Let’s chat about the atheist religion.

[Age]

Most moral people will call discrimination without a just cause evil and fight the bastards who do it. Right?

Regards
DL

Is it possible to discriminate and it be 'just'?

If yes, then please explain, and with examples please.

That is rather obvious, but ----

Every law has a compulsion to discriminate negatively against a certain sub-group of our society.

That could be the murderer demographic of rapist for two examples.

But how is that 'just'?

Is ABSOLUTELY EVERY one who has been discriminated against negatively done what they have been separated and discriminated into, and against?

Also, 'laws' themselves are NOT 'just' at all. Laws are made to punish, and that is obviously NOT 'just' at all.

I asked is it possible to discriminate, and it be 'just'?

Discriminating negatively against one human being for any reason is obviously NOT 'just'. Obviously, if any thing is being done negatively against another human being, then that is NOT 'just'.

If you do not discriminate negatively against them, should you know of one and the law learns of it, you will likely end in jail.

Well I CERTAINLY DO NOT and WILL NEVER discriminate 'negatively against' any human being at all.

But I have just worked out that it is possible to discriminate 'between' human beings and it being neutral, and thus 'just'.

I had previously, up to just now, seen the word 'discriminate' as only being only a negative connotation. So, just another example of how it is far better to NEVER assume anything at all.

Do you get the idea of what just discrimination looks like?

Regards
DL

Certainly not from what you have just said. I obviously now KNOW of what your idea of what you sadly call "just discrimination" looks like. But what you have described is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what 'just discrimination' is and would be.

I worked out what 'just discrimination' is from what "others" have said, and was then able to discriminate between was is right and 'just' discrimination from what your obviously wrong and 'unjust' discrimination is. So, thank you for answering my clarifying question here.

[Age]

Point taken.

IOW, Yin/religion, cannot exist without Yang/atheism.

Take 'beliefs' out of all human beings, then there is NO religion, and also nothing to fight for nor fight against.

Very simple AND very easy really.

Belief in the notion that there is more to life than what we see is natural and instinctive. We are built to create gods. We just forgot that we created all of them and stupidly let ourselves be subsumed by them.

But only some do this. Not all of us do this.

Knowing this truth is why Gnostic Christians put man above god, while the stupid religions put god above man.

Regards
DL

EVERY religion is STUPID, by definition. The so called "gnostic christian" religion being NO different.

Being religious, by definition, is 'being stupid'.

Wrong on all counts.

Regards
DL

Okay. So the one known here as "greatest i am" believes and says that what I wrote is "wrong on ALL counts", and therefore because the greatest one of all says that was "wrong on ALL counts" then that MEANS it MUST BE wrong. So, are we meant to just agree with this and accept it as being the absolutely Truth of things, or would you care to give us some logical reasons of why ALL of what I said here is "wrong on ALL counts"?

Are you even remotely aware that if you do not provide absolutely any thing other than what you said here, then I am none the wiser of WHY what I said here is "wrong on ALL counts"? The only thing I am certain about is that you believe that what I said was "wrong on ALL counts". As for WHY you would believe such a thing I am yet to be informed of.

So, will you show with explanations and/or with evidence WHY what I said here is "wrong on ALL counts"?

[Age]

I'm neither religious nor spiritual.

I'm not the former, not sure about the latter.

Atheism is not a religion.

AMEN!

I know Mr Kant dismisses and disparages your posts (why so? - i've seen your posts here and i find value in them - i think he is wrong on this count - but whatever).

I thank you for your post Sir, welcome future discourse with you.

just curious, are you an Atheist? - none of my business of course.

How are people defining the words 'atheist' and 'atheism' here exactly?

To me, 'atheism' is having a belief that God does not exist, or having a disbelief that God does exist. 'Atheist' is just a human being with that belief or disbelief.

To me, 'atheism' is not having no belief at all and essentially no view either way about any thing that the word 'God' relates to existing or not existing.

