Good for you.
Do that on your own time, in your own place.
It is not the government’s job to push pop psychology onto the public.
Apparently “amygdala hijack” is your pop psychology term du jour, eh?
Unfortunately, your apparent concept of it is not accurate.
As I said;
An attempt to...
This as response to…..
Do at least attempt to focus…..
Once again;…..
Did you purposely miss the point?
That it was concerning your insistence that “temporary” duration somehow erases the fact that an injustice occurs…..
as I said; duration is inconsequential.
I then gave you examples of...
Did you purposely miss the point?
That it was concerning your insistence that “temporary” duration somehow erases the fact that an injustice occurs…..as I said;
Or is this a subconscious thing that your bias won’t allow your conscious mind to recognize…
cognitive dissonance?
Obviously not…...
My only response to you within this thread was to remind you it is a common courtesy not to hijack a thread.
I answered you exhaustively in one of your other two threads titled “Worldview”.
Your last reply to me in that thread indicated that you might have finally figured it out……
Yet, here...
All I’ve done is point out where and how you have erred.
None of which you’ve addressed.
You asked for the defense of a position;
Now you are portraying that defense as abusing you?…….That’s rich!
You have continually said;
Since he is not here to “defend” himself;
Yet you are taking...
Which you misrepresented.
No need to repeat yourself, I even included your three points in my post for easy reference;
and pointed out where they were a misrepresentation.
Which again, I included in my post for easy reference;
Also explaining that upon actually looking into them, and not being...
Which are what?
Atheists “routinely rag” on Theists for believing in something they have no credible evidence to believe, and therefore lack a rational reason to believe it.
The “cannot prove” bit generally comes from the Theists saying “you cannot prove that God doesn’t exist”,……
to which...
I didn’t ask how you felt it should be adjudicated…
I asked if, in your opinion, you would say….
he freaked out and lost his mind”, displayed “fanatical behavior”, that his mind got unhinged by the sight of a religious display” that offended his religious sensibilities?
Did you feel he should...
Again the duration is inconsequential.
If someone abridged your right to free exercise of your religion…..but only during the “holiday season”, would you consider it impinging on your rights?
If you were forced to go to Catholic mass, but only during “holiday season”, would you consider that...
Yes, well unfortunately that is a quote people often use erroneously.
Absence of evidence can, and not uncommonly is, used as evidence of the absence of something when testing for something that should have evidence where it not absent.
This is a famous quote from Carl Sagan.
Its importance...
To begin with, allow me to clarify, I do not identify as a Secular Humanist (I don’t necessarily disagree with their point of view…I just don’t go looking for a “group” I identify with);
I do identify as an atheist.
My point of view may differ from someone that does identify as Secular...
I’m not sure why you’re having difficulty understanding this.
The duration of an infringement to a law does not in any way have a bearing on if that law is in fact infringed.
Furthermore, the holiday displays in question are in many if not most cases recurring yearly.
The government maintaining...
Obviously yes.
As @crossfire suggested;
It prevents the government from being allowed to ban any religion or religious practice.
For example as China has banned Fulan Gong.
It would remove the right of the free exercise of the religion of your choice.
Was the 4th clause here intended to be the...
I don’t put a “name” on my worldview.
There is no specific perspective which dominates my view.
As I said;
I don’t have a perspective that I consider to be “central to my identity”.
Many religious people consider their religion to be central to their identity.
Take for instance Speaker of...
No.
As stated previously stated:
Maintaining secularity concerning government is stipulated in the First Amendment.
Therefore any “test” involved in questioning whether something is constitutional or not concerning government controlled property is determining whether it maintains secularity by...
In a sense, but I would phrase differently.
If a person had a single worldview “that covers every subject they could possibly address”, they would be a very one dimensional.
If this person could only manage to relate to any subject or situation through one fixed perspective then perhaps.
Bad...
To which you got the very common sense reply:
And you answer….
So you were motivated enough to ask the question, but not motivated enough to look into the question…….
This makes no sense.
Since you don’t apparently have enough time or motivation to look up the answer to the question you claim...
This is why I asked;
Also, you can’t take a single person’s opinion as the definitive viewpoint on a subject, (including mine and yours) it’s important to remember that an opinion is subjective to that individual and can be wrong or misspoken.
Particularly when the distinctive difference comes...