word to get correct in this context. I usually go with Oxford so here goes:
If we use that definition then what is supernatural today might not be supernatural tomorrow (science keeps expanding our understanding). So we really do have a way to understand that which is supernatural.
If we instead use your definition: supernatural ≡ outside this nature, w e need to know what you mean by 'nature'. If you mean 'laws of nature' then I assume you mean the laws that are in effect regardless of whether we have discovered them (yet). So with that assumption, I agree with you. If god is that which is beyond nature and we are confined by nature (can never escape its scope) then we would never know god unless god did something special to enable it.
Now, that established, nobody can say it is impossible for a supernatural god (by your definition of supernatural) to exist. But if said god is indeed supernatural then by definition nobody really knows anything about this god. So maybe it is best to go about our lives and do our best to keep learning and thinking and not concern ourselves (as in abide by) with human-conceived notions of that which we could not possibly understand.
this is what wikipedia says
Supernatural is another term made up to explain things that were not understood by people in medieval times via Christian theology.
God has to exist , at least partially, outside of nature. Otherwise it would have to have created itself.
I dont really care whether or not people believe in God, but the concept is far beyond the Bible or other earthly scriptures. Human religions are cultural expressions, and all religions have to worship the same God, for there could only be one God.
An assertion that there are multiple gods misuses the term.
Why?
“and all religions have to worship the same God, for there could only be one God.”
I understand the concept, but perhaps a lowercase ‘god’ or another term altogether would have saved countless lives, unimaginable horrors, and never ending confrontations in defending one’s uppercase ‘God.’
That is pretty much how I presumed you were defining the word. So I have already commented given that definition.
Why must a god exist? If you define god as 'the agent of creation' then I would agree with you. An agent of creation need not be sentient, it need only be that which was necessary for our universe to exist. It is entirely devoid of properties other than the agency of our existence.
Not so sure that there can be only one god. For example, is it possible that there are multiple universes? Let's say it is. Then would it not be possible for each universe to come into existence due to the agency of different gods? It boils down as always to the definition of god. Now if you were to say that all these gods are not really gods and the only real god is that which enabled the existence of this group of gods then I would see that as singular. In essence, you would then be defining god as the supreme singular agent for all that exists.
( But of course, god also necessarily exists so we have that little issue. )
You have a grudge against Christianity which is simply pointless to engage with.
I see no point in supporting an ancient belief system that is centered around making people slaves to men in a church hierarchy in the only existence we know of and give them promise that they will be paid handsomely after death by a being there is zero proof of existing.
I view the system as one elaborate con, a pyramid scheme that rewards the men at the top to the detriment of everyone else.
I don't have a grudge against Christianity. I would feel the same way if the Ayatollah of Iran was doing the same thing.
In an article, I read today, even close to half adults are avoiding people with opposing political viewpoints in their workplace.
Is alive and well in the anti religion crowd. The whole reason for kerfuffles like this.
Sure, sure. Those in the minority are always the persecutors.
You might as well just say "I know you are, but what am I?"
If the shoe fits, put that sucker on
And persecution? Lol!
in my elementary school, the preacher's kid would periodically feel the need to proselytize on the playground. it was always real funny when the catholic kids would remove his slacks and toss them into the tree branches where the janitor couldn't easily retrieve them. everyone in the classrooms on the playground side watched the extrication process thru the windows after recess while he sat in the principal's office in his tighty whiteys. he was obviously a slow learner, as this schoolyard melodrama played out a least a half dozen times during 5th-6th grade. it only took him one time to learn to leave his religion at home in jr. high after he got his ass kicked at the fairgrounds by somebody that didn't like it being implied that their religious beliefs were inferior and incorrect. a couple years later, his preacher dad got caught up in a church based wife swapping scandal that rocked the small farming community and the family pulled up stakes and disappeared.
You know, it's absolutely disgusting how you and all the rest in this place ridicule and denigrate people of faith in here, all the while not giving a second's thought to the proselytizing going on in our schools by the LGBTQ and woke crowd. It's hundreds of times worse than anything people of faith are doing. You people are completely blind to the absolute fact that everything you accuse people of faith of, you yourselves do, only more so. But, of course, it isn't confined to schools, is it? You people proselytize everywhere. You all do whatever you can to impose your beliefs on everyone else. People of faith are a spilled glass of water compared to the catastrophic flood of your hypocrisy.
You guys love to talk about the Crusades, witch trials, inquisitions and blame most wars on religion and never ever, not once, consider that what you people do is exactly what you religiously fight against. "But," you say, "our cause is just and righteous! That gives us the right to behave in the way we accuse our enemies are doing! That's the [difference!"deleted]
You guys need to wake the hell up. Take a good, honest look at yourselves. Everyone wants to believe they're good people but the method they use to determine whether or not they are is to compare themselves to someone else. That's an incredibly stupid standard.
It would require self awareness.
[deleted]
Who, what and where are you talking about ????
What proselytizing, Drakk?
Are the schools trying to recruit kids to be LGBT?
Of course they're not.
"Don't bully your classmates for being gay" is not proselytizing. It's telling children not to be bigots. I'm not sure why that's such a problem for some people.
Hey! If you don't like the liberal proselytizing...IGNORE IT!
That's what I get told
Was your rant based on the dumb preacher's kid who couldn't learn to keep his stupid mouth shut? Or that it was the Catholic kids who tortured him? Personally, I think it's funny
[Deleted]
Why would they want to do that?
Introspection and awareness are complete buzzkills when they're on a moral superiority rampage.
What if some students wanted to face east or kneel on rugs during this time?
…or even, some god forbid, one dare to giggle during the exercise?
What if they do? No big deal except for you it seems.
And the rational for locking over 125 comments on my seed is what? Humbuggery?
Somebody was mean?
Or thin skinned.
I am not a moderator, but that was a pretty pointless section of the seed. Lot of "no values".
I haven't been here all that much for months, but I don't understand at all why those comments were locked.
What rules on this site were violated and are all seeds moderated so harshly these days?
I am very puzzled.
I'm here pretty often and I'm puzzled too. And not to get to Meta here but don't ever think you ("you" in general) have friends here 'cause you don't. People you'd least expect will turn on you in a hot minute.
If so, I am guessing there will be a meta fest????
It is a very contentious subject, but I've seen far worse in other discussions where a few comments were censored, but not comments without violations.
Texan, surely you jest.
This is beginning to feel like I've stepped into the Twilight Zone.
Thank you for the warning. I know exactly what you're speaking of. I'm still reeling from all of the verbal abuse I received from my online "friends" when I declared I wouldn't support Clinton if I were held at gunpoint. This is why I usually only spar with people who oppose my position on anything. If they have shown the capacity for compassion/empathy then it can be an interesting debate. If they do not show the capacity for compassion/empathy, then I don't feel any pleasure with interacting with them and usually avoid it unless it is to advice a discussion on the talking points that I want to discuss.
