Science as a worldview is just like every other dogma

[Mock Turtle]

There is just a chasm of difference between using sticks to dig out termites and building a rocket that puts men on the moon.

And all based on what has gone before. I suggest you read The Knowledge Illusion by Sloman and Fernbach - not finished it myself yet - to see how not-very-clever we really are. Other primates might lack the language necessary for real progress and the brains we have but we are not that different. We seem to have been the luckier of the various proto-humans. Comparing our successes with those of other primates is not that fruitful and if we did this say 200,000 years ago (or possibly earlier), when we would essentially be the same in biological terms as humans now, then we would not appear that different from many other primates. That is, having a bit more tool use but not a great deal more.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Are you like most faith-based believers, if you just keep your eyes closed and your ears covered, you can shield yourself from the inconvenient truth?

Hey, it wasn't me that offered the extremist anti-catholic, ecumenism-phobic, paranoid conspiracy theory of globalism evangelical video.

First, and most importantly, it is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT what our founding father's personal beliefs were.

No it's not. It is the context from which their ideas were taken, and the context in which their ideas can be understood. For example, although they were against the idea of a State Church of a particular denomination, they assumed the existence of a Creator, and that this God underlied the principles of their government. You cannot divorce their actions from the context.

They believed that the rights of the many were based on the basic rights of the one(personal freedoms, and choice).

And these rights were endowed by the Creator, not by the State.

Since government could not endorse any one religion, it effectively separated itself from all religions(brilliant).

But not from religion in general, only from specific denominations. And specifically, certainly not from what would become known as Judeo-Christianity. This is why Jefferson set up Churches in the Capitol building and in other Federal institutions.

Other than by tradition, most "original source documents" are devoid of any religious referencing.

I notice you sidestepped the two references i gave you.

Our founding father's believed in freedom of thinking, skepticism, and uncertainty. They thought that they were just using the very tools given to them by a God.

As do I. There is nothing irreligious about being skeptical, pro-thinking, etc. I think you hit the nail on the head here.

The definition of God became a more natural spiritual force,

The moment you say spiritual, by definition you are talking supernatural. There are many forms of supernatural. Not all the Founding Fathers were strict Christian monotheists.

Trump's assaults on our civil liberties

Our civil liberties are being assaulted from both the right and the left. No one assaults freedom of speech and freedom of religion like the left. Anti-fa commits terrorism in order to destroy freedom of speech (not that I excuse right wing fascist, racist groups. I'm just saying).

All religions promote separatism, elitism, intolerance, hating yourself, virtue from faith, tribalism, helplessness, guilt, ignorance, and fear.

Your true agenda becomes clear. You hate religion. You are afraid of religion. You are not so much interested in freedom of religion as you are of freedom FROM religion. THAT is not an American value.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Hey, it wasn't me that offered the extremist anti-catholic, ecumenism-phobic, paranoid conspiracy theory of globalism evangelical video.

No it's not. It is the context from which their ideas were taken, and the context in which their ideas can be understood. For example, although they were against the idea of a State Church of a particular denomination, they assumed the existence of a Creator, and that this God underlied the principles of their government. You cannot divorce their actions from the context.


And these rights were endowed by the Creator, not by the State.

But not from religion in general, only from specific denominations. And specifically, certainly not from what would become known as Judeo-Christianity. This is why Jefferson set up Churches in the Capitol building and in other Federal institutions.

I notice you sidestepped the two references i gave you.

As do I. There is nothing irreligious about being skeptical, pro-thinking, etc. I think you hit the nail on the head here.


The moment you say spiritual, by definition you are talking supernatural. There are many forms of supernatural. Not all the Founding Fathers were strict Christian monotheists.



Our civil liberties are being assaulted from both the right and the left. No one assaults freedom of speech and freedom of religion like the left. Anti-fa commits terrorism in order to destroy freedom of speech (not that I excuse right wing fascist, racist groups. I'm just saying).

Your true agenda becomes clear. You hate religion. You are afraid of religion. You are not so much interested in freedom of religion as you are of freedom FROM religion. THAT is not an American value.

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I'm afraid that "The phrases "religious liberty" and "religious freedom" will stand for nothing except hypocrisy, so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance. I believe that one important American value is our freedom from all kinds of discriminations. I think that another executive order that protects those acting on their personal religious beliefs, will now allow them the right to openly discriminate based on their personal beliefs. This would certainly trample upon our freedom FROM religion. Atheists and Agnostics could no longer ignore the collective customs and behavior of the majority, and would loose their freedom FROM religion, as well as their pursuit of happiness. IMHO, discrimination and intolerance are not American values. They only represent the insecure majority asserting their beliefs onto others that don't think like them. I'm also certain that LGPT advocates, same-sex marriage advocates, Catholic adoption agencies, and those that were banned from entering the US because of their country of birth, may not agree that these aspects of religion represent any virtuous American value. Lets not even begin to talk about racism, bigotry, discrimination in schools and employment and against women, intolerance, slavery, lynching, segregation, Jim Crow Laws, and the government's manifest destiny policy, which were all considered good American values at the time. Where was the religious "hue and cry" and empathy then?

