Pastor alarmed after Trump-loving congregants deride Jesus' teachings as 'weak'

[SkepticThinker]

I believe the concept of a coup is pure fantasy devised by people who have a political agenda. I do believe the people have a right to know whether an election is legitimate or not but it was hopeless to think a Democrat congress cares about anything other than its own agenda.

Well, let's see ...

Trump and his co-conspirators ...

-Marched on and broke into the Capital Building with the intent of stopping the peaceful transfer of power, injuring hundreds in the process, apparently they also intended to hang Mike Pence and do God-knows-what to other Congress people (these people had weapons, military garb and were carrying around zip ties)
-Set up fake electors across multiple states so that when the peaceful transfer of power didn't occur and it went back to the states, they'd have these fake electors lined up to step in
-Breached voting machines and took the data from them
-Planned to invoke Martial Law when all the chaos they had created took over and apparently had no problem with the idea of injuring or killing American citizens in the process

All of this can be found in the indictments along with mounds of evidence. These trials should be pretty, pretty interesting, to say the least.

 

[Revoltingest]

I believe the concept of a coup is pure fantasy devised by people who have a political agenda.

I do too.
Trump's fantasy failed.

I do believe the people have a right to know whether an election is legitimate or not but...

Trump's minions tried dozens of time to
claim a stolen election in court. But they
lacked evidence. All they had was either
pretense or belief.

...it was hopeless to think a Democrat congress cares about anything other than its own agenda.

Republicans cared even less about the Constitution.
Many have been caught, tried, & convicted of
trying to steal the election. Here in MI, we had
many Republicans posing as electors trying to
rig it for Trump. May they rot in prison.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If that was a coup then there should be some evidence of it but there is none.

There's a ton of evidence. Read the indictments, for starters.

Were you asleep on January 6th or something? I came home from work, and flicked on the TV to see something I never thought I'd see in my entire life. I still can hardly believe it.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Science is the application of critical rationalism in order to falsify or sustain empirical claims. Empirical, in this context, means that it is based on observable evidence rather than deduced tautologically from definition. All questions about whether something exists in or affects the visible world is therefore subject to empirical investigation.

We call the world that is observable to the senses "nature." Scientists, therefore, can be said to study the natural world. As they do so, they rely only on observations from this natural world in order to explain it, which is what we call "methodological naturalism." This is a key feature in the epistemology of the philosophy of science.

Mind-body dualism has been replaced in science with the idea of mind-body monism, due to observational and experimental data. The current model is that our minds are a product of processes generated within our brains. Our brains do not act as a receiver that picks up the brain from another metaphysical plane, either; they actively cause our minds through biochemical processes.

This means that all consciousness ceases at brain death. Our mind doesn't go anywhere. It stops. That means there is no afterlife for it to migrate to. Such an afterlife would be nomologically impossible and directly contradict current scientific models.

Methodological naturalism also means that there is no room in the history of evolution for any kind of divine intervention or supernatural guidance to have taken place. Luckily, it is entirely possible to explain the history of evolution without assuming the existence of God. In fact, it can be explained so thoroughly and coherently without God that God's involvement is vanishingly unlikely. There simply is no room for God in our understanding of evolution.

As such, claims that evolution was guided by the hand of God can only be taken metaphorically, not literally, if one is to maintain a scientifically consistent worldview. Some biologists go outside of their field of expertise to shift the goalposts by saying that God created the universe in such a way that human evolution would be inevitable. That is no longer theistic evolution, so it is not relevant to this conversation, but it does bring me to my next point.

Individual scientists are free to their own views. You will probably never find a scientist who is familiar with and positively affirms the scientific consensus on all topics in all fields. In fact, scientists that fully comprehend and apply the philosophy of science to their own thinking are quite rare. Scientists are only expected to practice methodological naturalism within the context of their professional career, which is usually contained within a small niche in their particular field of expertise. This allows people that are not scientific thinkers to make careers out of contributing to science, anyway, by setting aside their beliefs while conducting research and experimentation on a given topic.

That's a good thing, in my opinion, but it doesn't mean that all of their beliefs are compatible with science. I doubt that most of the theistic scientists you mention here would support the idea that science has demonstrated the existence of any god. They have to go outside of science and, honestly, directly contradict the naturalism and empiricism that science is founded on in order to claim the existence of God or the afterlife.

