putting religion in it's proper place

[Scott Mayers]

[Note Immanuel, that this is a long response. I will be patient to not look for a quick response if you so choose. Break it up if need be...

Will do.

But I'm also interested in what you have to say, so I don't mind investing some time.

Hmmm.

It was actually created for the opposite: for the prevention of government's "abridging" religion, meaning making edicts to prevent it. One's beliefs were to be guarded by a right of free conscience. It was not the government it was designed to protect: it was the "religions." So you're about half right, there.

That's a big error on your part. The reasoning was due to the fact that Imperialism of England was imposing their rule over the colonists for merely expecting their own laws as though divinity was proxied through the King.

No, no, Scott. It's no error. I got it right.

Perhaps you forget...England had an "official State religion." Anglicanism. The purpose of the First Amendment was to guard things like Puritanism and Quakerism, two common forms of Christianity in America, along with other such variations, from being submerged by a State-imposed Anglicanism or, as in Europe, Catholicism, or any State religion.. It wasn't to "purify" the government of religious elements in favour of Atheism or Agnosticism. In fact, the American founders were overwhelmingly religious themselves, and simply never conceived of a totally non-religious person -- just a neutral State.

I'm sorry, Scott...historically, you've got it backwards. The First Amendment protects religion from government interference, not the other way around.

It reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, (i.e. State religion, like Anglicanism) or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (one is allowed to have a free exercise of religion; not to eliminate it); or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (The subsequent things are other matters of personal freedom, in addition to religion, that the State is not permitted to restrict.)

The ONLY way this functions meaningfully is when the meaning of "establishment of religion" means anything written in law that asserts an association of some specific belief that necessarily implies some particular religion, even if this is one's private beliefs alone because there is no way to prove nor disprove some declared religious beliefs about some universal being with very specific intents for us.

Example: You cannot make a law that reads, "Abortion shall not exist BECAUSE it is against God's will."

While that does not specifiy which of a class of religions one refers to, the excuse asserts something that besides differing from others different religious beliefs, it abusively insults the normal non-religious arguments one could make as though equal in power. When one even mentions 'god' in laws, it "establishes religion" to some degree. The nature of any such "Imperialistic" system is at least due to some religious belief THAT these people are proxies to God in some way. The same is with the Pope. [By the way, the Anglican Church was relabeled and desguised as "Episcople" in the U.S.. The meaning refers to the nature of its 'scope over the people' (via formal administration, like the Catholic Church).]

Note that the Amendments were written in light of the "Age of Enlightenment", rationalism, science, and ANTI-religious thinking. It is "religious" to believe that any human has a direct 'inspiration' or access to some "god" for decision making in a law. If you disagree, please find any American law that mentions some religious decree.

What the Amendment does not do is to prevent one from having a personal MOTIVE for creating a law based on their particular religious beliefs because this is just one's OPINION about morality. But besides a mere 'motive', one cannot officially assert a law that is JUSTIFIED BECAUSE of some 'god', 'gods', or, ....even religious-related kinds of claims, like if one attempted to declare some law because a psychic phenomena, a ghost, a spirit, non-rational/non-scientifically validated mechanism or device, et cetera. "Religion" is ANY belief that regards things unproven/unprovable to THE PEOPLE.

If Trump...

I think this phrase is hilariously funny. "Trump" is a leftover Democrat, a media creature, and is really actually about as malevolent as Mickey Mouse. I know the inflated rhetoric in the US right now says differently...but "C'mon, man." Nobody in his right mind actually believes any of that.

Anyway, even if you imagine that, unbeknownst to us all, Trump is the new Torquemada or Ghengis Khan, one thing you can be certain about: the signatories of the American Constitution did not worry about -- or even imagine -- guys like Trump. They were thinking about the King of England.