You are correct, I do enjoy my freedom from ALL religions. I do enjoy using my evolved mental abilities to avoid following my herding instinct, especially without any evidence. I do enjoy the right to plan my life, without any guilt, or the desire to become obedient to any fictitious master. I do enjoy being responsible for my own action and thoughts, without any fear of reprisals or guidance, by any culturally imposed socially created judgemental mystical entity. I do enjoy the freedom of self-expression, self-determination, self-discovery, self-esteem, and self-confidence. Finally, I do enjoy not losing my sense of wonderment and curiosity, which does NOT include "God did it all". You have private churches, schools, camps, town halls and universities, including your own religious subculture. Why do you need to impose your beliefs upon those that do not share your beliefs? Why do you need to indoctrinate the vulnerable and the helpless, with totally unproven religious dogma? Your religious mind-set is far too biased and closed minded, to lend itself to any kind of introspection, critical thinking, or self-examination. I also never open unknown files, that ask me how I want to open them. It is a security choice, not a personal choice.

I'm not sure why you can't understand, that the early government could not, and would not support, endorse, favour, or support ONE RELIGION OVER ANOTHER, PERIOD. It doesn't matter if the entire George Washington clan baked cookies, read scriptures, or confessed that God was the true architect of all life. IT IS ALL IRRELEVANT. What is historically relevant is the blueprint of the Government they created. I assume you agree that all the Supreme Court decisions have always supported the clear separation between church and state? I have also demonstrated that the rights given to its citizens(Declaration of Independence) were NOT GOD-GIVEN, but "..from the consent of the governed(people)". Maybe God is mentioned in invisible ink?

Look, it is clear that the evidence that you choose to accept, is specifically selected and equivocated to fit your religious presupposition. There is nothing I can do to prevent you from seeing and believing only what you want to see and believe. Ego, conformity and cognitive dissonance are very powerful mental discomforts. So, if you wish to accept the belief that all our founding fathers were devout religious practitioners(including the colonists), and for some reason decided to create a new government that was protected from the interference of all religious beliefs, then this would be just an exercise in futility. Surely the fathers could have added amendments, or other safeguards, to protect any infringements on any established religious belief they chose. Your argument is counter-intuitive, and internally flawed. I believe that to admit that you may be wrong, would be far more devastating, than to admit that others may be right.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I'm afraid that "The phrases "religious liberty" and "religious freedom" will stand for nothing except hypocrisy, so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance. I believe that one important American value is our freedom from all kinds of discriminations. I think that another executive order that protects those acting on their personal religious beliefs, will now allow them the right to openly discriminate based on their personal beliefs. This would certainly trample upon our freedom FROM religion. Atheists and Agnostics could no longer ignore the collective customs and behavior of the majority, and would loose their freedom FROM religion, as well as their pursuit of happiness. IMHO, discrimination and intolerance are not American values. They only represent the insecure majority asserting their beliefs onto others that don't think like them. I'm also certain that LGPT advocates, same-sex marriage advocates, Catholic adoption agencies, and those that were banned from entering the US because of their country of birth, may not agree that these aspects of religion represent any virtuous American value. Lets not even begin to talk about racism, bigotry, discrimination in schools and employment and against women, intolerance, slavery, lynching, segregation, Jim Crow Laws, and the government's manifest destiny policy, which were all considered good American values at the time. Where was the religious "hue and cry" and empathy then?

You are correct, I do enjoy my freedom from ALL religions. I do enjoy using my evolved mental abilities to avoid following my herding instinct, especially without any evidence. I do enjoy the right to plan my life, without any guilt, or the desire to become obedient to any fictitious master. I do enjoy being responsible for my own action and thoughts, without any fear of reprisals or guidance, by any culturally imposed socially created judgemental mystical entity. I do enjoy the freedom of self-expression, self-determination, self-discovery, self-esteem, and self-confidence. Finally, I do enjoy not losing my sense of wonderment and curiosity, which does NOT include "God did it all". You have private churches, schools, camps, town halls and universities, including your own religious subculture. Why do you need to impose your beliefs upon those that do not share your beliefs? Why do you need to indoctrinate the vulnerable and the helpless, with totally unproven religious dogma? Your religious mind-set is far too biased and closed minded, to lend itself to any kind of introspection, critical thinking, or self-examination. I also never open unknown files, that ask me how I want to open them. It is a security choice, not a personal choice.

I'm not sure why you can't understand, that the early government could not, and would not support, endorse, favour, or support ONE RELIGION OVER ANOTHER, PERIOD. It doesn't matter if the entire George Washington clan baked cookies, read scriptures, or confessed that God was the true architect of all life. IT IS ALL IRRELEVANT. What is historically relevant is the blueprint of the Government they created. I assume you agree that all the Supreme Court decisions have always supported the clear separation between church and state? I have also demonstrated that the rights given to its citizens(Declaration of Independence) were NOT GOD-GIVEN, but "..from the consent of the governed(people)". Maybe God is mentioned in invisible ink?