What I think is "utterly patronizing" is that well-read science communicators and philosophers of science have been aware of this since the 20th century but they don't want to antagonize popular religion. So they coin phrases like "non-overlapping magisteria," where they still don't admit that science is compatible with religion but instead try to redefine what religion is allowed to talk about, knowing that it will mislead people to believe that the two can be taken together. They do this because if they start challenging religious people's fundamental beliefs, there would be serious (and unnecessary) backlash against the academic sciences.

They avoid openly pointing out that God and the afterlife are incompatible with science because they don't think religious people are open to hearing it. Here's a quote from Eugenie Scott, who is one such science educator:

“Scientists can defuse some of the opposition to evolution by first recognizing that the vast majority of Americans are believers, and that most Americans want to retain their faith...individuals can retain religious beliefs and still accept evolution through methodological naturalism. Scientists should therefore avoid mentioning metaphysical naturalism and use methodological naturalism instead...Even someone who may disagree with my logic … often understands the strategic reasons for separating methodological from philosophical naturalism—if we want more Americans to understand evolution.”

Do you not find it more patronizing that these people are intentionally deceiving you about the compatibility of these ideas with science in order to spoon-feed you dumbed-down versions of specific scientific findings like evolution?

By contrast, I'm respecting the rationality of the people I'm speaking to. I think they deserve to know the truth. There is no God and there is no afterlife. Academia knows it. It's known for awhile now. The general public simply hasn't caught up yet.

Of course the scientists I know have never argued that science can prove the existence of God. Nor would they argue that it could disprove the existence of God either which is pretty much the point. Science deals with the observable and empirical, not phenomena that's outside of its remit. If you've convinced yourself that there's no God or anything outside of the empirical then that's your prerogative of course but your latter is simply unsubstantiated bunk. "Academia" knows no such thing and neither - in honesty - do you. Frankly, this sort of 'intellectual' posturing is nothing new to me and there's plenty in academia who realize that science and faith are not mutually exclusive, even if that doesn't compute for you.

 

[Revoltingest]

Some of Trump's apparatchiks are now admitting they lied.

JUST IN: Rudy Giuliani Concedes in Court Filing He Made ‘False’ Statements About Georgia Election Workers

In a court filing, Rudy Giuliani admitted he made "false" allegations about Georgia election workers and no longer contests the outcome of the Georgia election.

www.mediaite.com

 

[SkepticThinker]

Some of Trump's apparatchiks are now admitting they lied.

JUST IN: Rudy Giuliani Concedes in Court Filing He Made ‘False’ Statements About Georgia Election Workers

In a court filing, Rudy Giuliani admitted he made "false" allegations about Georgia election workers and no longer contests the outcome of the Georgia election.

www.mediaite.com

Rudy seems to be in some deep doo-doo.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If that was a coup then there should be some evidence of it but there is none.

You're correct. It wasn't a coup. It was an insurrection and a failed coup attempt. If you missed it, you can see the evidence of that during the trials, although the public has already seen enough to decide guilt. I have.

I believe the concept of a coup is pure fantasy devised by people who have a political agenda

No argument again. The concept was Trump's, who had a fantasy and a political agenda, although he might not have known the word coup.

I do believe the people have a right to know whether an election is legitimate

Agreed again. The 2020 presidential election was legitimate as was demonstrated by multiple audits and failed lawsuits to overturn it. Trump lost decisively, and was caught trying to tamper with the outcome of the election himself.

What people don't have a right to do is break the law because they don't accept the results of an election. People that did that are already convicted, awaiting trial, or sweating about being indicted. Rudy's probably leaking oil again, and I imagine the likes of Bannon, Jones, and Flynn aren't sleeping well. Smith's probably not done issuing indictments.

it was hopeless to think a Democrat congress cares about anything other than its own agenda.

Why shouldn't the Democratic Party care about its agenda? The agenda of the (bipartisan) January 6th Committee was to investigate the events surrounding the violent uprising, generate a thorough report, and make recommendations to the DOJ regarding subsequent criminal prosecutions. That was also their duty. And the Republicans on the committee were in accord with the Democrats and quite critical of Trump, who committed crimes against America and will soon be a convicted felon.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are signs that some of Trump's codefendants in Georgia are ready to make a deal.