[If you comment directly on a quote, requote it sufficiently to indicate what I at least mean to SOME degree, please. What are you wanting others NOT to see about what I said? I don't even know what you are responding to without having to now go back to see. ]

No, they were not merely thinking of the King of England. They already established a separation from England as its own country. This was a Constitutional law to prevent ANY possible rulers (the elected government representatives) to utilize ANY religious JUSTIFICATION for law making because the institute being Constituted was OF THE PEOPLE and BY THE PEOPLE, not OF THE GODS/HEAVENS, PSYCHICS, or other SPECIAL or MAGICAL powers that may be.

But you've got that wrong. If judgments about right and wrong are "relative and/or arbitrary," then nobody needs to pay any attention to them, because they cannot be "justified" at all.

False. The governments BECOME the universal 'religion' without imposing 'God' by leaving the sovereignty that used to be granted to 'God' BY AND FOR THE PEOPLE.

This is not correct, Scott. The last thing the founders had in mind was creating a NEW State religion of Atheism or agnosticism in which "the people" become God, or take over His prerogatives. What you're describing is a kind of vapid Humanism, one that is utterly indefensible on rational grounds. There's no deification of "the people" in the Constitution. The people, in fact, get the "rights" assigned to them from God.

Remember "the thing"? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

"Atheism" and "Agnostic" were more hated by most of the religions that exist in all times regardless of whether those writing the laws directly asserted no religion. When reading of many of the other works, like Thomas Paine, for instance, you learn that the motivating concern was about ANY religion. It was understood that this was still dangerous to overtly assert and was but was contextually understood when you rule out any other possible reason for its statement. So you have to read the Amendment in light of whether 'religion' needed to be mentioned at all.

There was also no normalized term for people's non-religious beliefs acceptable BY the religious that would even be permitted. As such, care had to be taken to word it just so that those of us who are not religious would be lynched as well. So you'll have to excuse the language as forced expressions delimited by those of the strongest religious extremes to the common terms permissible at the time in colloquial practice. The term, "creation", or "Creation", "creator", or "Creator", were so normalized, terms to express normal non-religious or secular meanings were lacking and, where imposed upon by the religious, condemned politically incorrect. I still know many non- (and anti-) religious scientists who use the term "creation" when speaking about non-religious causation. Capitalizing the 'c' in "Creator" is just the way to indicate the variable meanings of which 'source' various people believed in as a constant.

I prefer clarification in expressing any of these 'preambles' that disrespects the least religious person and to those without one at all. You are thinking that the system was specially designed by the specific religions or class of them [like, "Christianity" as an umbrella label] as though if there was no god, no could not possibly have such a system. Being atheist is only a formal way of reasserting what society imposed. Even when I was in the Militia in the 1980s, they actually required us to go to church by law. In the 1700s, I don't think one could assert lacking some religion without grave risks.

This needs a sepate digression to address your interpretation of "socialism". I interpret this as "any laws that deal with the welfare of its citizens, especially when or where particular individuals lack the power of numbers (whether isolated from others of similar concern) [ie, "democratic"] or by those weakened by lack of wealth unfairly [ie, lack of "republic" representation who favor those with money if NOT democratic majorities.]

Well, you have a right to advocate anything you want, of course; but what you're describing is not Socialism. Socialism is an economic arrangement of redistribution and nationalization of industry by big government, in the name of equalization. It's not as vague a concept as you suggest at all.

You make it seem that what I said doesn't include those specifications. "Big government" is still less dangerous than "I am the government", as would be the case of the system run without popular voting. The conservative favors only governments that act as their servants in a way that prevents power to the masses. That is, if government is not at least a "Socialist" system, then it is a non-democratic Feudal-like dictatorship because the only function approved of conservatively is for it to serve as a police and adjudicator of laws made by and for those who have more money/power over all others.