Thats hilarious, since your endlessly inane and pointless comments were very likely a main reason the thread was locked.
You got that right!
Been there and more than once over at the old NV.
“Please stop talking out of your ass about more shit you don't have a fucking clue about.”
Folks…this coming from an apologist. All you need to ‘no’.
“You may fuck off now…”
Chicken shittery. Eek. Bleak. Weak.
“I must…”
And thus the conundrum, tex…you invariably must.
“…you HAD to throw your two cents worth of shit in.”
Well, given our dire inflation woes, it is now worth at least two bits.
It really is especially when you can't read some people's conments
I suppose they can make us pray but they can't control what we are praying for.
No one is “making” anyone pray that I can see or have ever seen.
I was wondering what it would be like if the two-minute timeout was announced with "And Now, A Word from our Sponsor". So I went to youtube to find a clip.
I may (or may not) have found the perfect intro to put students in the perfect frame of mind to pray, meditate, or consider the aspects of what is right and wrong. The clip only had 172 likes so it doesn't seem to have gained a large following, but maybe promoting it like a religion it may gain a more widespread following and become an accepted mantra for US society.
If it becomes popular, it should boost the profits of the people who own stock in Jif since we will all know the penalty if we are not choosy enough.
This might be a better inspiration for reflection on things that matter in the US since it combines consumerism with US patriotism.
Has a bit of a Squid Game feel to it.
I have seen references to Squid Game, but that is all I know about it.
I would have probably never found either of these two videos if I had not been old enough to remember when commercials were not announced with "And now a word from our sponsor".
I thought the first one was just an innocent ad for Jif peanut butter. Initially, I was shocked and wondered if I had found a potential mass shooter. Then I was amused by remembering that the most effective advertising that politicians and religions use is ads with shock value.
I realized that I accidentally stumbled onto one of the ways that indoctrination into the Christian religion is done.
Generally, first a person is told that they are special and loved. Then, secondly, they are told they are evil and most atone to Yahweh for being evil because they had murdered his son, Yeshua.
There are variations on how people are indoctrinated, but usually, it begins with the carrot, that progresses to the stick very quickly and stays there until the person dies. Yahweh constantly needs money according to his spokesmen and the sinners are obligated to supply it.... or else.
And in that time a person is leaned on for an awful lot of money.
My mother-in-law was on a fixed income but her tithings remained a financial burden for her until the day she died.
I don't understand why they don't question a god's need for money to do its "will".
Why does a god that created everything need money to do anything?
That is so disgusting.
I remember watching the 700 Club in the 80s. The message was that no matter how poor a person was, they should send at least $15 a month to the 700 Club and Yahweh would reward them.
This is why I view religion as a pyramid scheme when I look at the men at the top living in wealth and splendor off of the people they have conned.
I was just watching some inane stuff on youtube and stumbled onto an interview with Frank Abagnale. It was a reminder of how gullible people were and still are. We want to believe in the best of people. That is why we are so easily conned.
I think its safe to say that God doesnt need money. You are confusing God with entirely fallible human beings. Why doesnt God stop the humans? I suppose it is a free will thing.
I think most people, outside of the gullible, know that it is the con men who need the money.
An an ignostic, the only confusion I have is when people can't accurately explain their belief system well enough that it can be verified and understood enough to be deemed remotely credible.
When it comes to the Christian religion, we know there never was an Adam and Eve. And that is just the beginning of all of the inaccuracies in the Bible. To make the creation story credible in today's world, the Bible will have to go through a serious re-write.
What a great video link. I might share that with people I know.
I have a complicated view of religion. There are churches near me, both Catholic and Protestant, that are dedicated outposts of social service and social justice.
I'm an atheist but I could torture a theology out of my upbringing that would rationalize Jesus as the word of God (whoever she is) revealed to us in its most perfect form.
If I felt a greater need for community I might do that.
Man created gods, not vice versa. Looking at the characteristics attributed to a god says a lot about the personalities of the men who created and worshipped it.
If I was a joiner, I would prefer to join a gardening club, a book club or maybe a coven.
The Abrahamic religions have a history of bloodshed and division.
I often wonder how many people have ever actually read the words of the man they claim was born to bring peace to the world.
How does a person twist these words to claim that Yeshua's purpose was to bring peace?
This may be one of the reasons that Yeshua's followers feel justified in pushing their belief systems on others. Men, at this time in the US, have the right to keep these fanatics out of their lives. Women are losing ground. And now schoolchildren are next to have their rights to a religion free education stripped away from them.
The only way that Christianity is not divisive is when one sect has enough power in a country to ban knowledge and observance of all of the other sects and all other religions.
Christians are always claiming everyone has free will, but they do their damnest to make sure that no one gets to use it.
I just love it when non believers cherry-pick the words of the books they say don’t believe in, of the religions they don’t believe in, to rationalize the reasons of their own non belief.
Funny!
Do you also find it funny that the majority of atheists in the US know the Bible better than most people claiming to be Christians?
The main reason that I know what is in the Bible is because I was a Christian for over 50 years of my life.
The main reason that I became an atheist is because I could not logically reconcile all of the inaccuracies in the Bible with reality.
When I look at Yahweh objectively, he is a vain, self-obsessed, violent god that initially required the blood sacrifice of his subjects to please him.
I am not the one who is cherry-picking the Bible. I wonder how many people would be a member of the Christian religion if they knew its god used to demand child sacrifice?
How is that knowable?
Surveys give a pretty good indication.
It mirrors my personal experience being raised and still living in the Bible Belt.
Also other things to take into consideration. What is the adult literacy rate in the US and the most religious countries compared to countries that are less religious or non-religious?
How many versions/translations of the Bible are in existence? How many people have read any of them? How many people can read any of them?
For too many people, their religion is based on a game of telephone. The people, who are able and really care about finding the one and only, truer than true religion, are more likely to research to make sure they are not making the wrong choice of god or religion since they have been taught their life depends on it.
Why do you question a non-believer's non-belief in the Bible? You doubt that there are people who are not persuaded to believe the Bible is the inspired word of the grandest possible entity, the arbiter of truth and objective morality, the creator of everything who is perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent ... yet condones the owning of people as property and myriad atrocities? You think it odd that one is dissuaded from believing the Bible is truth when it defines an omniscient entity which can be surprised or disappointed or change its mind?
Nobody needs to rationalize not being persuaded to believe something. Do you need to rationalize your lack of belief in Zeus or Santa Claus or little green Martians? It is very much the opposite; one would need to rationalize belief in extraordinary claims that are not supported by any evidence.
Thanks for the link to the Pew study.
First of all I doubt that is true. Feel free to back that statement up though with an unbiased source.
I don’t doubt that many Atheists are good at cherry-picking the Bible for passages that support their faithless position. They are also good at leaving out the positive passages.
The Bible isn’t a technical manual. Some of it has to be taken on faith. One can’t expect folks that have lost their faith for one reason or another or those who never had faith to be capable of such a thing. And that’s okay in my book. I’ve never been much of evangelizer, more a live and let live guy.