Am I the only one who defines 'atheism' and 'atheist' this way?

What is the consensus here?

Surely if we want to "chat about the atheist religion", then we will have to agree on and accept just one definition of the word 'atheist' here, correct?

And, if we do not all put forward our own completely separated and individual definitions first. then we will not be able to find just one definition, which we are all willing to accept and agree upon, for this discussion to take place peacefully and productively, correct?

[Age]

Being religious, by definition, is 'being stupid'.

Fully dissagree - and anyone that thinks that way is stoooopid - including any that are also not just stooopid but also Atheist and stupid.

Okay so you fully disagree that 'being religious', by definition, is 'being stupid'. So, explain why you "fully disagree".

They (those of Faith - some are thoughtfull and not just born into their faith (who are a minority IMO) and have faith to "Believe" - just believe in thier God/s via Faith (unlike me who refuses to affirm knowledge outside of empirical truth).

there are the rest of the Religious - the majority - who were just born into it. they have no Faith - never thought about stuff - .my dad/mom were jews/hindus/etc.....so i am too sort of mindlessness mindset.

What you said here has nothing to do with what I was talking about and meaning, so it appears you are not "fully disagreeing" with what I actually said and meant, but with what you are assuming I am saying and meaning.

------------------

Being religious, by definition, is 'being stupid'

if you actually beleive the above then you are stooopid IMO.

But I do not believe nor disbelieve the above, NOR DO I BELIEVE NOR DISBELIEVE ABSOLUTELY ANY THING ELSE IN THE UNIVERSE.

I neither believe nor disbelieve absolutely any thing - if you have not figured this out since i showed up here about 1.5 yrs ago.

Also, why do you spell the word 'stupid' the way you do?

and if you do, you need to take a "time out" and take some time for introspection Sir.

Is it at all possible that I may already have taken a far more, and far deeper, introspection than you have?

Or, is that just not possible?

[Dontaskme]

So, ATTENTION INSANE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE: You really need to get a grip on how screwed up you are, and stop spreading your disease to the rest of humankind. Enjoy it in the privacy of your own home, or with those who want to share it -- otherwise, stop making up stupid crap that non-theists have to wade through. It's YOUR trip... not the truth of the entire Universe. And if you're really not intelligent enough to GET THAT, you shouldn't be on a philosophy forum!

Perhaps it has escaped your attention, but this particular philosophy forum clearly includes a slot along side other philosphical subjects titled specifically..
''[ Philosophy of Religion: Is there a God? If so, what is She like? '' ] meaning that it's really ok to be discussing the philosophy of Religion here at this forum.
Now, if there is a God, then we are obviously going to discuss this God debate, including the how possibility of God and what that God means to a particular person and also what God is like.. just like the sub-forum clearly states for the allowing of such a discussion to go ahead...and that will also include the belief of either for or against the God debate idea.

Now I can understand if there was zero mention of the philosophy of religion on this forum, then yeah it would be inappropriate to discuss such matters. But that's not the case here, as we see quite clearly, there is a sub forum specifically dedicated to the philosophy of religion that exists on this philosophy forum.

Obviously the philosophy of religion is going to imply that there are religious people in the world and that any discussion is going to be based on that factor.

I really don't think it is helpful to take any of these religious ideas personally, rather, it would be best to just see beliefs for what they actually are, which is just another aspect of the entire mind of man-made belief structures, God religion just being one of many religions in fact. Religions are in truth nothing more than just human made conceptual belief structures all born of the thinking mind and are as infinite as the mind can possibly muster. So certainly nothing to get all aggressive about, I mean what exactly is wrong with how people choose to personally create their own realities? don't we all do the same anyway? There is nothing wrong with a fertile imagination, it's how the whole human story has developed anyway.

People will always believe what feels right and true for them, and I don't personally think it is of anyone elses business to deny people their own personal truths the way they see their world and reality.