Look, it is clear that the evidence that you choose to accept, is specifically selected and equivocated to fit your religious presupposition. There is nothing I can do to prevent you from seeing and believing only what you want to see and believe. Ego, conformity and cognitive dissonance are very powerful mental discomforts. So, if you wish to accept the belief that all our founding fathers were devout religious practitioners(including the colonists), and for some reason decided to create a new government that was protected from the interference of all religious beliefs, then this would be just an exercise in futility. Surely the fathers could have added amendments, or other safeguards, to protect any infringements on any established religious belief they chose. Your argument is counter-intuitive, and internally flawed. I believe that to admit that you may be wrong, would be far more devastating, than to admit that others may be right.

Like I said, the Founding Father were NOT interested in freedom FROM religion. Far from it. Your idea flies in the face of American values.

Would you agree that people act differently when observed? There are religious people who truly believe that God sees everything they do, and that he judges them accordingly. This observation does indeed make a difference overall.

I as a Jew am hardly intolerant the way you described. Yet I am in favor of a religious culture that influences the decisions of our lawmakers. As I said above, observation makes a difference, and it will make a difference in the quality of the legislation. The following Jewish midrash illustrates the tolerance for other religions, while having a preference for religion in general:

The Baal Shem Tov was traveling with his students from Minsk to Pinsk, having hired a man to drive them. As they passed through a town, the Rebbe asked the man to stop, saying they had no further need of his services. He paid the man, who then went on his way. The students were clearly confused and inquired, since the still had quite a ways to goes before they reached Pinsk. The Rebbe said, "We passed a Church in the town and he did not cross himself. It means he is not a religious man, and cannot be trusted.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Like I said, the Founding Father were NOT interested in freedom FROM religion. Far from it. Your idea flies in the face of American values.

Would you agree that people act differently when observed? There are religious people who truly believe that God sees everything they do, and that he judges them accordingly. This observation does indeed make a difference overall.

I as a Jew am hardly intolerant the way you described. Yet I am in favor of a religious culture that influences the decisions of our lawmakers. As I said above, observation makes a difference, and it will make a difference in the quality of the legislation. The following Jewish midrash illustrates the tolerance for other religions, while having a preference for religion in general:

The Baal Shem Tov was traveling with his students from Minsk to Pinsk, having hired a man to drive them. As they passed through a town, the Rebbe asked the man to stop, saying they had no further need of his services. He paid the man, who then went on his way. The students were clearly confused and inquired, since the still had quite a ways to goes before they reached Pinsk. The Rebbe said, "We passed a Church in the town and he did not cross himself. It means he is not a religious man, and cannot be trusted.

Thank you again. Religious intolerance does not mean just intolerance towards other religions. It also means intolerance towards unbelievers as well. The Bible contains many scriptures inciting Religious intolerance, such as: Exodus 23:32, Exodus 34:14, Deuteronomy 5:7, Deuteronomy 6:15; Deuteronomy 7:25, Deuteronomy 13:6-9, Deuteronomy 17:2-7, 2 Chronicles 15:13, Jeremiah 10:2, Matthew 12:30, Luke 11:23, and Romans 16:17. There are scriptures inciting people to kill or commit Genocide, such as, Deuteronomy 13:6-9; Deuteronomy 17:2-7; and 2 Chronicles 15:13., Deuteronomy 2:34, or inciting people to avoid unbelievers, such as, Romans 16:17. Studies demonstrates that the majority of Christians would disapprove of their child marrying an Atheist. In spite of the Supreme Court ruling in 1961, seven(7) states still prevent Atheists from holding office. In Arkansas, non-theists are legally disqualified from bearing witness in court. Also, Secular Humanists were denied representation at the interfaith memorial service on April 18, 2013, following the Boston Marathon bombing, despite the fact that at least two of the victims were affiliated with the secular community. The Bible was also used to provide the European settlers with an ideology to justify exterminating Native Americans. In Cotton Maher's famous speech(1689) to the military, he accused Natives of murdering Christians, and compared them to the Amalekites and the Canaanites. Native Americans were almost wiped out. Ever wondered why there are no Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites, or Amalekites today(other than the obvious reason)?

I really don't think you want me to give you thousands of other historical examples of religious intolerance committed in the past and the present. These would include, the burning of 10's of thousands of accused witches, the Protestants in England persecuting the Catholics, the targeting of Jews during the Crusades in Europe, the Inquisition, the Spanish expulsion of Jews and Moors, or the Arab's national campaign against Christians. There are verses in the Quran that close the door to any possible understanding between Muslims and followers of other religions: If you want, I could cite many, many more examples of the "The irrationality of religious hatred, intolerance and violence". Clearly, these are not the American values that I live by.