In my experience, especially here, I see atheist’s bagging on people of faith A LOT more than the other way around. Lots of angry Atheists out there. Lots of them.
See @20.2.13
Who claims that the Bible does not have good parts like the Sermon on the Mount? The criticism of the Bible is regarding its claim of divinity, not that the collection of books have no value.
Of course, if one does not have supporting evidence to believe something, one necessarily must believe on faith. The only way one can believe, for example, that there truly are exolife entities inhabiting our planet and slowly taking over human minds is by faith since there is no supporting evidence for the belief. The criticism is indeed regarding believing the Bible divine based on faith (and in spite of the substantial evidence to the contrary ... in the form of biblical contradictions such as an omniscient entity that can be surprise or the arbiter of objective morality condoning the owning of a human being as property).
I suspect you think that logical criticism must be driven by anger. When you criticism Biden, is it because you are angry with him? When you criticize a flawed bridge design, is that a result of anger?
I don’t and never said I did. Once again my comment stands on it’s own and doesn’t need to be put through your rationalization generator.....
I’m not going to have another debate with you about definitions of the word faith.
It’s a waste of time. I won’t agree with you and you won’t accept a valid definition faith.
Is this you?:
You explicitly used the language: "they say don't believe in" vs "they don't believe in". Surely you understand the former to be questioning the non-belief vs the latter acknowledging the non-belief. I will assume you simply misspoke.
Yeah, I know the, in your words, 'schtick' you use:
All you had to do was state that you did not mean to imply that atheists do believe in the Bible. I would have taken you at your word.
Lol .... there you go again. Trying to equate a technical decisions with an emotional one. I’ll say this one more time because I’ve already said it to you numerous times.
Engineering and design is not an emotional field. We don’t deal in faith. We deal in technical facts as they are known to be at the time. No “faith” involved at all.
One’s belief system is not usually technical but more emotional. That is for everyone but Spock.
So no, anger doesn’t come into play in design. It only comes into play when the design is done and if it fails.
Your logic and reading comprehension fails you again. I didn’t imply that. That’s simply just the way you took it.
And that my friend is your problem not mine.
Which is why I used it as an example ... clearly one is not angry with critiquing a poor bridge design. Similarly, you should not simply presume that someone criticizing the Bible is angry.
Your entire post was based on you 'reading' the exact opposite of what I wrote.
Never ending snark?
I just explained:
In English "they say [they] don't believe in" connotes differently than "they don't believe in". This is not me, Sparty, it is our language. And, as I noted, I understand that we all make mistakes in our language so all you had to do was note that your intent was not to imply atheists only 'say' they do not believe in the Bible (implying that they might actually believe the Bible divine) and I would have taken you at your word.
Nope, again you are ignorantly trying to compare apples and atom bombs.
My comments stand on their own and don’t need a wash through the irrational response generator.
Such a powerful argument ...
The equivalent of : ' I just say so '.
Lol .... your attempts to manipulate this conversation are almost childlike in nature. Well ..... not almost .....
Nah, but it is the equivalent of you are wrong and can’t admit it.
The reasons for that are up for debate. Have been since your first response to topics like this here.
"I just say so" and "I have faith" are the only arguments for belief in the existence of Yahweh that are left. There are no valid reasons that Yahweh is more credible than Zeus, Apollo, Odin or the tens of thousands of other gods that people have created and dismissed.
Another thing many people do not understand is that most atheists are technically agnostic atheists vs. gnostic atheists. Agnostic atheists do not assert that no god could possibly exist (where 'god' implies 'creator') but rather that we simply are not persuaded that one does exist. Indeed, if one is arguing that the Christian God exists as defined in the Bible, that is a great argument that such a god does not exist because it is defined as a contradiction. But the non-existence of the god as defined by the Bible does not mean that no god exists.
Also, how one defines 'god' is essential. If one defines god as 'that which enabled the existence of our universe' then that god necessarily exists. It need not be sentient or even have a form that we can comprehend.
So we are all theists or all atheists depending upon how 'god' is defined.
There is not enough "good" to justify all of the rape, murder and pillaging in the Bible directed by Yahweh.
There is not enough "good" to justify all of the atrocities committed by Christians in past as they murdered the opposition.
There is not enough "good" to justify all of the attempts to indoctrinate people into the Christian belief system in today's world, so can they continue subjecting people to rules that are barbaric, uncivilized, and inhumane.
Agreed. The Bible reflects the mores and values of ancient men. Those were very brutal and misogynistic times.
I agree.
I have seen some feeble attempts to link existence and Yahweh to being one and the same.
I expect to see more moving of the goalposts in an attempt to make belief in Yahweh to be more acceptable. Just as the PR campaign to proclaim that Yeshua is the "Prince of Peace". Anyone that reads the Bible objectively can see that there is nothing peaceful about Yahweh or Yeshua.
Anyone, who reads the history of Christian expansion, knows there is nothing peaceful about the way the religion has expanded. Force has always been used and force via government is still being used in an attempt to force people to obey the rules of the Christian religion and forsake all other gods/religions/belief systems.
I will admit to not having read the Old Testament for decades, so I might be wrong, but I don't remember Yahweh directing rape. I do remember reading about battles and driving the Canaanites out. I read it then as more of early historical accounts filled with literary hyperbole.
More info...
I don't find that surprising, especially if not controlled for education level. Also, minorities often know more about the majority than the reverse.
Women were bought and sold to men in the Bible. Women had no choice in the matter. Calling it marriage does not change the fact it is rape.
Is that historical or commandments?
It goes to the definition of 'god' in the Bible. If one holds the Christian God as the arbiter of objective morality then how does one interpret the condoning of rape / slavery / murder by the Christian God (per the Bible)?
According to the Bible, it was Yahweh's commandments speaking through his prophets. Think of it like in today's world, when Catholics believe that the Pope speaks for Yahweh. Other Christian sects, also believe that their church leaders have a direct line to Yahweh, and some lessor individuals even believe that Yahweh speaks to them directly on a daily basis and gives them messages for others in their family, community, state, nation, and the world.
How could anyone ever tell the difference if someone made up a commandment or if it was given directly by Yahweh?
One could hold that god created morality and created us as moral beings but doesn't impose morality in our actions, we have the freedom to live morally or not.
In today's world, what reason would anyone have to believe any of that?
The Christian God condoned slavery, as an example. Nowhere is there a ‘thou shalt not own human beings as property’ but there are a number of directives from ‘God’ that suggest things like it is okay to beat your slave as long as the slave survives the beating because, after all, the slave is thine property.
Perhaps many believe that God inspired the his profits to deliver the message and left it up to them to express that in their own words and in a way relevant at the time.
Inspired words that misrepresent ‘God’ are no better than words invented by ancient men. In short, the Bible should not be taken as divine and thus should not be followed as if it truly was the word of the creator.