This is why RICO charges can be so effective. The first and highest to crack get the best deals.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If that was a coup then there should be some evidence of it but there is none.

"There is none?"

More than 1,033 have been arrested, with approximately 485 federal defendants receiving sentences. About 277 defendants have been sentenced to time behind bars, and roughly 113 defendants have been sentenced to a period of home detention. The most serious conviction was for Stewart Rhodes, founder of the citizen militia group known as the Oath Keepers, was sentenced to 16 years in prison for seditious conspiracy.

Seems there has been lots of evidence that have satisfied juries -- if not you.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You're correct. It wasn't a coup. It was an insurrection and a failed coup attempt.

Attempting to commit murder is still a crime, and a serious one, even if the felon "failed" to pull it off. Sedition, and seditious conspiracy, are both felonies, and both serious. I don't see much point in quibbling about such nicities, when the real issue, the real problem is still out-and-about, trying to become President again.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That is not the same as saying it is ok to beat others. And actually it is not even only about slaves. There is no punishment for beating anyone in the Bible. But, it does not mean it is ok then, for example because it issaid, love your neighbor as yourself.

It is explicitly about slaves and that's not the only Bible passage that allows for skavery and the mistreatment of slaves. Amd it is explicitly saying it's ok to beat your slaves, even severely as lomg as the recover within a few days, because the slaves are the master's property.

I have no problem with working, only if people must work as a slaves for others.

Apparently you di because you claim even under our current system we are slaves. Amd you claim we're slaves even though you are perfectly free enough to work for yourself. I hate bosses and being bossed around, told when I have to do stuff, how to do stuff and I don't hesitate to butt heads with the bad ones.
That's how you live free. It aint easy livin' free, as the song says, but it is true what the book says that it's better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven. And here your idea of freedom is so small that taxes make you think your a slave. I just pay mine and happily smile knowing no one tells me when to show up to work and hospital procedures are the only times I'm told what I can't wear.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If that was a coup then there should be some evidence of it but there is none.

Trumps co-defendants starting turning themselves in last night when I was at the gym in 2 in the morning (so around 5 am Georgia's time).

 

[Ella S.]

Of course the scientists I know have never argued that science can prove the existence of God. Nor would they argue that it could disprove the existence of God either which is pretty much the point. Science deals with the observable and empirical, not phenomena that's outside of its remit. If you've convinced yourself that there's no God or anything outside of the empirical then that's your prerogative of course but your latter is simply unsubstantiated bunk. "Academia" knows no such thing and neither - in honesty - do you. Frankly, this sort of 'intellectual' posturing is nothing new to me and there's plenty in academia who realize that science and faith are not mutually exclusive, even if that doesn't compute for you.

The epistemology that the philosophy of science is founded upon is empiricism.

Outside of that, yes, most academics are naturalists and atheists:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/r8yu56 (multiple surveys)

Naturalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) (written by a board of academic philosophers who note that naturalism is widely accepted)

Why 62% of Philosophers are Atheists (Part I) (also references multiple surveys and studies)

I am not inventing a consensus to bully people into accepting an idea. I am pointing out that the consensus exists and is there for good reasons. I doubt that these thinkers would agree with you that the majority of academic philosophy is "simply unsubstantiated bunk," but they might. Philosophers can be rather chaotic sometimes.

I do know that there is no God or afterlife for the same reasons that I can say I know that humans evolved, that the North Korean Kim Dynasty is not composed of gods, that the holocaust happened, that the stories of Robin Hood and King Arthur are unlikely to be based on a singular real person, that the earth is spherical and orbits the sun, etc.

The people who claim that God or an afterlife exists are forced to argue for them using methods and reasons that have essentially nothing to do with any of these other fields of knowledge. They do not arrive at the conclusion that God exists in the same way that a scientist discovers the existence of a new element. They do not arrive at the conclusion that an afterlife exists in the same way that a historian arrives at the conclusion that Athens and Sparta were real places in ancient Greece. They must rely upon "other ways of knowing" which many philosophers argue do not constitute genuine knowledge at all.