I never claimed that our founding fathers were interested in its citizens being free FROM religion. I said that they wanted the new GOVERNMENT to be free FROM religion. This ideal is certainly supported in all of the founding documents I mentioned earlier, as well as in all subsequent Supreme Court rulings. Everyone has the freedom to exercise their own beliefs, as long as they don't infringe upon the freedom of others exercising their own beliefs, or non-beliefs. Whether you believe that religions promoted, sanctioned, or agreed with, racism, bigotry, discrimination in schools, sexism, homophobia, religious and racial intolerance, slavery, lynching, segregation, Jim Crow Laws, and the government's manifest destiny policy, is irrelevant since history agrees with me. I do agree that people can say one thing and mean and do another. But again I don't see any examples of this. As I've stated before, even when buried by the weight of the evidence, cognitive bias, dissonance, a closed mind, and denial, are all far to powerful for the truth.
​

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Thank you again. Religious intolerance does not mean just intolerance towards other religions. It also means intolerance towards unbelievers as well. The Bible contains many scriptures inciting Religious intolerance, such as: Exodus 23:32, Exodus 34:14, Deuteronomy 5:7, Deuteronomy 6:15; Deuteronomy 7:25, Deuteronomy 13:6-9, Deuteronomy 17:2-7, 2 Chronicles 15:13, Jeremiah 10:2, Matthew 12:30, Luke 11:23, and Romans 16:17. There are scriptures inciting people to kill or commit Genocide, such as, Deuteronomy 13:6-9; Deuteronomy 17:2-7; and 2 Chronicles 15:13., Deuteronomy 2:34, or inciting people to avoid unbelievers, such as, Romans 16:17. Studies demonstrates that the majority of Christians would disapprove of their child marrying an Atheist. In spite of the Supreme Court ruling in 1961, seven(7) states still prevent Atheists from holding office. In Arkansas, non-theists are legally disqualified from bearing witness in court. Also, Secular Humanists were denied representation at the interfaith memorial service on April 18, 2013, following the Boston Marathon bombing, despite the fact that at least two of the victims were affiliated with the secular community. The Bible was also used to provide the European settlers with an ideology to justify exterminating Native Americans. In Cotton Maher's famous speech(1689) to the military, he accused Natives of murdering Christians, and compared them to the Amalekites and the Canaanites. Native Americans were almost wiped out. Ever wondered why there are no Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites, or Amalekites today(other than the obvious reason)?

I really don't think you want me to give you thousands of other historical examples of religious intolerance committed in the past and the present. These would include, the burning of 10's of thousands of accused witches, the Protestants in England persecuting the Catholics, the targeting of Jews during the Crusades in Europe, the Inquisition, the Spanish expulsion of Jews and Moors, or the Arab's national campaign against Christians. There are verses in the Quran that close the door to any possible understanding between Muslims and followers of other religions: If you want, I could cite many, many more examples of the "The irrationality of religious hatred, intolerance and violence". Clearly, these are not the American values that I live by.

I never claimed that our founding fathers were interested in its citizens being free FROM religion. I said that they wanted the new GOVERNMENT to be free FROM religion. This ideal is certainly supported in all of the founding documents I mentioned earlier, as well as in all subsequent Supreme Court rulings. Everyone has the freedom to exercise their own beliefs, as long as they don't infringe upon the freedom of others exercising their own beliefs, or non-beliefs. Whether you believe that religions promoted, sanctioned, or agreed with, racism, bigotry, discrimination in schools, sexism, homophobia, religious and racial intolerance, slavery, lynching, segregation, Jim Crow Laws, and the government's manifest destiny policy, is irrelevant since history agrees with me. I do agree that people can say one thing and mean and do another. But again I don't see any examples of this. As I've stated before, even when buried by the weight of the evidence, cognitive bias, dissonance, a closed mind, and denial, are all far to powerful for the truth.
​

It is one thing if you say the Founding Fathers wanted the government to be secular. It is quite another if you say they wanted it to be free from the influence of religion. They very definitely wanted it to be influenced by religion.

I think that it is important that our society be tolerant of those who choose no religion at all. Very definitely so. One of the foundational values is freedom of speech as well as freedom of religion--both imply freedom of thought. It all boils down to the dignity of the individual, the value that springs from the idea that we are created in the image of God. There are very, very few exceptions to this freedom, such as when a person is advocating violence against someone else. I go so far as to even support freedom of hate speech. Vile neo-Nazis can spew their noxious anti-Semitism against me to preserve this freedom. If I can tolerate that, I for sure can tolerate good hearted, civic minded atheists.

What I am unwilling to do is turn the country into a secular humanist state, which is the goal of a good many people. And I am unwilling to divorce government from religious influence or to divorce it from the religious culture from which it springs.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

It is one thing if you say the Founding Fathers wanted the government to be secular. It is quite another if you say they wanted it to be free from the influence of religion. They very definitely wanted it to be influenced by religion.

I think that it is important that our society be tolerant of those who choose no religion at all. Very definitely so. One of the foundational values is freedom of speech as well as freedom of religion--both imply freedom of thought. It all boils down to the dignity of the individual, the value that springs from the idea that we are created in the image of God. There are very, very few exceptions to this freedom, such as when a person is advocating violence against someone else. I go so far as to even support freedom of hate speech. Vile neo-Nazis can spew their noxious anti-Semitism against me to preserve this freedom. If I can tolerate that, I for sure can tolerate good hearted, civic minded atheists.

What I am unwilling to do is turn the country into a secular humanist state, which is the goal of a good many people. And I am unwilling to divorce government from religious influence or to divorce it from the religious culture from which it springs.