Shhhhh! They don't want you to know that their divine inspiration came to them off of the back of the restroom door...
You two have me at a disadvantage as I'm not a believer, haven't read the Bible in decades and never studied it beyond church membership confirmation classes as a kid. It was then that I decided i didn't need the organized ritual in my life. I have also never felt the need to try to prove to other's why their faith is illogical or wrong and haven't studied inconsistencies in the religious canon.
Clearly the Christian faith had a profound impact on Western history and culture. It is know growing in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia-Pacific region as it declines in Europe and North America.
I assume that you don't.
One of the 2.4 billion believers are in a better position to answer that than me.
You assume correctly DotW.
The only reason why the Christian religion is relevant in today's political landscape is because it is operating in the legislative branch of the US government - unlike all of the other world religions that are not getting scrutinized and rejected as implausible and barbaric. The majority of US citizens don't want to be subjected to rules made according to any sect of Christianity. There are over 30,000 sects of Christianity that have disagreements of what is and is not allowed.
Most, of us, do not want to fight a Holy War in the US.
Maybe, someday, the religious zealots will be content to self-flagellate and leave the rest of us in peace.
If you don't, why do those who think like you keep trying to start one?
What have "those" like me done to start a Holy War?
I don't believe that and I'm not focused on concerns about a football coach leading a voluntary prayer. My community is far to diverse to have Christian prayer in the public school that my wife teaches at.
The Christian religion is relevant because Monotheism and Christian foundational beliefs are inextricable linked with our cultural heritage.
The Washington state high school coach. All the bitching about 80 year monuments because they depict religious symbology. Threatening lawsuits it government employees wear crosses on their necklaces or earrings. Screaming that voluntary Bible study or other religious groups being on school property.
Your comment has it completely backwards, as usual. It's those who think like you who are trying to start a Holy War with constant efforts to impose your religious beliefs on everyone else regarding abortion, banning books, efforts to require school prayers from your own sectarian cult, efforts to end the separation of church and state, loud proclamations of support for Christian nationalism, to list just a few examples.
More obviously, recently the Executive branch
Bush pushed for tax payer $$ to go toward religious organizations, recently upheld by
the Judicial branch which heavily weighed with 6 Catholics also reversed Roe v Wade
recently, marking the first reversal of women's rights in this country based on religious
reasons masked as Constitutional "logic".
You must not be referring to this years Carson v. Makin decision as it had nothing to do with Bush. Which case do you mean?
Please cite where any religious reasons were used to overturn Roe v Wade.
Bush Faith Based Initiative enacted by executive order. Google it if you want more info.
Supreme Court Upholds Equal Treatment for Faith-Based Organizations to Access Public Funding – Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance (irfalliance.org)
There are 30,000 sects of Christianity that do not agree. Not one Christian sect is responsible for our cultural heritage.
The US is a "melting pot" of people with various cultural heritages. I think it might be relevant to mention that the Native Americans were not Christian, but we completely ignore their cultural heritage when we talk about this non-inclusive "our". The Christians tried to not only eradicate the religions of the Native Americans, they tried to eradicate the Native Americans. This is just one historical example of what Christian "love and tolerance" is all about.
Those, of us, who care about people, don't ever want any sect of Christians to have the power to subject them via government legislation to the rules of Christianity ever again. Never.
Thanks, 2017, 7-2 decision.
There are 5 vital organs in a human being, 78 total.
I can tell without seeing you that most of yours are intact.
It's called a logical conclusion.
Just like the last three appointments never actually said "no" to overturning Roe
instead rambling on & on about precedent being sacrosanct.
I knew years ago that the religious right would overturn Roe
citing errors and legal jargon without admitting their inability to be truly
objective.
Since Gorsuch wont commit to being either Episcopalian or Catholic
We have 6 & 1/2 Catholics, 1 & 1/2 Protestant Christians and 1 Jewish jurist.
Hardly representative of the population, especially ACB.
Christianity and European history and culture are intertwined. Our history and culture is intertwined with European history, culture and Christianity. Obviously there are other influences because of our diversity.
More info on how the Roman Catholic Church has been funded by the US government for decades longer than most of us have known. There is no other Christian sect that has been supported by the US government nearly as well as the RCC. Is this how we now have 6 Catholics on the US Supreme Court, a Catholic POTUS, and Catholic speaker of the house?
From 2019.
I wonder how many atheists' Biden has on his short list.
You really cannot remove Jewish history and culture from European history.
Definitely. The Roman Catholic Church was wholeheartedly committed to ruling the rulers of European countries and dedicated to using their armies to kill the leaders and members of the other Christian sects for centuries.
I am not interested in a repeat of history of the RCC or any other religious sect playing King of the Hill in the US.
We need not have a certified atheist unless we are trying to create a balance against
the likes of the "charismatic Catholic" with fringe right beliefs Barret.
There a certifying organization, who knew?
Ask Ron Regan Jr., lol.
Did you think that I was trying to? Besides, it is also a monotheistic religion.
Tell that to history, the Crusades, the Russian pogroms, the Holocaust.
No matter the countless good works of the Jews, Christians turned on them time after
time.
They are intertwined but very separate.
[Deleted]
Just like claiming all people who support abortion want to exterminate blacks. They might not say it, but its a "logical conclusion" since blacks abort a higher percentage of babies.
[Deleted]
Well that was one of the goals of the founder of Planned Parenthood and other progressives of the time that believed and touted eugenics
one of the goals of the founder of Planned Parenthood and other progressives of the time that believed and touted eugenics
For sure. Some abortion supporters certainly support abortion as means to fewer minorities. But attributing that goal to all who support abortion and claiming that's their motivation without any proof would be dishonest.
It's just conspiracy mongering. Take an argument you can't support objectively, and attribute it to secret religious or racial motivations. Like any good conspiracy, its not falsifiable because objective proof is irrelevant. It's all about secret motivations of the "out group." [Deleted]
Freudian slip?
LoL, maybe, but I don't think that Freud was a cross dresser.
I thought it might be helpful to include the history of when the persecution of the Jews began and who was behind it.
BTW, it wasn't just the Jews that were persecuted, it was everyone who was not the appropriate sect of Christian.
Just a small sampling of the history of Christian "love and tolerance".
ought it might be helpful to include the history of when the persecution of the Jews began and who was behind it.
I hate to break up your Catholic bashing with reality, but the idea that Christians, let alone Catholics, were the first to persecute Jews is silly. Citing just one example, do you believe the Pharaohs were Catholics?
Here's the reality. Every group has "persecuted" or been persecuted at one time or another. .
They weren't the first, but they tried really hard to show that it was better late than never....
I should have been more concise - the first Christian group to persecute the Jews.
Of the Christian sects, what were the first sects and what years were they formed and when did they begin to persecute Jews?
My research shows that Catholics were the only recognized Christian sect beginning sometime before 400AD and ending around 1500 AD.