If a non-theist has their own specific world view on things according to their own beliefs, then it really doesn't make sense to deny the theists their world views while holding tight to your own so strongly. To do that and then denying others their view is dumb and stupid, but yeah, lets talk about being stupid and non-intelligence. That seems to be just about all most humans are ever really good at anyway, usually.

.

[Age]

Given the absurd thread, in which I am supposed to be part of a religion if I am an atheist, I do not exist.

It is very weird when theists or other religious people want to claim that non-theists are religious about atheism. Not only is it absurd, but it's so obviously contrived. And what purpose does it serve? What is someone trying to propose with such nonsense? That their OWN reliance on religion is reasonable because EVERYBODY is religious whether they believe themselves to be or not? Come on... what the fuck?! How does a brain even tolerate itself making up such distorted crap and then turning it into claims on a philosophy forum? There's just too much fucking insanity! Really!!

What some people also find very weird is how some people are so CLOSED that they do not consider that different people see the same things in different ways. As evidenced and proven here in these remarks.

Has it ever occurred to you that a disbelief in some thing can be just as strong as a belief in the same thing, and that both the belief and the disbelief in the same thing can be seen as a religion, in and of themselves?

Or, do you really not like it when people do NOT look at and see the exact same things that you show here you expect "others" to?

For, what could be thee actual Truth here is that is is 'you', "lacewing", who is so tired up in your own beliefs, and thus your own religion, and therefore so CLOSED to absolutely any thing contrary to that, that really it is you who is "making up such distorted crap" here, and then turning it into claims on a philosophy forum.

Maybe if you were not driving yourself crazy and insane here with and from your very own strongly held onto assumptions and beliefs, which appears to be what could actually be happening here, then maybe you might just let go of some of these many preconceptions you have, and then be able to just look at and see things from "others" perspectives sometimes.

Tell me what part of the following you do not agree with:
IF the word 'religion' is in reference to a person or group of people who either believes or disbelieves some thing is true, and they have so much faith in their own beliefs (their religion) that they are then NOT open to any thing contrary.

Also, has anyone here ever claimed that non-theists are religious about atheism? If yes, then who?

Also, only an atheist would be religious about atheism, just like only a theist would be religious about theism. Obviously, a person is a non-theist does not instantly make them an atheist. So, I am wondering why you have jumped on this?

If one says they are an atheist, then obviously they would be religious about atheism. What is so troubling to you to understand this fact?

What actual definition to give and use to the words 'atheism' and 'atheist'?

[Age]

Given the absurd thread, in which I am supposed to be part of a religion if I am an atheist, I do not exist.

It is very weird when theists or other religious people want to claim that non-theists are religious about atheism. Not only is it absurd, but it's so obviously contrived. And what purpose does it serve? What is someone trying to propose with such nonsense? That their OWN reliance on religion is reasonable because EVERYBODY is religious whether they believe themselves to be or not? Come on... what the fuck?! How does a brain even tolerate itself making up such distorted crap and then turning it into claims on a philosophy forum? There's just too much fucking insanity! Really!!

It is my view that they are subconsciously aware that faith and religion are inherently absurd. This results in the conscious tar-brushing of their opponents so as to bring them down to the same level of scared ignorance that evokes feelings of faith in themselves.

Why do you even put yourselves in positions of having 'opponents'.

If all of you did not, then there would not be these incessant bickering and never resolved disagreements and fighting among yourselves that all of you are creating between yourselves.

Since you declared and claimed that you are an 'atheist', in "some places", then what does being an 'atheist' actually entail and mean exactly?

Or in other words, how do you define the word 'atheist'?

In this way they hope to level the playing field in the hope of making atheists look as absurd as they are.
It's a sort of - you are no better than me ploy.

Well, to me, ALL of 'you', adult human beings, are no better than each other. EVERY time 'you' put yourselves into some 'ist' catergory and/or into some 'ist' separated group, which follows some 'ism' ideology or belief, then you are being no better than "another one" who does that.