Thanks again. Again you are simply blinded by your own bias to be objective in thought. Our freedom of speech is certainly limited. Obscenity is not protected by our 1st Amendment(Miller vs. California). Lying is covered by the First Amendment, except when it’s not. You can be prosecuted for lying under oath. Just ask Martha Steward(lying about stock trading). Deliberately lying to people, or running a dishonest advertisement, can lead to libel and slander lawsuits. Inciting Violence or Hate is not protected by the 1st Amendment. You can’t knowingly say things that will cause severe emotional distress or incite others to “immediate lawless action”. The speech of people plotting to overthrow the Government, is also not protected(Dennis vs. United States). Students while in school have limited rights to what they can say or print.

Remember, you don’t have the right to say whatever you want in someone else’s home or other private setting. As an employee, you have no free-speech rights at your workplace. The Constitution’s right to free speech applies only when the government, not a private entity, is trying to restrict it. The law also prohibits speech that shows clear intent to discriminate or sexually harass. The law also prevents employees in medical or financial fields from discussing your confidential information outside of work. Finally the Amendment has never permitted Americans to protest in any way they wanted. While the government can’t control what you say, how you say it, must all be subject to what the courts consider is an appropriate time, place, and manner(shouting fire in a movie theatre). Therefore, our Freedom of Speech is not so free. There are also many limitations on our Freedom of Religion. Please do your homework before making these unsupported assertions.

I never said that our founding fathers wanted a secular government. I said that they simply wanted a Government free FROM religion.They knew the only way to protect Religious liberty, was to keep the Government out of religion. What do you think would happen if the Government did sanction a Government religion? How do you think the other religions might respond? Our founding fathers knew the value of religion, in terms of its morality, and how it might protect it against Despotism. This is not about Religion within the Nation, it's about Religion within the Government. The two ideas are separate. I also think you mean Freedom of choice, since how one thinks require no freedom.

Comprising less than 4% of the population, I don't think you need to worry about any imaginary plot by Atheists. If there was only ONE shred of objective evidence that could support ANY supernatural entity, that 4% would immediately disappear. Until such time, Atheists will continue to spend their lives enjoying things that are real, and not imaginary. My worry is in spite of all the obvious cruelties and atrocities religions have caused man to do to his fellow man, there is still a real danger of spreading this insidious dogma into my Government. All I'm saying is, that you can practice or believe in any fantasy you like, but I don't want to be governed by those fantasies. My freedom FROM all religious beliefs should also be protected. My father once told me that "if you tell people what they want to hear, they will believe you. but if you tell them what they want to believe, they will follow you".

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Thanks again. Again you are simply blinded by your own bias to be objective in thought. Our freedom of speech is certainly limited. Obscenity is not protected by our 1st Amendment(Miller vs. California). Lying is covered by the First Amendment, except when it’s not. You can be prosecuted for lying under oath. Just ask Martha Steward(lying about stock trading). Deliberately lying to people, or running a dishonest advertisement, can lead to libel and slander lawsuits. Inciting Violence or Hate is not protected by the 1st Amendment. You can’t knowingly say things that will cause severe emotional distress or incite others to “immediate lawless action”. The speech of people plotting to overthrow the Government, is also not protected(Dennis vs. United States). Students while in school have limited rights to what they can say or print.

Remember, you don’t have the right to say whatever you want in someone else’s home or other private setting. As an employee, you have no free-speech rights at your workplace. The Constitution’s right to free speech applies only when the government, not a private entity, is trying to restrict it. The law also prohibits speech that shows clear intent to discriminate or sexually harass. The law also prevents employees in medical or financial fields from discussing your confidential information outside of work. Finally the Amendment has never permitted Americans to protest in any way they wanted. While the government can’t control what you say, how you say it, must all be subject to what the courts consider is an appropriate time, place, and manner(shouting fire in a movie theatre). Therefore, our Freedom of Speech is not so free. There are also many limitations on our Freedom of Religion. Please do your homework before making these unsupported assertions.

I never said that our founding fathers wanted a secular government. I said that they simply wanted a Government free FROM religion.They knew the only way to protect Religious liberty, was to keep the Government out of religion. What do you think would happen if the Government did sanction a Government religion? How do you think the other religions might respond? Our founding fathers knew the value of religion, in terms of its morality, and how it might protect it against Despotism. This is not about Religion within the Nation, it's about Religion within the Government. The two ideas are separate. I also think you mean Freedom of choice, since how one thinks require no freedom.

Comprising less than 4% of the population, I don't think you need to worry about any imaginary plot by Atheists. If there was only ONE shred of objective evidence that could support ANY supernatural entity, that 4% would immediately disappear. Until such time, Atheists will continue to spend their lives enjoying things that are real, and not imaginary. My worry is in spite of all the obvious cruelties and atrocities religions have caused man to do to his fellow man, there is still a real danger of spreading this insidious dogma into my Government. All I'm saying is, that you can practice or believe in any fantasy you like, but I don't want to be governed by those fantasies. My freedom FROM all religious beliefs should also be protected. My father once told me that "if you tell people what they want to hear, they will believe you. but if you tell them what they want to believe, they will follow you".

I stand by what I've said.

 

[Bear Wild]

Like I said, the Founding Father were NOT interested in freedom FROM religion. Far from it. Your idea flies in the face of American values.

