What will win the god wars? Faith, Fantasy, Facts, or God?

I agree that this is a serious problem.

The current war on our democracy is a great example. So is the war on medical science, as well as other science, where people refuse to accept what humans have supported with a constan deluge of evidence.

But, our government wasn't designed to be crammed down people's throats. And, that includes both secular and religious beliefs.

There is huge danger in democracy, freedom of speech, etc.

To me, the supreme damage that has been done to America is the denial of truth and even how to find truth. So, now anything anyone disagrees with can just be considered "fake news" - the most STUPID, sloppy and lazy direction imaginable, and a way that leads to little possibility of people making evidence based dispassionate decisions together.

 

Sounds like you agree that your statement below....

...is inaccurate to say the least. Teaching those "ignorant beliefs" does in fact "impact others"
They are in fact "acting on those ignorant beliefs" by teaching them to others...
and by teaching those "ignorant beliefs"they are in fact endangering the lives of others.

Me thinks that is the point @Greatest I am is conveying with this thread

 

Correct. They think of it, ignore it, and preach the opposite.

That is a traitor's way, as they are ignoring the constitution.

Regards
DL

 

Sure.

Maybe the catch comes in what solution there might be. Making science the law doesn't work. We have law on what may be taught in public schools.

Is there something in particular that you want to use the law to stop people from thinking? What law do you want?

 

Just because you can kill an ant does not make you superior...
and perhaps if you knew God and what you are....you would not believe God to be superior

 

I can't find any reference to law in the OP...perhaps that is something you injected into the conversation
I was merely questioning the validity of your statement below...

But I surely don't believe that freedom of speech was meant to include lies and spreading dangerous misinformation....
especially by government officials.
If that is the way it has been interpreted....which seems to be what you are implying...then it needs to be amended

 

I think you brought the law into it when you suggest that government could do something about it.

We do have a very serious problem related to allowing purposeful lies - such as Trump has used to motivate domestic terrorists against our government.

We do have limits. In the case of the lies about our last election, there is a very strong reason why Republican lawyers have not presented evidence of fraud in any of the numerous legal cases. If they did that, they would be held to a stanard of truth backed by penalties of disbarment and more.

I'm fine with your objective of truth, obviously. The amount of false information being used for nefarious purpose is really damaging.

If you have an improvement, I think you need to present that. Talking about this in generalities only goes so far.

What would you propose to slow the assault on science? in politics? in education?

 

Also, we have lible law. For example, Dominion, the voting machine company, has lawsuits against political figures who have made false statements against them.

 

Again I have to question the validity of your statements.....you have brought the word law into this thread more than once...
the last time being here below...

If you wish to discuss law why not start you own thread. It seems to me the purpose of this thread was to point out possible problems
with religion....what did you suppose this thread was about???

 

Perhaps that is not what he is saying....maybe he is instead referring to the imaginary god
that you and the so called "Christian" churches believe in...the one that supposedly sends all the "non-believers"
to an imagined "hell" on judgement day...

 

?? No.
Take a look at post #172 and #178.

References to the constitution, breaking the constitution, all address the issue of applying the law.

Remember that I'm the one who has been arguing the LIMITS of law on this issue.

And, remember that the OP is a complaint against religion that is then seen as something that shouldn't be permitted - which is a reference to law.

If you think there is a solution direction that does NOT involve the law, then state it.

Or, are you thinking that we should just stay true to the OP and take turns whining about religion?

 

Why do believe God judges people? Or that he forgives people? Because you were told it is so? By whom or what?
God does not forgive...because he has never condemned. "There must be condemnation before forgiveness is necessary."

 

Yes more will be accomplished by staying with the OP...the law should be a separate thread so it can be focused on by those who wish to discuss law.

 

Dude - oever and over I've stated that I'm an atheist and share your concern about religion.

You're not going to make any progress by suggesting that people should reject their own religion. You clearly know very little about Christianity, and even if you were some sort of expert on the topic, it just doesn't work that way. Plus, there are many divisions of Christiianity at it is by no means the only religion in America.

As per our founding docments, America's direction is to accept that there will be numerous religions in America.

You need to be thinking about how we're all going to get along.

 

More whining as per the entire content of the OP is not just stpid, it's counterproductive.

 

Bingo!! THAT is exactly what I am interested in!!!
Do you think our founding documents are going to accomplish that? I don't
Do I think religions are going to accomplish that??? I don't...I don't think you do either.
Is there something I should know about Christianity that you believe I am not familiar with???
Please enlighten me...

 

Then why in the name of God are you still here???

 

Yes, I do believe our founding documents are a huge step forward.

Look what we had before that.

That doesn't mean the job of working out how to live together is done - it's not. It DOES demonstrate how important the legal component is.

You could be an expert in Christianity and it would make ZERO difference unless you were using your knowledge to figure out how we can all work together.

 

??
Increasing polarization is ALWAYS a counter to improvement.

The whining, the B&M sessions, make the problem far harder to even talk about.

I've pointed this out to Greatest and others in the past.

I'm absolutely opposed to the very existence of posts such as the OP on this thread.

When I see posts like that I opposed them. I want improvement and this kind of crap makes improvement harder. There is NO possibility of such crap causing ANYTHING that could be considered positive.

 

Then why not start your own "positive" thread??
Are you imagining yourself to be the Thread Police??

 

But again...you seem to be attempting to steer this thread into a debate about man-made laws and documents...
And then you voice your frustration when things don't go your way...how is that considered "positive"??
Do you really suppose that is what "working together" means??

 

Again, I see the assault on religion as a problem.

At its most benign, it blocks efforts to live together and polarizes issues along nonsensical lines.

At its worst it feeds groups who see the holocaust as insufficient and those who assault churches.

 

Our "man-made laws and documents" are the foundation of how we live together.

(I'm somewhat curious as to what the heck you think my "way" is in this.)

By making the issue to be religion, the argument on the religion side becomes an unassailable absolute.

Why would you want your opposition to have an unassailable position?

For just one example, when issues surrounding abortion are allowed to be based on religion, progress becomes hugely difficult, as religion is unassailable and absolute. If instead the issues are moved to ones of methodology, then the legal assault on women becomes less easy to defend - because it's only one methodology.

 

My observation is that Religion and human laws and documents are BOTH man-made...and as such can only be sustained for a short period of time....
before they are no longer adhered to...as you see going on today.

There is a link included in the thread below...that I think is worth investigating if you have the curiosity.
http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/power-of-social-reality.583217/#post-1072362533

 

Whether religion is man made is totally irrelevant. You and I can agree religion is manmade, but that is irrelevant, because the stupendous majority does not agree and will not be changed by anything we say. It IS a fact of life.

Any thought of tenuousness concerning our system of government can only result in our greater focus on ensuring it endures.

The fact that it is a system of cooperation is no surprise. There is no other choice. Our very population precludes other choices. We survive through cooperation.

I didn't read that full article, but I'd point out that many other species also have systems of cooperation. How they go about modifying their systems of cooperation is limited by various factors that don't have to limit how we do it.