I am not posturing. I am simply trying to express my current understanding. It is quite easy for me to compute why people believe that science and religion are compatible. From my perspective, though, this is clearly wrong and a position that can only be held due to ignorance and misinformation.

Edit to add: Well, it's wrong when it comes to theistic evolution and the existence of an afterlife, at least. Those are fairly settled in science. Religion is a very general concept that applies to more than just Christian literalism. There are naturalistic religions which genuinely are compatible with science, including Christian Pantheism.

 

[Arthur Brain]

The epistemology that the philosophy of science is founded upon is empiricism.

Outside of that, yes, most academics are naturalists and atheists:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/r8yu56 (multiple surveys)

Naturalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) (written by a board of academic philosophers who note that naturalism is widely accepted)

Why 62% of Philosophers are Atheists (Part I) (also references multiple surveys and studies)

I am not inventing a consensus to bully people into accepting an idea. I am pointing out that the consensus exists and is there for good reasons. I doubt that these thinkers would agree with you that the majority of academic philosophy is "simply unsubstantiated bunk," but they might. Philosophers can be rather chaotic sometimes.

I do know that there is no God or afterlife for the same reasons that I can say I know that humans evolved, that the North Korean Kim Dynasty is not composed of gods, that the holocaust happened, that the stories of Robin Hood and King Arthur are unlikely to be based on a singular real person, that the earth is spherical and orbits the sun, etc.

The people who claim that God or an afterlife exists are forced to argue for them using methods and reasons that have essentially nothing to do with any of these other fields of knowledge. They do not arrive at the conclusion that God exists in the same way that a scientist discovers the existence of a new element. They do not arrive at the conclusion that an afterlife exists in the same way that a historian arrives at the conclusion that Athens and Sparta were real places in ancient Greece. They must rely upon "other ways of knowing" which many philosophers argue do not constitute genuine knowledge at all.

I am not posturing. I am simply trying to express my current understanding. It is quite easy for me to compute why people believe that science and religion are compatible. From my perspective, though, this is clearly wrong and a position that can only be held due to ignorance and misinformation.

Even Richard Dawkins concedes that he isn't 100% certain that there isn't a god. Sure, he's pretty much adamant that in all likelihood there isn't but at least he's not so arrogant to claim that he knows with absolute surety. Your comparisons with events that have happened and beyond dispute etc in no way validates your claim that you know that there's no god in turn. You do not. Simple as that and if it makes it easier you can lay claim that nobody can know with absolute surety that there is either. Science and belief are entirely compatible and it's both arrogance and ignorance on your part to claim that people who have no cognitive dissonance with the two are somehow "misinformed" or ignorant.

 

[Ella S.]

Even Richard Dawkins concedes that he isn't 100% certain that there isn't a god. Sure, he's pretty much adamant that in all likelihood there isn't but at least he's not so arrogant to claim that he knows with absolute surety. Your comparisons with events that have happened and beyond dispute etc in no way validates your claim that you know that there's no god in turn. You do not. Simple as that and if it makes it easier you can lay claim that nobody can know with absolute surety that there is either. Science and belief are entirely compatible and it's both arrogance and ignorance on your part to claim that people who have no cognitive dissonance with the two are somehow "misinformed" or ignorant.

I never claimed that I was 100% certain that there isn't a god, either. I am not absolutely certain.

Given the data that I have available to me, the only relevant conclusions that I can justifiably make are that theistic evolution is false and that there is no afterlife. Both are in line with scientific findings and philosophy of science.

I do not believe that people suffer from cognitive dissonance when trying to reconcile supernatural beliefs with their acceptance of scientific findings. That is simply not what I am arguing for at all. Nor do I believe that science is fundamental, absolute truth.

I am not trying to attack, belittle, or condescend you or religious people in general. I hope you might be able to go back and re-read my posts to see that. You are reading messages into what I have written that are simply not there.

 

[Father Heathen]

If that was a coup then there should be some evidence of it but there is none.

There's plenty, just not where your head's located.

 

[Father Heathen]

But, I believe climate is changing, has been as long as earth has existed,

All 6,000 years of it, am I right?

 

[Arthur Brain]

I never claimed that I was 100% certain that there isn't a god, either. I am not absolutely certain.

Given the data that I have available to me, the only relevant conclusions that I can justifiably make are that theistic evolution is false and that there is no afterlife. Both are in line with scientific findings and philosophy of science.

