'O, wad some pow'r the giftie gie us. . .

[Phil1111 908]

12 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi folks,

A little more info on this:  Poll: A majority of Americans believe U.S. democracy is in crisis : NPR

Jerry Baumchen

Another poll said that 40% of republicans agreed that violence against the government was acceptable if necessary. Also a NPR poll also in the last week. Many democrats have refused to seriously deal with the erosion of voting rights caused by gerrymandering and other voting restriction measures.

A right wing dictatorship? There are other possibilities. The current GOP leadership has forced almost every moderate republican from the party. Adam Kinzinger won't seek re-election. Liz Cheneyis going to face a severe challenge in primaries and likely won't win re-election. These are the last two moderates.

Midterms look to be a challenge for democrats. trump aside, the GOP will be fully in his mold. in their zeal to pursue trumpism.

[kallend 1,621]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

There's several disparaging terms. Why not just, "Your God."

Because it gives an element of legitimacy to the ludicrous.

[BIGUN 1,050]

4 minutes ago, kallend said:

Because it gives an element of legitimacy to the ludicrous.

I'm going to respectfully disagree. It gives an element of respect for someone's beliefs while acknowledging that you don't believe the same way.  

[kallend 1,621]

12 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

I'm going to respectfully disagree. It gives an element of respect for someone's beliefs while acknowledging that you don't believe the same way.  

 

You just want to be politically correct.

Ludicrous beliefs are still ludicrous no matter how you dress them up with fancy language.

 

[wmw999 2,116]

If that belief that you find ludicrous helps someone to find community, comfort or strength that they can't figure out how to access without it, then great. If that community is exclusionary and/or divisive, that's a human problem that can happen without religion.

It's the exclusionary and divisive community that needs to be dealt with, not necessarily the deity.

Making sure that someone knows that you think their beliefs are BS is often just a way of making sure that you assert your perceive superiority. One-upping, as it were.

Wendy P.

[kallend 1,621]

Why is a Jewish Zombie (resurrected from a corpse) omniscient (read the Bible) Sky (Luke 24:50, Acts 1) god (part of the trinity) with absolute power (omnipotent) over everything in the universe any less ludicrous than the FSM?

Edited January 4, 2022 by kallend

[gowlerk 1,903]

39 minutes ago, kallend said:

Ludicrous beliefs are still ludicrous no matter how you dress them up with fancy language.

They don't become any more or less ludicrous the more you point it out. All religions that pretend to understand any kind of "creation" are ludicrous. It goes without saying. Calling out believers for believing in magic is pointless. Unless your goal is to antagonize, it works every time for that. You are not smarter than them just because you can see the obvious fallacy. They are all aware of it. Some choose to believe anyway, most choose to pretend to believe because they want to remain in the culture. 

[Phil1111 908]

40 minutes ago, kallend said:

 

You just want to be politically correct.

Ludicrous beliefs are still ludicrous no matter how you dress them up with fancy language.

 

No you're mistaken. I'd be the first to attack the hypocrisy of the Gulfstream owning televangelists. The politicians and religious leaders who use the names of their gods for political purpose. But like other concepts of human behavior that are difficult or impossible to define in scientific terms. For some religion is useful, beneficial in driving positive behaviors and actions. There are many religious charities and adherents of religion solely devoted to helping mankind.

[gowlerk 1,903]

2 minutes ago, kallend said:

Why is a Jewish Zombie (resurrected from a corpse) omniscient (read the Bible) Sky ("he ascended") god (part of the trinity) with absolute power (omnipotent) over everything in the universe any less ludicrous than the FSM?

See above, it is not any less ludicrous. Scientology is my favourite example of fools believing in foolishness. But there are so many to choose from. 

[gowlerk 1,903]

1 minute ago, Phil1111 said:

There are many religious charities and adherents of religion solely devoted to helping mankind.

Also beside the point.

[Phil1111 908]

2 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

They don't become any more or less ludicrous the more you point it out. All religions that pretend to understand any kind of "creation" are ludicrous. It goes without saying. Calling out believers for believing in magic is pointless. Unless your goal is to antagonize, it works every time for that. You are not smarter than them just because you can see the obvious fallacy. They are all aware of it. Some choose to believe anyway, most choose to pretend to believe because they want to remain in the culture. 

"most choose to pretend to believe because they want to remain in the culture." Is mostly correct. There are other religions that are not defined by creationism.

[Phil1111 908]

1 minute ago, gowlerk said:

Also beside the point.

Beside what point? The illogical nature of religious beliefs?

[kallend 1,621]

Why do we have to be deferential to religion when we don't have to defer to any other foolish, illogical belief?

[gowlerk 1,903]

1 minute ago, Phil1111 said:

Beside what point? The illogical nature of religious beliefs?