Is it not true that the belief in God not existing can be just as strong as the belief in God existing?

From my perspective, none of 'you' are any better than "another". To me, you are ALL the same.

But I do tend to look at and see things very differently, then most people do.

Oh, any by the way, what does you "not believing in God" actually mean?

You say that this is what you do, so this should be a relatively very simple thing for you to explain, logically and reasonably, correct?

[Age]

Even atheism wouldn't have any purpose existing as an antibody if the infection of theism didn't preexist. Unfortunately the mental antibodies are not as immediate or prolific as the physical ones.

Indeed the infection known as theism has all the classic qualities of a dangerous virus.

Any infection known as 'belief', which ALL adults have succumbed to, is a very highly dangerous virus. One only has to look back in the days of when this is being written to to clearly SEE the actual evidence and proof of this.

Beliefs are probably the most dangerous virus known to the human kind.

It is highly infectious with a inheritable element. It has an asymptomatic infectivity, and effects children of school age. It is not harmful enough to kill but can lead to serious failings in cognition and reason enough to make the infected eliminate and kill those they fail to infect.

Yes that is 'beliefs', "in a nutshell", as some might say.

The antibody is strong but can take a large shot of reason for the vaccine to be effective.

Neither logic, reason, evidence, nor proof is a sufficient nor strong enough vaccine while one is holding onto and maintaining their belief/s.

There is no known thing that will override a belief, while that belief is being held and maintained. There is, however, and very fortunately a very simple vaccine that is very easy to self-administer, which also strong enough to prevent the belief virus from ever reoccurring and coming back into existence again.

The issue so far has been that the belief virus is so effective in its job that it is the person them 'self' who actually believes that it is not them who is in need of help and curing.

Generally, though once the antibody is present further attempts at infection are limited to agnosticism and the recovered victim maintains a healthy skepticism for life.

There is only one known preventive cure that actually works for one's 'self' from having and holding beliefs ever again. I have just yet to find another human being who has been prepared enough and willing enough to verify if this cure works on them as well.

As what has been clearly shown and seen throughout this thread, this forum, and throughout adult humans life is, no matter what one believes or disbelieves is true, they are just as religious as the next person is who holds onto and maintains a belief.

[Age]

It is very weird when theists or other religious people want to claim that non-theists are religious about atheism. Not only is it absurd, but it's so obviously contrived. And what purpose does it serve? What is someone trying to propose with such nonsense? That their OWN reliance on religion is reasonable because EVERYBODY is religious whether they believe themselves to be or not? Come on... what the fuck?! How does a brain even tolerate itself making up such distorted crap and then turning it into claims on a philosophy forum? There's just too much fucking insanity! Really!!

It is my view that they are subconsciously aware that faith and religion are inherently absurd. This results in the conscious tar-brushing of their opponents so as to bring them down to the same level of scared ignorance that evokes feelings of faith in themselves.
In this way they hope to level the playing field in the hope of making atheists look as absurd as they are.
It's a sort of - you are no better than me ploy.

That makes perfect sense... as do the other comments by you and Dubious about the infectious virus nature of theism, and how that mental virus may respond when it does not succeed in infecting someone.

But it is not the absurd 'atheism' view which is the mental virus itself. It is the belief-system as a whole itself which is the mental virus.

So, ATTENTION INSANE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE:

That is; Any one with a belief or disbelief of any thing.

You really need to get a grip on how screwed up you are, and stop spreading your disease to the rest of humankind. Enjoy it in the privacy of your own home, or with those who want to share it -- otherwise, stop making up stupid crap that non-theists have to wade through. It's YOUR trip... not the truth of the entire Universe. And if you're really not intelligent enough to GET THAT, you shouldn't be on a philosophy forum!

Have the ones who BELIEVE that God does not exist also considered that they may be WRONG as well?

Or, do you BELIEVE that those ones do NOT need to consider this?