The term, "socialism", in the label of parties refers only to the intention to make a system that serves more than private property rights that many conservative governments only want government to be.
Given the definition that you at least accept and gave, what is the problem with economic redistribution? Do you think inheritance is 'fair'? If so, are you non-hypocritically including the negative inheritances as well as the positive? ...such as inheriting a father's sins as equally fair as inheriting wealth. Prior to even Marx, most of the world's history had systems that defaulted favor to a special subclass of land owners most specifically.

Whoa, Tiger. You're taking for granted that something called a "right to abortion" exists. It does not. Nobody has the right to murder another human being, nor should anyone ever have one.

However, a woman does have a right to her own body, given by God...to the extent that she is responsible for what she does with her body, and will answer for it at the Judgment. She exercises that right by whom she decides to sleep with, how, and when...not by killing babies.

Abortion is a moral disaster for everyone. So it's a particularly poor example for you to select. No "rights" exist concerning it, except the right of every person to be allowed to live.

I completely disagree.

You may. You have the freedom to be wrong. There simply is not, and never can be, a legitimate right to kill children, just as there is no right to kill you. No entity exists that is capable of conferring such a "right."

But again, the abortion case is such a bad example, so obviously morally corrupt, that I think you'd be wise to drop it instead of defending it. Which, if you wish, I shall permit without further comment. It was just a bad example.[/quote]

"Children" is a term we default to the living. You are using it as an 'affect' term to rhetorically assign equal relevance when that is YOUR opinion only.

As to "killing", the only reason ANY laws are made about them is in the light that we convene to agree not to kill each other in order to be comfortable to live in a shared 'civilization'. Zygotes are not relevant beyond the religious extension of concern. The religious DO believe in "killing" with respect to culling the population through war, capital punishment, and self-defence. Redefining what 'killing' refers to beyond shared interests of all people equally are irrelevant and presents bias. Personally, I would prefer to see laws that demand no right of individuals to chose independent of the society they live in to HAVE children at all. I would accept laws that force abortions where need be as China has done. The abuses when independent individuals have selfish freedoms to keep children that cannot be cared for or impose hardship upon society as a whole, or to selfishly extend their family power through 'inheritance' (where fortunate), harms others and 'kills' them by indirect means that don't get logical notice. [For instance, most think that 'killing' is only a direct act but ignore how indirect methods to acheive the same by things like allowing people to starve, is more 'evil' but simply harder to catch.]

I think we are morally bankrupt for NOT accepting that government is a property of the people, not the specific domain of the Humpty Dumpties born to think that only their own coincidence of fortune should be conserved at the expense of those without.

That is, we are all defaulted to be atheistic,

Actually, no. Given that "religion" is a universal feature of all ancient societies, you'd have to argue we're all defaulted to be religious. The Atheist argument doesn't deny this; it just argues that those societies are"benighted" or "primitive," and so we can now get on with being more "enlightened," "evolved," or "progressive." It's really quite arrogant, but that's the argument.

I only need a word to express that I'm not religious. Some used to call us "unbelievers", which helps to see my concern. It assumes that since the majority of people believe and I could be the odd person out, that I am the one to be irrational. Do I 'unbelieve' what I didn't believe in the first place? Or, if I believed but did not agree later that my belief was justified in the first place, am I expected to disprove what hasn't yet been properly proven?

We used to call the first cars, "horseless carriages", and still refer to most new remote electronic devices as 'wireless'. We might imagine a very real world that is "humanless" or, as "ahuman". "Athiest is just one "without religion", in light of religion being a norm for most people.

Religion is a defect of ALL living things that evolve consciousness anywhere in the Universe because it is just the extended set of beliefs regarding life beyond death or things we are not empowered to control of our own environments by normal physical means. But the particular truths about these beliefs are not subject to a vote. It is the question of "who made who?" where we invented 'God' andand noty the other way around.

The American system, that coderived with other similar novel political ideas, was intent on overthrowing the power of governments to dicate in the name of some religious belief. ALL Kings (under various terms) are just leaders who declare they have Divine authority beyond the consent of the people but require begging faith in them as equivalent to faith in God by proxy.