Evil is alive and well in all men. Religious or not. Look no further than “these days” for proof of that.
Good is out there all over place if you’re looking for it. Atheists, in my experience are too angry to find the good. Especially some of them here. They really hate being questioned. It’s almost pathological and the arrogance in those folks is palpable.
Me ..... I could care less if they believe in nothing.
Knock yourselves out. No skin off my nose but it changes nothing with me and mine. Nothing.
You have built up quite a stereotype for the average atheist. Apparently you have conceived of a cartoon atheist that is angry, sees no good in life, hates being questioned (???), arrogant and at a level that is medically a pathology. So even when considering noteworthy atheists such as Richard Dawkins, it is difficult to see anger, negative view of life, hates being questioned (LOL). Arrogance is very subjective but Dawkins certainly is accomplished and has earned the right to correct others who challenge him. Pathology? Hyperbole!
You think atheists believe in nothing? Nothing?? Atheists simply are not convinced a god exists. So if someone is not convinced a god exists, that person is an atheist. That person might believe in spirits, a life-force, etc. and still be an atheist. And, of course, that person will likely have all sorts of human beliefs.
Not a stereotype.
Empirical evidence abounds.
Deliver it. A mere claim is meaningless; especially when it is as 'out there' as yours was.
I think we should talk about angry Christians. Isn't anger a sin?
I could say the same of Evangelical Christians. It's not indicative of them all, nor is your evaluation of atheists. The religious people being reported in this article are those trying to assert control. It's not right and, until recently, not legal. Furthermore, these types of pathologically arrogant people turn on everyone (including each other) as they push for more and more control and power.
Who was it again that got a coach fired from his job because he choose to pray after the game alone to give thanks for the game and for those that may have been injured to heal quickly and no he neither requested or coerced anyone to join him.
Who was it that had a little bit who gave his classmates a gift of a candy cane because he included a copy of his favorite Bible verse.
Who was it that told a little girl she was not allowed to say a prayer before eating her lunch.
Who sued because a war memorial shaped like a cross that was originally put up on private grounds was on public property by donation.
[deleted,] what have the attempted to make you do.
Pretty much anything is a sin for some denominations.
Lol .... [Deleted Nothing new.]
I agree, extremism is bad, no matter what direction it comes from. Neither side is defensible to sensible human beings.
It takes no skill or knowledge to make claims. When one refuses to back up their claims it is appropriate to dismiss the claims as bullshit (or just more trolling).
You consider atheism an extreme?? If someone is not convinced a god exists, you consider that extremism?
There it is again, the requisite trolling accusation. Classic and now expected.
[Deleted]
Didn’t say that did I?
Didn’t say that either did I?
[Deleted]
Again, you simply make snarky claims about members with no support. No thoughtful value, just more bullshit.
[Deleted]
The typical bullshit denial. In the context of atheism vs evangelical Christians:
You reply with this:
No point trying to deny it, own it.
See 2.20.101
Apply liberally, lather, rinse, repeat as necessary.
Interesting that some like to think that our "culture" is Christian. Culture as in Christmas and Easter?
Jehovah's witnesses don't celebrate Christmas or Easter like most Americans do. The observe the religiosity of the holidays but don't "celebrate" it. Neither do the Amish. They don't put up trees or dye Easter eggs. Many of the Anabaptists like Mennonites, et al are like this.
So nobody can really say America is culturally Christian when the 30,000 sects all "celebrate" the major Christian holidays differently if at all.
I don't understand what you mean unless you tell me how you define "evil".
Again, I need your definition of "evil".
In historical context, this is one of our species most peaceful and tolerant eras.
The "end of days" /Armageddon / second coming of Yeshua was predicted to be shortly after Yeshua's accession to Heaven after resurrection.
Fearmongering is a good way to control people. In this case, it is also a very divisive tactic to tell people that their time on Earth is ending at any moment. Young Christians want to live and raise their kids and grandkids. The rapture can wait at least a few decades or until they are at death's door. Old Christians don't want to die and are joyfully embracing the end of the world so they don't have to die. Hopefully, we won't elect some old religious fools who start a nuclear war to try to give their religious dogma some kind of credence.
I didn't search for popular end of days sermons through the centuries, but I will include a small list of predictions for the Second Coming.
The "some" believe that their sect is one and only, truer than true religion. The "some" do not recognize the other sects of Christianity as valid Christian religions. The members of the other sects are rivals for the position of representing the one true god on Earth and therefore, having ultimate power as a human on Earth. Power to control the kings, queens, presidents, elected and non-elected governments.
In most countries, people have to be educated to be teachers, doctors, lawyers, electricians, plumbers, etc. However, some yahoo declares that they are a representative of a supernatural being and we are expected to take them at their word. Is this logical or sane on any level?
What do you mean by "good"? Does it require a religious belief?
I can only speak for myself, but I am far happier as an atheist than I was a Christian. I have always valued existence - mine and every other animal, plant, etc. Knowing that Yahweh is a figment of some ancient man's imagination is a relief. There just isn't much good to say about Yahweh or the history of his followers.
I believe that is meta so I'll move on.
So ask me. If the question deserves an answer, then I will answer it.
There is arrogance and there is confidence.
When a person has dotted all the is and crossed all the ts, they have a right to a pretty good level of confidence that they are on the correct path for them.
When a person declares something to be an infallible truth with no evidence except their "faith", that is arrogance on steroids.
How do you know what a person believes in unless they have individually told you? Just because they don't believe in your god or your religious sect doesn't mean that they don't have a belief system.
This would be preferable to being tortured by some religious sect to force obedience to their dogma. The sects, that preach freewill, should allow it within and without their sect. The world would be more peaceful without the religious sects trying to be the world's rulers.
Who is trying to force you and yours to change? Is someone knocking on your door to preach their dogma? Leaving pamphlets on your doorstep? Sending monthly mailings to educate you on their dogma?
I enjoy reading a little Mark Twain occasionally. I appreciate his insight into the Christian "culture".
I doubt Twain was ever popular with the men who assert that the Bible is the infallible word of Yahweh.
A definition for evil is easily found in any dictionary.
See above
And yet evil still abounds. To not see it in today’s society, is the epitome of denial.
Doing good things for no other reason than being nice. Picking up someone else’s check at a restaurant. Comforting a person in pain. Helping an old lady across the street .... etc, etc.
Why would it? You see that is part of what I’m talking about. I never even inferred that but look at where you took it.
Good I’m happy for you but different strokes for different folks. I for one don’t need validation from anyone regarding my faith. Most people don’t
Not meta, it is fact IMO. But I’m sure you’ll get much support here from the folks I’m talking about. SOSDD
Nah, clearly no point to it.
Opinions do vary. Mine hasn’t changed one iota.
My comment speaks for itself and I inferred no such thing.
Lol .... Religious sect?
Really? You mean people like Mao, Stalin or Pol Pot?