In fact, have any of you that either believe or disbelieve that God exists ever even considered that you are not even AWARE YET of the word 'God' ACTUALLY refers to?

Or, is this not an important part of the discussion, just as long as you hold onto and maintain the BELIEF that 'you' HAVE now?

[Age]

Even atheism wouldn't have any purpose existing as an antibody if the infection of theism didn't preexist. Unfortunately the mental antibodies are not as immediate or prolific as the physical ones.

Indeed the infection known as theism has all the classic qualities of a dangerous virus. It is highly infectious with a inheritable element. It has an asymptomatic infectivity, and effects children of school age. It is not harmful enough to kill but can lead to serious failings in cognition and reason enough to make the infected eliminate and kill those they fail to infect.

The antibody is strong but can take a large shot of reason for the vaccine to be effective. Generally, though once the antibody is present further attempts at infection are limited to agnosticism and the recovered victim maintains a healthy skepticism for life.

All that is true. Memes behave exactly like viruses when they become insidious and toxic which is what happens when authorities force them into existence then perpetuated through indoctrination and terror. In that sense, the virus or meme must itself be inoculated against those external influences which seek to destroy or limit its efficacy.

A bit like EXACTLY what is happening in this thread when those of "one side" are 'trying to' inoculate themselves against the "opposing side".

The more each "side" can become "bigger", then the more they can indoctrinate and terrorize the "other side".

The title of this thread appears to have certainly stirred up those with BELIEFS on "one side" of this issue. So much so that their belief virus is coming out stronger than ever to fight those BELIEFS on the "opposing side".

The vaccine protecting the virus is injected by strict dogma and if that doesn't work by divine revelation. As usual, thinking beyond established beliefs must be curtailed in order to obey and uphold the ruling establishment. In contrast, a natural plague may ravage populations and in the process burn itself out in fairly short order. Usually when something like this happens there follows a period of renewal but with theistic systems renewal is mandated against and punished when infringed. If there's one thing theism actually does prove it's that mental infections last a lot longer than natural ones.

Yes is very common knowledge that BELIEFS, on both "sides", have been around for quite some length of time now.

Although prevention is better than the cure, and prevention is the actual cure for human's ills, it is BELIEFS, themselves, which prevent and stop each adult human being from just recognizing and seeing that it is them who needs help, and curing, and not necessarily just the "other" that does.

[Dontaskme]

about the infectious virus nature of theism, and how that mental virus may respond when it does not succeed in infecting someone.

A mind virus is nothing more than a personal self bias or belief...it's nothing more than an illusory idea that cannot infect anyone other than the one who personally believes they own their own self bias opinion or belief. The ironic twist here is that there really is no one that owns anything at all, but in the deluded belief that one does own their own thoughts and that they can then literally infect others is ludicrous. One simply cannot spread something that does not exist except as an empty idea. That's as dumb as claiming that the word WATER can wet YOU ...it's just totally dumb speak. And most intelligent people know this to be true, that all belief is only ever a personal self bias - it's a personal want, THAT has nothing to do with the way things really are or actually IS. Isness is just perfectly present as it is, with or without your self bias input. Isness simply does not want anything.

ATTENTION INSANE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE: You really need to get a grip on how screwed up you are, and stop spreading your disease to the rest of humankind.

Can't spread what does not exist. The idea that there is a something that does not actually exist, that can infect others is quite frankly not only a screwed up idea, but a totally self INFLICTING infection, of which there is NO CURE except to constantly remind yourself to keep your mirror squeaky clean and free of dust, so that you are able to see more clearly the bigger picture of what causes these mind viruses to take hold of you in the way they do.

.

[Age]

So, ATTENTION INSANE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE: You really need to get a grip on how screwed up you are, and stop spreading your disease to the rest of humankind. Enjoy it in the privacy of your own home, or with those who want to share it -- otherwise, stop making up stupid crap that non-theists have to wade through. It's YOUR trip... not the truth of the entire Universe. And if you're really not intelligent enough to GET THAT, you shouldn't be on a philosophy forum!