If you favor some 'god', it is because you are lazy to justify rationally why you should even care to NEGOTIATE among your other humans because you already think that God serve YOU in this way without compassion for others.

Sorry, Scott...this is a jumble of confused rhetoric. I can't really find anything in it that represents my position at all. For example, God doesn't "serve" me anything. God is the source of "compassion," and He enjoins us to do more than "negotiate" -- he calls us to "love your neighbour." I have no idea where you've acquired such a torturously incorrect "reading" there.

Pretend it was true that no God exists. Would all your behavior in the name of this delusion, then, mean that your illusions did not exist regarding it?

"Socialism" is STYLE of government that places priority of management to PEOPLE over PROPERTY.

Not at all. Socialism holds that "property" is very, very important...it is, in fact, a fundamental aspect of humanity, in Socialist thinking. You can tell, because "redistribution" of property holds pride of place in all their thinking -- it's literally their solution to everything.

You are thinking of 'socialism' similar to 'atheism': that you assume the reaction to the present conditions is flawed for NOT already being in place. That the socialist/communist governments aimed to defeat the ABUSES that occured DUE to a 'privilged' class of people was a reaction to alter laws regarding what is one's OWN. To the Communist's Socialists, they are reacting against what one defines as "right to (one's) own" when questioning the concept of "ownership". That idea is NOT Natural beyond the evolved consciousness to require being territorial. Animals that did NOT act this way get killed off FOR having a 'compassion' of sharing this world and ONLY accepting who one is and what they minimally need as all that they 'own'.

Also, you make an error similar to the confusion some even on this site take an issue with the nature of Nothing = Nothing and Something (...to Everything).

0 = 0 and 1

...in the same way, the Communist view against "ownership" as

No ownership IMPLIES that no one owns AND everyone owns.

Being derived from Materialism, by way of Marx, Socialism holds that materiality is central to everything. Property matters very much to a Socialist. It's just never allowed to be private. That's the essential difference.

In contrast, John Locke held that the having of some sort of property was the sine qua non of freedom. "Life, liberty and property" were his three essential basic rights (not "the pursuit of happiness," as the Americans would later put it.) There were good reasons why Locke thought "property" was on a par with the earlier two, but I won't go into those reasons for the moment, unless you wish to ask, because it gets long. But Locke literally said that without a person having his own (private) property, he could have no freedom or proper use of life either.

Locke was right, actually.

The term "own" means "that which someone has power uniquely over." The non-socialist position is that there is such a thing as a 'right' to have u]unlimited, idependent and unique power[/u] over that which is declared as one's 'own'. So to you, you think it is 'fair' that only select people be permitted POWER over other factors of this Earth beyond themselves. Funny how you might believe that some 'god' exists who also agrees with permitting you to become a virtual 'god' on Earth, in direct contrast to your declared faith in 'serving' it.

The 'conservative' belief is to rule over others

It's actually not. You're just wrong about that, I'm afraid. Conservatism regards the individual and his rights as primary; Socialism argues that the collective is more important than the individual. If either system advocates "ruling" over people, it's Socialism that does. It gives the collective power to dominate the individual. One can be conservative and entirely Libertarian, or even anarchistic.

I don't disagree that there is some problem when the masses get to have more collective power in numbers. It's also why religion exists as the predominating power in the same popularity. People are still animals. But given the choice between giving absolute power to one sick human being verus all, I defer to the whole, even where I know that the religious virus still exists and most specifically against me for not having it.

"Conservatism" is the side of the wealthier and more fortunate who demand they KEEP (conserve) their present power of position and control. You think whatever wealth you gain should also permit you to skip out on the very burdens you impose upon others BY your gains. Take what benefits you as rightfully your 'own', but send any and all debts and burdens to the rest of society to 'own' as a whole. A 'socialist' aspect of government is to police the greed of owners who believe intrinsically in EXPLOITING whatever methods is OPTMIZED for their benefits, regardless of any 'compassion'. The trick to favor the conservative is to HIDE the social problems in a ghetto along side the garbage dump and sewage systems, keep the servants quarters out of sight, and live delighted in the delusion that the world (by 'gods' favor) is yours alone.