Would you agree that people act differently when observed? There are religious people who truly believe that God sees everything they do, and that he judges them accordingly. This observation does indeed make a difference overall.

I as a Jew am hardly intolerant the way you described. Yet I am in favor of a religious culture that influences the decisions of our lawmakers. As I said above, observation makes a difference, and it will make a difference in the quality of the legislation. The following Jewish midrash illustrates the tolerance for other religions, while having a preference for religion in general:

The Baal Shem Tov was traveling with his students from Minsk to Pinsk, having hired a man to drive them. As they passed through a town, the Rebbe asked the man to stop, saying they had no further need of his services. He paid the man, who then went on his way. The students were clearly confused and inquired, since the still had quite a ways to goes before they reached Pinsk. The Rebbe said, "We passed a Church in the town and he did not cross himself. It means he is not a religious man, and cannot be trusted.

The "founding father" , note no mothers, were seeking religious freedom for all religions and beliefs. The ideas for this was forged in England and most of what Jefferson wrote can be traced to events and thoughts expressed in the events and beliefs in England. It was also to appease all the different views in the 13 colonies and considering the viewpoint of the southern colonies It was prudent to include the word God with the representatives that had to agree . They most certainty however wanted to separate religion from the government - separation of church and state. There were many reasons for this but it is clear the decision making of our government was to be free of religious influence.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Many dictators, despots, tyrants, and religious leaders, also stood by their own dogma and rhetoric. But history has also proven them wrong. It is the degree of certainty(not faith) that determines what is objectively true, and what is subjectively true. The degree of certainty is determined by a consensus of objective evidence, not a consensus of subjective anecdotes and confirmation biases. You are simply ignoring all the objective facts and evidence that I have clearly presented. It is not necessary to rote parrot your beliefs, especially when they are based entirely on your faith and some creative sophistry. The truth is self-evident, observable, and consistent, and certainly doesn't require your acceptance to be true.

So, unless you can provide objective evidence to support your disagreement, then your position and beliefs are just irrelevant and illogical. But you are guaranteed the right to believe anything you want under our Constitution. Do you believe that what we do in this life will have any consequences to our dead bodies?

 

[gnostic]

What I am unwilling to do is turn the country into a secular humanist state, which is the goal of a good many people. And I am unwilling to divorce government from religious influence or to divorce it from the religious culture from which it springs.

Real secular humanism, the ideal of secularism, is that no one religion have all the rights, hence the separation of state and religion.

The ideals of secularism is not about being making the state into a government system of being “anti-religion”, but being “religion-neutral”, so that anyone free join any religion, or have no religion.

Meaning the citizens have the same voting rights, the same judicial protection, if ones are theists, religious, atheists, agnostics or non-religious - no discrimination.

Of course, political systems, whether in the US or elsewhere in the world, never followed the non-discrimination ideals of secularism, because some leaders are bast###s, who would abuse secularism, just as they would abuse religion for their own racist or discriminatory agendas.

The American Constitution was not implemented as intended. Slavery of African-Americans still existed until the American Civil War. But even freedom from slavery, didn’t mean they could vote like any White Americans, until the Civil Rights movements.

The American Constitution didn’t guarantee voting rights for women.

The treatments of Native Americans are also dismal, involved separationism, by shipping them to Indian Reservations.

You think the Nazi Germans were only white supremacy. White supremacy have also existed in the US, long before the Nazis.

Try the Ku Klux Klan. They were originally organisation, of southern Protestant origins, that arose to terrorise newly freed black slaves, during the late 19th century.

The KKK died off, only to reappear again the 1920s, but this time blacks weren’t their only targets; Jews too, as well as whole hosts of others. They resurfaced again during the civil rights movement, in the 50s and 60s, trying to stop African Americans from having voting rights and other social rights.

Despite the “all men being created equals” featured in the Constitution, the ideal and political-social reality weren’t the same, because the American systems were never perfect. Extremists did exist in the US through various factions, and some of the disruptions were religious-motivated.

Like it or not, IndigoChild5559, the Christian leaders didn’t invent “men being equals ideal” because of Judaeo-Christian scriptures. Thomas Jefferson may have been one of the men involved in the US Declaration of Independence, it weren’t the Christian values or any religious scripture that inspired him to pen this in. Jefferson was actually inspired by writings of French philosophers during the 18th century Age of Enlightenment, where the concept of secular ideals appeared in the first place.

But as I said, people have the tendencies to abuse any ideal. Dictators, communists and even the American republic have abused secular ideals to something else that allowed for discrimination.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The "founding father" , note no mothers, were seeking religious freedom for all religions and beliefs. The ideas for this was forged in England and most of what Jefferson wrote can be traced to events and thoughts expressed in the events and beliefs in England. It was also to appease all the different views in the 13 colonies and considering the viewpoint of the southern colonies It was prudent to include the word God with the representatives that had to agree . They most certainty however wanted to separate religion from the government - separation of church and state. There were many reasons for this but it is clear the decision making of our government was to be free of religious influence.