Perhaps it has escaped your attention, but this particular philosophy forum clearly includes a slot along side other philosphical subjects titled specifically..
''[ Philosophy of Religion: Is there a God? If so, what is She like? '' ] meaning that it's really ok to be discussing the philosophy of Religion here at this forum.
Now, if there is a God, then we are obviously going to discuss this God debate, including the how possibility of God and what that God means to a particular person and also what God is like.. just like the sub-forum clearly states for the allowing of such a discussion to go ahead...and that will also include the belief of either for or against the God debate idea.

Now I can understand if there was zero mention of the philosophy of religion on this forum, then yeah it would be inappropriate to discuss such matters. But that's not the case here, as we see quite clearly, there is a sub forum specifically dedicated to the philosophy of religion that exists on this philosophy forum.

Obviously the philosophy of religion is going to imply that there are religious people in the world and that any discussion is going to be based on that factor.

I really don't think it is helpful to take any of these religious ideas personally, rather, it would be best to just see beliefs for what they actually are, which is just another aspect of the entire mind of man-made belief structures, God religion just being one of many religions in fact. Religions are in truth nothing more than just human made conceptual belief structures all born of the thinking mind and are as infinite as the mind can possibly muster. So certainly nothing to get all aggressive about, I mean what exactly is wrong with how people choose to personally create their own realities? don't we all do the same anyway? There is nothing wrong with a fertile imagination, it's how the whole human story has developed anyway.

People will always believe what feels right and true for them, and I don't personally think it is of anyone elses business to deny people their own personal truths the way they see their world and reality.

Which is exactly what 'you', "lacewing', used to argue or fight for previously, that was; before this thread came about.

By the way "dontaskme" I NEVER "always believe what feels right and true for me". But, that is just 'me'. And, I would certainly agree that just about every one "else" "always believes what feels right and true for them". To their detriment I might add.

If a non-theist has their own specific world view on things according to their own beliefs, then it really doesn't make sense to deny the theists their world views while holding tight to your own so strongly. To do that and then denying others their view is dumb and stupid, but yeah, lets talk about being stupid and non-intelligence. That seems to be just about all most humans are ever really good at anyway, usually.

.

Seeing "dontaskme" speaking up against what 'you', "lacewing", say is quite normal and nothing different at all, just like seeing you "lacewing" speaking up against what 'you', "dontasme" say. Just like when both of 'you' speak up against what I say. But, what I find very strange here and not normal is that "dontaskme" is speaking up against what you "lacewing" have said here, but "dontaskme" is saying EXACTLY what you used to normally say before "lacewing".

To me, it appears "dontaskme" is speaking up and fighting for the very things that "lacewing" used to speak up and fight for.

Now, if we Truly want to look at and talk about/discuss 'being stupid' and 'non-intelligence', then let us.

To me, they are both more or less the exact same thing.

To me;
'Intelligence' is just having the ability to learn, understand, and reason absolutely any and every thing. Whereas,

'Stupid, is just having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense

Obviously, while one is maintaining a belief then they are not open to any thing contrary, and therefore they do not have the ability to learn and understand any thing contrary.

This means that while having a belief, which in a sense is a religion upon itself, then 'being religious' is 'being stupid'.

If while one is 'being religious' they are not able to learn nor understand "another's" point of view, they that one is 'being stupid' or in other words just 'being non-intelligent, which is all very straight forward, very simple, and very easy really.

[Greatest I am]

Being religious, by definition, is 'being stupid'.

Fully dissagree - and anyone that thinks that way is stoooopid -

Ditto.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Given the absurd thread, in which I am supposed to be part of a religion if I am an atheist, I do not exist.