Yes, covering up your religion in good works does not change the underlying flaws. Charity does not require religion.

[gowlerk 1,903]

Just now, kallend said:

Why do we have to be deferential to religion when we don't have to defer to any other foolish, illogical belief?

You don't. But you also don't have to go out of your way to antagonize them. Up to you, I'm just laying out the conclusion I have come to. I make a habit of "kicking against the pricks" when I feel the need. I lay into them for what they do, I leave the beliefs alone.

[BIGUN 1,050]

10 minutes ago, kallend said:

Why do we have to be deferential to religion when we don't have to defer to any other foolish, illogical belief?

There is a long list of your peers that do not think it an illogical belief.

List of Christians in science and technology

You say I'm just trying to be politically correct. I say I'm trying to be as respectful of another culture as I am of any other. 

[SkyDekker 1,121]

22 hours ago, gowlerk said:

"Wokeism" is nothing but a right wing boogeyman. It is a meaningless FOX news trope.

Wokeism is to American fascism what Jews were to German fascism.

[billvon 2,384]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

Why do we have to be deferential to religion when we don't have to defer to any other foolish, illogical belief?

Because it's important to people.  Many disparate things are important to people - the model of their car, the size of their breasts, the color of their hair, the country they hail from, their religion, their family's heritage, the amount of money they make, the number of likes they get.  Going out of your way to denigrate those things is sort of a dick move, even if you think that the importance they place on it is illogical.

 

[kallend 1,621]

55 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

There is a long list of your peers that do not think it an illogical belief.

List of Christians in science and technology

You say I'm just trying to be politically correct. I say I'm trying to be as respectful of another culture as I am of any other. 

That sure looks like an "appeal to authority" fallacy.

[kallend 1,621]

1 minute ago, billvon said:

Because it's important to people.  Many disparate things are important to people - the model of their car, the size of their breasts, the color of their hair, the country they hail from, their religion, their family's heritage, the amount of money they make, the number of likes they get.  Going out of your way to denigrate those things is sort of a dick move, even if you think that the importance they place on it is illogical.

 

I don't go out of my way to antagonize anyone until they start pushing their religion-based agenda on me and my family.  Then they're fair game.

[billvon 2,384]

11 minutes ago, kallend said:

I don't go out of my way to antagonize anyone until they start pushing their religion-based agenda on me and my family.

You regularly go out of your way here to use derogatory terms for religion even when no one is pushing anything on you.  And of course no one here has ever pushed anything on the rest of your family.

You don't like religion, I get it.  I don't like makeup.  But I don't go around telling women who wear it that they look like clowns.

[Phil1111 908]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

Yes, covering up your religion in good works does not change the underlying flaws. Charity does not require religion.

So what if adults believe in what science beliefs is flawed. Shouldn't individuals believe whatever they want as long as it harms none other than themselves?

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

You don't. But you also don't have to go out of your way to antagonize them. Up to you, I'm just laying out the conclusion I have come to. I make a habit of "kicking against the pricks" when I feel the need. I lay into them for what they do, I leave the beliefs alone.

That doesn't seem to be what you said about "underlying flaws". If religion motivates good deeds to others, those acts deserve praise do they not?

On this you and I sit in the same pea pod "I make a habit of "kicking against the pricks" when I feel the need. I lay into them for what they do".

[gowlerk 1,903]

8 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

"kicking against the pricks"

https://www.gotquestions.org/kick-against-the-pricks.html

In this saying, that I stole from Johnny Cash , "pricks" has a different meaning than you might think.

Edited January 4, 2022 by gowlerk

[Phil1111 908]

55 minutes ago, kallend said:

I don't go out of my way to antagonize anyone until they start pushing their religion-based agenda on me and my family.  Then they're fair game.

I agree, but sometimes you and I get carried away.

41 minutes ago, billvon said:

You regularly go out of your way here to use derogatory terms for religion even when no one is pushing anything on you.  And of course no one here has ever pushed anything on the rest of your family.

You don't like religion, I get it.  I don't like makeup.  But I don't go around telling women who wear it that they look like clowns.

I agree with what you say. But i can understand the reactions from atheists who rightfully believe that religion is a danger to themselves and their families. i.e. non muslims in Pakistan. As an extreme example. But also the power of the Christian right as it exerts undue influence on American life.

An individual needs to be ever vigilant to protect religious beliefs. Because  Muslim family killed in 'premeditated' hit and run in London, Ont., driver charged with murder, police say Hatred is not useful in any form.

Edited January 4, 2022 by Phil1111

[Phil1111 908]

2 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

https://www.gotquestions.org/kick-against-the-pricks.html

In this saying, that I stole from Johnny Cash , "pricks" has a different meaning than you might think.

Yes, you should learn something new every day.