The attack on Christianity and other faiths in today’s world by partisans, progressives and NOK’s is clear, present and prolific. I’d you refuse to see that, there is no point taking this conversation any further.
Most kids can easily discern good from evil.
Is Christianity inherently evil? No. Has evil been done in the name of Christ and under his banner? Yes.
Most of the folks in my small hometown were Baptist though there were smatterings of Methodist and Presbyterians with a few Pentecostals. There are no Catholic churches in the county.
Before every local football game a rotation of local pastors offered a prayer before local football games. Once a Catholic member of the school board proposed that his priest from the next country be included in the rotation.
Such a controversy ensued that it tore the community apart. Ugly terrible violent things happened. The Catholic board member's home was burned down and she and her family moved away. That was 20 years ago.
If good decent small town Christians are that intolerant of Catholics, what chance do atheists or Muslims or Jews or Buddhists have of being treated fairly?
How about just keeping religion where it belongs, in our hearts, minds, homes and churches. When forced into the public square religion is so divisive as to inspire evil.
We have a difference of opinion.
Decent Christians would not burn others houses down ..... ever. And make no mistake, that is most Christians. People who would do that are not “decent.” Not by any definition. It’s just crazy.
What chance do truly decent Christians have of being treated fairly by people who would lump them in with crazies like that?
None.
I can be a fan of easy, but not when it comes to discussions that have major social consequences when the definitions are not clearly stated and understood to the greatest degree attainable by everyone involved.
There are varied definitions for evil. The nuances do make a difference in understanding the perspective of the person claiming to be an authority of what is and is not evil.
Continuing the attempt to define and understand how the term "evil" is used by various religions and cultures.
“What chance do truly decent Christians have of being treated fairly…”
By simply staying in their lane…and not expecting their beliefs are in any way more relevant in determining public policy than any other sect. Just embrace the free society in which we have been gifted.
Most do stay in their lane. If only the atheist sect would do the same.
That knife cuts both ways
No need to over analyze it. Merriam Webster lays it out well:
“Most do stay in their lane. If only the atheist sect would do the same.
That knife cuts both ways.”
Agreed.
And as in the politics of the day, it is the rabid, immovable zealotry coming from both ends of the spectrum that is causing all the dysfunction.
Yep. You can’t debate with a zealot.
Evidence points to this being hard-wired in the majority of our species long before any religion was created as a tool to control the masses.
Many religions bring major harm, and little, if any, benefit to the life of the individual indoctrinated into religious belief. It absolutely harms the individuals forced to live their lives according to a religious dogma that they don't believe in. Therefore, the Christians who are succeeding into forcing their dogma into the legal system of any government are not being nice, are not being "good" to others, and could be defined as being "evil" because they are actually harming others by denying them the use of freewill.
There is every reason to understand the difference of how a religion uses the term "evil" and how that definition is used to control others.
Some religions believe that mankind is born "sinful" which equates to "evil" on some level. Some religions do not recognize the concept of "sin" or does not view mankind as being basically "evil". Some belief systems view mankind as being basically good, nice, and cooperative.
There is a vast difference between telling a child that they were born so "evil" that they deserve being tortured in fire for eternity and only belief in a god killing and resurrecting itself will "save" them from a punishment they earned from just being born and a system that builds upon social interactions that encourage cooperation and well-being by rewarding positive behavior.
Not sure what you are trying to prove. I’ve never inferred that all religion is good or that all non religious are evil. You are trying to argue human nature .... in both cases.
Humans nature by definition can be imperfect and flawed. It would be wise to remember that in your “exhaustive” studies on the topic.
That said, next time you need food or comfort make sure to look for that Atheist financed food bank or shelter and when you can’t find one, the local Christian ones will be glad to help you out.
So simple, but impossible for some people.
You asked for “evil” to be defined. I’ve done that. You need to over analyze it. I don’t.
Your problems with religion are not mine so there really isn’t much point to discussing this any further.
We won’t agree.
Remember, when you point your finger at someone else, you have three pointing back at you.
So many Atheists think they are somehow morally superior to the faithful when nothing could be further from the truth.
Pretty sad but to each their own.
I don't know of any local "Christian" food banks because the majority of food banks in the US are funded by the US taxpayer and various industries and donors.
Here is a link to the site of the largest food bank operation in the US that links outreach and donors.
The local "Christians" are not the people who are funding the feeding of people in the US.
FA_2020AnnReport_FINAL_updated0309_v2.pdf (feedingamerica.org)
Is that statement based on verifiable facts or personal emotion?
Well, if only the Bible had encouraged reading instead of roasting people, the world would probably be a much better place today.
Dragon And Books Poster I Read Because Roasting People Is Frowned Upon Wall Decor Decorative Home For Bedroom Gift For Friend And Relative No Frame – Apparel Store (mrdad.store)
“So many Atheists think they are somehow morally superior to the faithful when nothing could be further from the truth.”
It is not about ‘moral’ superiority, as tens of millions have suffered or died in the quest. What is lost in the carnage is the the supposed message.
Then you aren’t looking very hard.
An estimated 70% are operated by faith based organizations. And while many are federally subsidized, much of their operating capital does come directly from the people in the communities they serve. I know. The lion-share of my personal philanthropy goes to just such organizations and I am far from alone.
Now, try to find an Atheist based operated food pantry in your area. Now you’ll have a tougher time .....
Observation of readily available empirical evidence over time. Little to no emotion involved at all.
Funny ...... most of the “roasting” going on here is coming from the usual sources.
Atheists.
True, as noted earlier such dysfunction is driven by extremists.
Live and let live is not in their vocabulary.
Progressives have managed to bastardize the real intent of separation of church and state. Originally it was intended that government could not mandate one or more government sanctioned religions. Religious freedom if you will. Think England in the 1700’s …. We wanted no part of that and reacted accordingly.
Now voluntary praying on public property is somehow the same thing? Ridiculous!
Can't y'all trade praying for taking a knee?
That is what the coach in Washington did and the left had a hissy fit.
Hardly to the same level as when Kaepernick took a knee.
A really poor attempt at equivalence.
Really poor.
Kaepernick took his knee before the game when the crowd was still there. He took a knee in order to draw attention to himself.
The coach took a knee after the game and when he was alone. The coach took a knee to show his reverence to God.
Exactly, copping a knee for a couple minutes while on the clock was Kaepernick's equivalent of marching across the Edmund Pettus bridge our facing the police dogs and fire hoses in Birmingham.
According to whom, "Drunk History"?
No according to reality. He started out alone as he intended. Other soon joined him on their own and without any coercion from him.
Agree to disagree.
Exactly, copping a knee for one minute while on the clock was the equivalent of marching across the Edmund Pettus bridge or facing the fire hoses and police dogs in Birmingham. Brave Kaeperick!
No, just a gesture to show how far we have to come and how little we have grown. And it is obviously working given every comment given disregarding his actions. Opening the much needed dialogue is the ultimate end.