I disagree with the part about government being free of relligious influence. The founding fathers assumed that those governing would be religious men, and that their religious beliefs and virtues would rightly influence their political decisions. They also embraced such things as religious invocations before the start of congress, church services in the Capitol and other Federal institutions, etc. The interpretation of the first amendment was very different then than it is now.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Real secular humanism, the ideal of secularism, is that no one religion have all the rights, hence the separation of state and religion.

The ideals of secularism is not about being making the state into a government system of being “anti-religion”, but being “religion-neutral”, so that anyone free join any religion, or have no religion.

Meaning the citizens have the same voting rights, the same judicial protection, if ones are theists, religious, atheists, agnostics or non-religious - no discrimination.

Of course, political systems, whether in the US or elsewhere in the world, never followed the non-discrimination ideals of secularism, because some leaders are bast###s, who would abuse secularism, just as they would abuse religion for their own racist or discriminatory agendas.

The American Constitution was not implemented as intended. Slavery of African-Americans still existed until the American Civil War. But even freedom from slavery, didn’t mean they could vote like any White Americans, until the Civil Rights movements.

The American Constitution didn’t guarantee voting rights for women.

The treatments of Native Americans are also dismal, involved separationism, by shipping them to Indian Reservations.

You think the Nazi Germans were only white supremacy. White supremacy have also existed in the US, long before the Nazis.

Try the Ku Klux Klan. They were originally organisation, of southern Protestant origins, that arose to terrorise newly freed black slaves, during the late 19th century.

The KKK died off, only to reappear again the 1920s, but this time blacks weren’t their only targets; Jews too, as well as whole hosts of others. They resurfaced again during the civil rights movement, in the 50s and 60s, trying to stop African Americans from having voting rights and other social rights.

Despite the “all men being created equals” featured in the Constitution, the ideal and political-social reality weren’t the same, because the American systems were never perfect. Extremists did exist in the US through various factions, and some of the disruptions were religious-motivated.

Like it or not, IndigoChild5559, the Christian leaders didn’t invent “men being equals ideal” because of Judaeo-Christian scriptures. Thomas Jefferson may have been one of the men involved in the US Declaration of Independence, it weren’t the Christian values or any religious scripture that inspired him to pen this in. Jefferson was actually inspired by writings of French philosophers during the 18th century Age of Enlightenment, where the concept of secular ideals appeared in the first place.

But as I said, people have the tendencies to abuse any ideal. Dictators, communists and even the American republic have abused secular ideals to something else that allowed for discrimination.

The enlightenment didn't grow in a vacuum. It was a product of European Christianity, post Reformation. It combined the ideals and virtues of Christianity with the rational thought of the Greeks, blending it in a new unique way. One of the results was science -- we can credit the western Christian world for what is perhaps the most practical helpful methodology ever known to man.

sec·u·lar hu·man·ism
noun

1. humanism, with regard in particular to the belief that humanity is capable of morality and self-fulfillment without belief in God.

THUS you are incorrect about secular humanism providing an environment equally amenable to all religions -- it is by definition hostile to all religions that believe in God/the Divine. It presents itself as, basically, a replacement for religion.

 

[Bear Wild]

I disagree with the part about government being free of relligious influence. The founding fathers assumed that those governing would be religious men, and that their religious beliefs and virtues would rightly influence their political decisions. They also embraced such things as religious invocations before the start of congress, church services in the Capitol and other Federal institutions, etc. The interpretation of the first amendment was very different then than it is now.

I never said that the founders were not religious. At that time in history it would have been unusual to find anyone that would claim they were not religious at all even if they were not. That said they clearly wanted the government to be free from religious influence. They did not trust anyone religion. Go back to where the ideas for the united states government started. England went through tremendous bloodshed and divisions over religions. They went through persecutions for having different views of religion. With that setting the government was set apart from any one religion and was designed to make decisions influence by religion to avoid any one religion to obtain too much influence. Yes the kept some rituals but most of the decision making was establish a government open all forms of beliefs.
Whether intended or not this created a basically religious free government where ultimately a representative could be Muslim, Atheist, Pantheist, Jewish, Christian or other. A similar event occurred when King Henry the VIII broke from Rome. He did not want to create a protestant country but his actions lead the way to the changes which occurred. The decisions that the united states founding fathers made lead to a secular government which protects the rights for individuals to have their own beliefs. Additionally there was such a wide range of beliefs at the time from Quakers to Anglicans, to Catholics, to Baptists, to Puritans and many others that saw religion very differently and not very tolerant of each other. Members of our government do not have to be Judeo-Christian or follow those teachings. They saw not other alternative to keep the forming country together than to avoid any one religious view to control the government.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That said they clearly wanted the government to be free from religious influence.

You are simply mistaken, a victim of revisionist history of our times. I stand by what I said in my previous post, that they expected government representatives to be influenced by religion in their political decisions, and they expected some cultural religion crossover such as invocational prayers and church services in the Capitol and other Federal institutions.

They did not trust anyone religion.

It depends on what you mean. They did not want a national church as in one particular DENOMINATION. They weren't interested in giving all the religious power to Catholics or Baptists or Presbyterians or Congregationalists. But they certainly DID consider the country founded on a common Judeo-Christian ethic and scripture. All the Masons and Deists and Christians found common ground in this. It was a common culture. It wasn't Hindu or Buddhist or Native American Spirituality. And it certainly wasn't secular humanism.