I do not believe that people suffer from cognitive dissonance when trying to reconcile supernatural beliefs with their acceptance of scientific findings. That is simply not what I am arguing for at all. Nor do I believe that science is fundamental, absolute truth.

I am not trying to attack, belittle, or condescend you or religious people in general. I hope you might be able to go back and re-read my posts to see that. You are reading messages into what I have written that are simply not there.

Well, you kinda come across that way when stating that you know that there isn't a god and that people who find religion and science compatible are somehow misinformed and ignorant.

Science - as I think has been established already, has no comment on anything outside of the observable, testable and empirical and as such has no comment to make on the existence of deities or lack thereof.

Anyway, I'm not "religious folk" as such anyway and not offended or anything through these exchanges.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Some of Trump's apparatchiks are now admitting they lied.

JUST IN: Rudy Giuliani Concedes in Court Filing He Made ‘False’ Statements About Georgia Election Workers

In a court filing, Rudy Giuliani admitted he made "false" allegations about Georgia election workers and no longer contests the outcome of the Georgia election.

www.mediaite.com

Well, sorta...

Rudy Giuliani surrenders at Georgia jail in Trump election subversion case

Giuliani’s surrender on racketeering charges marks a low point for the former prosecutor who made a name with racketeering cases

www.theguardian.com

Rudy Giuliani, Donald Trump’s former lawyer, surrendered to authorities at the Fulton county jail on Wednesday on charges that he helped lead a racketeering enterprise and conspired to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in the state of Georgia.

The surrender in Atlanta marks a jarring moment for Giuliani, a former federal prosecutor who made his name with aggressive racketeering cases, now facing a racketeering charge himself.


Speaking to reporters after his surrender, Giuliani said, while laughing, that he was “very, very honored to be involved in this case because this case is a fight for our way of life”.

“This indictment is a travesty,” he continued. “It’s an attack on – not just me, not just President Trump … this is an attack on the American people. If this could happen to me, who is probably the most prolific prosecutor maybe in American history and the most effective mayor for sure, it can happen to you.”

Alongside Trump, Giuliani faces the most charges in the sprawling 41-count indictment handed up by a grand jury last week that described how he played a principal role in marshalling fake slates of electors among other schemes to reverse Trump’s defeat in the 2020 election.

The bond for Giuliani was set at $150,000 after his lawyers met with the Fulton county district attorney Fani Willis earlier in the day. The amount was slightly less than the $200,000 bond for Trump but more than the $100,000 bond for another former Trump lawyer, Sidney Powell.

Trump is expected to turn himself in for booking on Thursday evening, the Guardian has previously reported, during the prime viewing hours for the cable news networks as he seeks to distract from the indignity of surrendering by turning things into a made-for-television spectacle.

Giuliani left Manhattan in the morning to travel to Atlanta with his lead lawyer, John Esposito, on a private jet, though the source of the funding for the plane remains uncertain given Giuliani has struggled financially in the wake of mounting legal bills.

Giuliani’s financial trouble stemming from having to retain lawyers for the congressional and federal criminal investigations into efforts to subvert the 2020 election results have become particularly acute in recent weeks, according to two people familiar with the matter.

The money problems have been exacerbated by Giuliani’s recent setbacks in court – including in a defamation case against two Georgia election workers he falsely accused of stealing ballots – and the suspension of his law license over his election subversion efforts means he has few income streams.

The situation has led to Giuliani listing his Manhattan apartment for sale for more than $6m. He also travelled to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club in April to ask the former president to help pay his legal bills after Trump rejected his earlier entreaties for support, the people said.



Let's see how it all pans out...

 

[Ella S.]

Well, you kinda come across that way when stating that you know that there isn't a god and that people who find religion and science compatible are somehow misinformed and ignorant.

Science - as I think has been established already, has no comment on anything outside of the observable, testable and empirical and as such has no comment to make on the existence of deities or lack thereof.

Anyway, I'm not "religious folk" as such anyway and not offended or anything through these exchanges.

You are right that science has no comment on anything outside of the observable, testable, and empirical.

However, mind-body dualism is testable. Theistic evolution is testable. They have been tested and demonstrated to be false.