Exactly cops killing Black people went down dramatically after he started protesting. I wonder if Colin ever gave thought to picketing a police station or a DA office or city hall.
Can’t all y’all trade pissing and moaning about other people for just living and let live.
Are you and arkpdx conjoined twins?
The hypocrisy will be on full display as soon as students start facing Mecca.
You got that right
Very short, interesting debate about religion vs science.
If all the Bibles disappeared for a thousand years, would the stories of the Bible be re-invented and re-published?
Do Christians still believe in witches and demons?
Is it possible that even today people are still having to undergo exorcisms because their religious community shuns modern medicine?
Are there Christian sects still denouncing women as witches in an effort to silence them?
I honestly thank all of the people who challenge me to provide proof to the barbaric acts that Christians have done at the behest of the words attributed to their god of the Bible. I'm discovering historical facts I would not have unless I had been challenged to do so.
This is another example of what has happened in history when a Christian sect gains enough power to govern a country through its rulers. There is no "love and tolerance". The rule of the day is blind obedience and servitude to the Christian sect that has killed enough of the opposition to seize and hold power.
What an interesting hypothetical, thanks. What if they didn't disappear, how man would believe. What if man disappear, would any care?
We live on a planet with finite resources to sustain all life on the planet.
Species go extinct on a daily basis. Does the human species care about them?
Logically, why would the human species be any different? I think it is most important not to squander the one life that we know a person has.
Believe the following information or not, nature is impartial and does not operate according to a belief system.
I think the follow up point to that question is as important where Gervais notes the difference between the stories of the bible and scientific research when he states "If we took every science book and every fact and destroyed them all, in a thousand years they'd be back because all the same tests would lead to the same result".
We've already proven many times over the answer to the first question which is "Of course not" since we've seen thousands of religions come and go with many only residing in the dustbin of history. We've never dug up an ancient unknown society from thousands of years ago and discovered the religion they worshiped back them was nearly identical to Mormonism or any other religion on the planet that has been invented since. Gravity, on the other hand, works the same today as it did millions of years ago. Someone making that discovery thousands of years ago then having their work destroyed (most likely by religious fanatics) should be happy to know that someone in the future will examine the same facts and same phenomenon and come to the same ultimate conclusions even without help from the ancient scientist who may have discovered it first but got no credit.
You probably are watching closer than I as I missed seeing those thousands.
We've never dug up an ancient unknown society from thousands of years ago and discovered the religion they worshiped back them was nearly identical to Mormonism or any other religion on the planet that has been invented since.
How old is Judaism? Confucianism? Hinduism?
Which religions does gravity refute?
Those are all religions that have had continuous followers since their inception and acceptance and are all still active today and have written records of their tenets and doctrines.
How many people do know of that worship Ukko, the sky and thunder God? Or Baal or Mithras? There are numerous extinct religion and tens of thousands of ancient societies that anthropologists and archeologists have discovered and found many religious icons, symbols and art of religions that we don't have any written record of and thus are labeled "unnamed" religions.
Even the ancient Incan and Maya religions have been intentionally nearly wiped out of existence by Christians who came to the Americans and burned the libraries and teachings of those ancient religions that they considered heretical.
The point being, none of those ancient religions resurfaced thousands of years later after having been wiped out, thus proving, as I said, that, so far, we've never discovered an ancient religion that talked about the angel Maroni or Jesus or Mohamed long before the known start of those existing religions.
None of them. Religious gravity always seems to draw the sheep, the weak, the injured, the sufferers and the gullible along with the wolves in sheep's clothing that prey upon them. But clearly, you're intentionally misinterpreting my point about science and how the way the universe works hasn't changed since the universe's inception regardless of what some believers may claim. The sun has never stood still, the world has never experienced a global flood, the universe was not created in 6 literal days, donkeys and snakes have never spoken human language, but universal laws that science attempts to study and define have always remained constant.
Does that continuum somehow diminish them?
Where do you numbers come from?
Ok.
Uh-hu, so what?
Is that how you characterize President Biden?
Now you're just being intentionally obtuse. In regards to the point Gervais made, none of those religions "disappeared for a thousand years" and then were reborn naturally without any input from the prior existence of the same beliefs. That is the whole point of Gervais's comment.
Doesn't really matter if it was a hundred, thousand or ten thousand, the point remains the same. If you'd like to argue against the point please do so. If you're having trouble wrapping your mind around it then I'm sorry I can't help you.
Ah, I see, you're just out for a casual troll and have no intention of actually contributing anything to the topic. Ciao.
Science books a thousand years from now will have different information in them than today's.
I can wrap my head around people that just make up numbers.
Calling people that you don't know "sheep, the weak, the injured, the sufferers and the gullible" sounds like trolling to me.
The point Gervais made, however, was that we could lose all knowledge of reality that currently exists per science but if rediscovered, science would again reveal truths such as atoms consist of particles, the speed of light (the speed of electromagnetic movement) is constant, the universe has been expanding from a singularity, the Earth is 4.54 billion years old, species evolve by mutation shaped by natural selection, stars form from gases and matter based on gravity, the earth's tectonic plates continue to change and reshape the terrain of the planet, greenhouse gases enable our survival but if out of balance can kill all life on the planet, gravity is a warpage of spacetime by mass, etc.
Of course, in the future science will discover more than what we currently know, but what we currently know will be rediscovered and fundamentally the same.
In contrast, if all that is known of a religion, or even a category of religions like Christianity was entirely lost, it is unlikely (near certainty) that it would re-emerge as it was. What is much more likely is that another, quite different, religion would emerge. For supporting evidence see the thousands of religions in existence all with different views, deities, requirements, expectations and rewards.
We have evidence of religion in the form of anthropomorphic cave art going back 38,000 years, mother goddess figurines from as far back as 35,000 years in Neanderthal graves, ritual burials from 13,000 years ago, what many archeologists believe to be places of worship or early temples at Gobkli Tepe from over 9,000 years ago, temples and deity figurines from Çatalhöyük over 7,000 years old, who knows how many hundreds or thousands or small groups of nomadic humans there were who created the first religions. To assume there have been thousands of different religions created by humans in the last 40,000 years is quite rational even if we haven't discovered them all. But again, the number is beside the point.
Do you believe there has ever been a religion that was actively believed in then wiped from history and then invented again by a completely unrelated group that had the same beliefs, Gods and doctrines as the former religion indicating that they had found a 'religious constant' or 'universal truth' like the speed of light that was the same a million years ago as it is today?
I did not call all religious faithful weak. I said that "Religious gravity always seems to draw" those types of people. There is not a religion that I can think of that doesn't in some way tickle the ears of their adherents telling them what they want to hear which is why religion has such gravity in society, pulling in those who fear death and want to be told everything is all right, that some all powerful being cares about them and is watching over them. Are you saying that no religious persons would meet those definitions?
Yes, I don't doubt that.
Style and language would clearly change, if you are a believer, you would argue that the core truths:
Many believers don't see it as science versus religion but that they are complimentary.