It is very weird when theists or other religious people want to claim that non-theists are religious about atheism. Not only is it absurd, but it's so obviously contrived. And what purpose does it serve? What is someone trying to propose with such nonsense? That their OWN reliance on religion is reasonable because EVERYBODY is religious whether they believe themselves to be or not? Come on... what the fuck?! How does a brain even tolerate itself making up such distorted crap and then turning it into claims on a philosophy forum? There's just too much fucking insanity! Really!!

Since following an ideology is a prerequisite of religion, atheism can be considered a religion, since atheists draws on philosophical ideologies to guide ideas, behaviors, and actions, like that of any religion. That is why atheist churches are called atheist churches.

Atheists Are Sometimes More Religious Than Christians
A new study shows how poorly we understand the beliefs of people who identify as atheist, agnostic, or nothing in particular.

Americans are deeply religious people—and atheists are no exception. Western Europeans are deeply secular people—and Christians are no exception.

These twin statements are generalizations, but they capture the essence of a fascinating finding in a new study about Christian identity in Western Europe. By surveying almost 25,000 people in 15 countries in the region, and comparing the results with data previously gathered in the U.S., the Pew Research Center discovered three things.

First, researchers confirmed the widely known fact that, overall, Americans are much more religious than Western Europeans. They gauged religious commitment using standard questions, including “Do you believe in God with absolute certainty?” and “Do you pray daily?”

Second, the researchers found that American “nones”—those who identify as atheist, agnostic, or nothing in particular—are more religious than European nones. The notion that religiously unaffiliated people can be religious at all may seem contradictory, but if you disaffiliate from organized religion it does not necessarily mean you’ve sworn off belief in God, say, or prayer.

The third finding reported in the study is by far the most striking. As it turns out, “American ‘nones’ are as religious as—or even more religious than—Christians in several European countries, including France, Germany, and the U.K.”

“That was a surprise,” Neha Sahgal, the lead researcher on the study, told me. “That’s the comparison that’s fascinating to me.” She highlighted the fact that whereas only 23 percent of European Christians say they believe in God with absolute certainty, 27 percent of American nones say this.

America is a country so suffused with faith that religious attributes abound even among the secular. Consider the rise of “atheist churches,” which cater to Americans who have lost faith in supernatural deities but still crave community, enjoy singing with others, and want to think deeply about morality. It’s religion, minus all the God stuff. This is a phenomenon spreading across the country, from the Seattle Atheist Church to the North Texas Church of Freethought. The Oasis Network, which brings together non-believers to sing and learn every Sunday morning, has affiliates in nine U.S. cities.

Last month, almost 1,000 people streamed into a [Atheist] church in San Francisco for an unprecedented event billed as “Beyoncé Mass.” Most were people of color and members of the LGBTQ community. Many were secular. They used Queen Bey’s songs, which are replete with religious symbolism, as the basis for a communal celebration—one that had all the trappings of a religious service. That seemed completely fitting to some, including one reverend who said, “Beyoncé is a better theologian than many of the pastors and priests in our church today.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...t ... ns/560936/

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Is it possible to discriminate and it be 'just'?

If yes, then please explain, and with examples please.

That is rather obvious, but ----

Every law has a compulsion to discriminate negatively against a certain sub-group of our society.

That could be the murderer demographic of rapist for two examples.

But how is that 'just'?

Is ABSOLUTELY EVERY one who has been discriminated against negatively done what they have been separated and discriminated into, and against?

Also, 'laws' themselves are NOT 'just' at all. Laws are made to punish, and that is obviously NOT 'just' at all.

I asked is it possible to discriminate, and it be 'just'?

Discriminating negatively against one human being for any reason is obviously NOT 'just'.

Let's look at that last.

Let's say you get home and some rapist is having his way with your wife or daughter.

Is it just for you to not discriminate negatively against him?

If you discriminate positively, what does that look like?

Will you offer him a sweat towel and help him hold your wife down, or will you discriminate negatively and punish him somehow?

Recant your last or be seen for an immoral piece of garbage who is not fit to waste good air on.

Regards
DL