A similar event occurred when King Henry the VIII broke from Rome. He did not want to create a protestant country but his actions lead the way to the changes which occurred.

Henry's Church of England was Protestant in that it protested the Catholic Church. However it was not until Queen Elizabeth that the Church of England took to heart the 5 solas of Protestantism. I really have no idea what you mean when you say that Henry didn't want to create a "protestant" church. He wasn't into Luther's teachings, but he very definitely wanted to break with Rome. This topic is kind of tangential to our main one of the founding fathers and religious influence upon government.

 

[Hawkins]

Science is a dogma of belief simply because its nature is misunderstood by its believers. Science is about the discovery of a set of rule behind a repeatable phenomenon. The phenomenon itself can be repeatable unlimited number of times for human to study repeatedly and infinitive number of times to get to a conclusion. More importantly, the result can be extremely accurate because the repeating phenomenon allows us to predict the it repeats itself into the future. In a nutshell, humans don't have the capability to tell a future, if we can repeatedly predict a future without error, it only means that the tool/theory we are using to predict such a future must be a true. The is the nature of what science is and why it is accurate. Physics theory can always predictably bring us to the surface of the moon. If we failed we don't complain about the theory or physics laws. It must be an error due to other factors (such as human errors) than the physics laws. If a space shuttle exploded, no one will question that it's a failure of our physics laws. That is to say, the prediction by physics laws that we can land to the surface of moon will always come to pass and infallible. If our mission failed it's not because anything wrong with the prediction of the physics laws. It must be something else in error.

The misconception comes from the believers of science think that science relies on evidence to stand. This is the biggest misunderstanding ever existed. Science relies on the prediction of a repeating behavior to stand, instead of evidence. Evidence is just a superficial understanding of science. This misunderstanding actually makes science a religion of dogmas. This is so because the belief of "evidence" allows the term "science" to be extendable to areas outside the scope of a repeatable phenomenon. The believers of "science" have faith that science is about almost everything as along as "evidence" is applicable in supporting a scenario, and to retain the comparable accuracy of a true science. This "world view of science" is however a religion of belief, the most deceptive one ever existed.

 

[ChristineM]

Science is a dogma of belief simply because its nature is misunderstood by its believers. Science is about the discovery of a set of rule behind a repeatable phenomenon. The phenomenon itself can be repeatable unlimited number of times for human to study repeatedly and infinitive number of times to get to a conclusion. More importantly, the result can be extremely accurate because the repeating phenomenon allows us to predict the it repeats itself into the future. In a nutshell, humans don't have the capability to tell a future, if we can repeatedly predict a future without error, it only means that the tool/theory we are using to predict such a future must be a true. The is the nature of what science is and why it is accurate. Physics theory can always predictably bring us to the surface of the moon. If we failed we don't complain about the theory or physics laws. It must be an error due to other factors (such as human errors) than the physics laws. If a space shuttle exploded, no one will question that it's a failure of our physics laws. That is to say, the prediction by physics laws that we can land to the surface of moon will always come to pass and infallible. If our mission failed it's not because anything wrong with the prediction of the physics laws. It must be something else in error.

The misconception comes from the believers of science think that science relies on evidence to stand. This is the biggest misunderstanding ever existed. Science relies on the prediction of a repeating behavior to stand, instead of evidence. Evidence is just a superficial understanding of science. This misunderstanding actually makes science a religion of dogmas. This is so because the belief of "evidence" allows the term "science" to be extendable to areas outside the scope of a repeatable phenomenon. The believers of "science" have faith that science is about almost everything as along as "evidence" is applicable in supporting a scenario, and to retain the comparable accuracy of a true science. This "world view of science" is however a religion of belief, the most deceptive one ever existed.

Science : the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Misrepresentation of the definition scores no one any points.

 

[Hawkins]

Science : the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Misrepresentation of the definition scores no one any points.

That actually implies that the behavior can repeat itself for observation. You failed to represent it more precisely scores no one any points. It's thus an attempt to use a more superficial definition which failed to represent a more in-depth nature of what science is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That actually implies that the behavior can repeat itself for observation. You failed to represent it more precisely scores no one any points. It's thus an attempt to use a more superficial definition which failed to represent a more in-depth nature of what science is.

That you do not seem to understand what a dogma is does not score you any points. Instead of word salad and nonsense can you name one specific "dogma" of science?

 

[Hawkins]

That you do not seem to understand what a dogma is does not score you any points. Instead of word salad and nonsense can you name one specific "dogma" of science?

I already answered that, re-read my post.

In a nutshell, you can't call everything a science. Science is a very specific set of truth mostly with a phenomenon which can repeat itself. Anything going beyond this point as leveraged by the term "evidence" remains the "dogma of a fabricated world view".

An example is, whatever you eat today can be evidenced or not. Whatever method you use to make your meal today evidenced can't usually be considered a science, as you can't use the same method to detect the same evidence for a meal you ate several years ago. Your meal (i.e., the food contents you ate) in its very nature is not a repeatable phenomenon subject to repeating observation.