Truths?
Absolutely, positively NOT the point of Gervais comment.
Ok, but if the number isn't important to the point, why make up a number?
I've been an agnostic since I was a teenager.
No, I'm not an absolutist about people.
He did not make up the number and the number is important due to its magnitude. The sheer number of religions suggests that humans invent their gods, not the other way around.
Not to me, remember, I'm agnostic, but truths to Christians.
It was a meant as a short concise bullet, not a theological discussion on the nature of sin
I don't understand your question or the point of asking it.
I did a year ago by undergoing multiple rounds of chemo and finding an excellent surgeon and staff for the Mother of all surgeries, Cytoreductive Surgery with HIPEC.
Ok
Ok, I was being agreeable with DP's comment: "Doesn't really matter if it was a hundred, thousand or ten thousand, the point remains the same."
Probably right, but there are a lot more humans invented than gods.
I was referring to truths as an objective concept, not to you in particular.
The point is that the concept of sin is rich in Christian theocracy and would not likely just emerge again.
Under Gervais' thesis, all knowledge of religion is lost. So if there is no knowledge, no concept, no record of Jesus, what would cause the concept/story/name of Jesus to appear in a new religion?
If you are a Christian, you would believe that it would emerge again.
If you don't believe, you don't need to waste time with a thesis. Of course if there is no Jesus and no record of Jesus then he wouldn't appear again. If you believe that Jesus is part of the Trinity, then he would.
Again, that is NOT the point Gervais has made.
If all knowledge was gone then beliefs are reset to zero. They all start from scratch. Did you listen to Gervais' thesis?
If you mean watched the TV clip, yes.
Clearly it was a mistake to take you seriously.
Then how could you NOT know that he stated a scenario where all religious information and all scientific information was lost. He reset everything to zero and thus humankind would be starting its learning process again from scratch.
So if all religious information is gone, there are no religious beliefs ... the beliefs must emerge.
“If you believe that Jesus is part of the Trinity, then he would.”
Just for clarity sake as the waters get so often muddied, and with absolutely no judgment attached, where do you fall, drinker?
Jesus as part of the trinity? The most simple of questions.
I can handle simple, thanks. I've been agnostic since 13 when I disappointed my family, especially my grandmother by not being confirmed in our church.
I'm sorry that you feel that way and that I wasted your time.
Exactly, and what you think emerges in the future, depends on what you believe now.
While the fact that there have been many many religions created throughout human history is important for contrast, the exact number is not relevant. The number that is important is 'zero' which is the number of religions that came up with the same Gods, doctrines and beliefs in isolation from prior religions sharing those same beliefs.
I think believers in any religion believe they have the "true religion" and thus is would be repeated again even in isolation. The fact that we've never seen that happen with any religion including Christianity was Gervais's point. It doesn't matter how many millions of people have faith that they follow the "true religion", without a single example of a religion repeating itself in isolation the likelihood that they've found the "true religion" is exactly the same as every other religion. Like Gervais said, an atheist is just someone who believes in one less God than most believers who do the same with every other religion but their own.
I believe there are primarily four different categories people fall into when it comes to religion.
Agnostic atheist: Person who doesn't know for sure whether there are or aren't Gods but since they have seen no evidence and no one can prove their Gods exist assume the default that there are no Gods.
Gnostic atheist: Person who claims to know there is/are no God/Gods.
Agnostic theist: Person who isn't sure whether there is or isn't a God, but prefer to believe there is some higher power out there somewhere.
Gnostic theist: Person who claims to know there is/are God/Gods.
The simple definition of just "agnostic" is "a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God", but few are true fence sitters, they usually lean in one of two ways. A true fence sitter that just argues for arguments sake should be considered more an 'under a bridge dweller'...
What's the point, after Christianity was established, it never disappeared?
Duh.
“I can handle simple, thanks.”
Fair enough. Peace to you and yours, no strings attached.
So that's your faith?
what business is it of yours?
If I have to sub-bin myself in your religious identity construct, it would be agnostic atheist. I have no reason for a preference nor claim to know with certainty.
Maybe that's just your bias running away with you.
Prayers clearly aren't working so why? If the strength of their own faith, the strength of their own prayers don't work within their own religion or community why push it on schools? The church hasn't solved anything, not with prayers or any other means so what is this other than another attempt at division and forcing selective ideology into an arena where it does not belong. Build more churches, open more Sunday schools but quit forcing religion on everyone as a political football.
bible thumpers fail to realize that they would be the low hanging fruit in the event of a second civil war.
Much like the irrational belief of those Heavens Gate idiots who thought if they killed themselves they could hitch a ride on a comet, many right wing religious conservatives believe Jesus has their backs so even if they start a second civil war where they are woefully outnumbered and outgunned they believe they will somehow win the day. I had one cousin in Arkansas tell me that even if he had the whole world of godless secular liberals against him and his little arsenal he's been stockpiling, he'd win because with God on his side he'd be undefeatable. When viewed from reality this is of course completely insane, but the view from inside the right wing religious conservative alternate universe that's just a testament to how strong his faith is.
I believe that's why so many religious conservatives and right wing extremists are hoping for another civil war which won't be fought over slavery but religious ideology. They feel backed into a corner because their numbers are dwindling, more and more Americans are turning away from religion and white religious conservatives especially feel they have been stripped of their assumed and expected privileged pedestal. It's why they have fight tooth and nail against diversity and equality, a diverse melting pot of races, cultures and faiths is not their vision for America and threatens what they see as their 'white conservative Christian culture'.
The natural erosion of religious belief as humans gain more knowledge of the universe and science is part of the supposed 'evil' they believe they need to prepare for war against and why they are so angered at public schools, colleges and universities and why many religious conservatives are home schooling their children so they don't get "infected" by an education that would make them doubt the religious beliefs they had been indoctrinated with practically since birth.
thumpers represent a 3rd world social culture and mentality within the US.
I wouldn't call it "3rd world". I would call it 'Christian Sharia' aka 'right wing religious conservative' culture and mentality. Many of them believe, just like their Muslim counterparts in some places around the world, that their religious morals and ideology should be the law of the land and that their religious beliefs and conservative Christian culture should not only be protected but projected. They want the US to be a conservative Christian nation that celebrates and effectively 'establishes' their faith as the central faith of the US, even though they'll never use that word to describe it.
the xtian taliban is what they are...
So what religion is being forced down your throat? Be specific as to denomination
whatever the christo-fascist cult now decides to call itself.
So there isn't any and you are just making things up again
I'll be bashing it all right.
And guess what. Nobody gives a shit. A cup of coffee with a nice top costs $5.00 at Denny's. With your opinion they kick you out of the store, 86 you forever and still charge an extra $10.
In other words I find your opinions less than worthless
[Deleted]
duh...
you should've seen the unedited version...
You're gonna get a spanking...
Wish I knew. she didn't leave instructions on how to conduct a spanking