Nature does not favor comfort nor compassion of anything nor anyone. So to those like me, a 'government' is ONLY a socialist construct that has the compassion to reflect the negotiating power of ALL (or as much of the) people as equals regardless of your genetics, luck, or the environment you were born in. If you want a system without, you are deluded into assuming something intrinsically virtuous of those who optimize civilization ONLY to empower themselves at the expense of the whole. And if you think that 'nature' should BE this way, then I dare you to put down your weapons, tear down the walls of your gated communities, and see how well you can actually survive in ACTUAL nature as the animals we are. A conservative 'government' is one that has created a 'straw' person as a company of unaccountable owners who believe in a system that only allows them to profit or lose only what they've directly invested in. This defines a 'corporation', as I intended to point out, that hides who owns shares, has power to BE a 'government' over its domain of 'ownership', and is only liable to lose the cost of what they put forth but not at what they destructively contribute to.

What I think is that religion represents the general kinds of processes of thought that demands others TRUST some facts by some people with unilateral power (oneway trust).

Actually, a lot of "religions" do no such thing. My own beliefs, would be an example, but there are various others, too. What you're describing is a political arrangement, not a religious one.

But I 'get' the confusion. It's not unusual for a political agency to use "religion" to make its case to its (often largely religious) population. Just so, Hitler could declare "Gott mit uns," or "God with us." It didn't make it true -- it just made it convenient for propaganda purposes. Look at American money: on it is written, "In God we trust." Are we to take that any more seriously than we take Hitler's nonsense? No, it's just another example of a government trying to legitimize it's political projects with illegitimate reference to "religion."

You need to separate the two. "Religions" don't all advocate any particular political system. Islam does, but many don't. Christianity, for example, has no actual political aspirations in it at all. As Jesus so clearly said, "My kingdom is not of this world," and "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." That's clear separation between religion and state.

"Religion" is still only the set of beliefs that one takes on without direct proof nor something that is 'authored' by the common set of beliefs of all people. A government serves to be secular. The term, "God", is technically, "Good (nature)", if you remove the religious connotation. This is not how people who are of those supposedly trivial abusive religions would accept it though. And so it is best to remove even that nowadays, or expand it as something like "Goodness of our best nature" so as not to bias confusing interpretations. This would still refer to "God" by the religious without insult. The dollar's "In God we Trust", was put forth as "in the good nature we trust (of each other)", by meaningful intent because it was a shareable bill at at time prior to that where banks each had their own bills of debt where you might trust of some over others.

Religions DO advocate politics as its foundation because it IS the inseparable origins of the secular function of government to put forth rules of conduct we deem 'moral'. The original 'Temples' (as I've proposed as a theory before) was literally a temporary place that various distinct tribes convened to negotiate contracts. Each 'priest' represented a tribe's formal representation for legal contracts. They held the means to certify ownership settlements by matching 'idols' as literal land marker claims to lands cultivated by particular tribes. "Sacrifices" were forms of human-to-human, tribe-to-tribe contracts that literally sacrificed to each other as a 'signature' and guarantee of fullfilment, ...versus the presumption that they evolved directly for gods. Marriage cerimonies also acted as public 'proof' of contract to assure responsibility of offspring.

I don't think religion itself had no functional origins secularly, but that the EXTENSION of what used to be the way governments formed as civilizations formed, devolved INTO remnants of those beliefs that now only relate to things beyond nature (or at least our present 'nature' in our physical lives).

Note that I actually have a LOT of religious study background by personal interest.

Hmmm...I will choose to believe it because you say it. However, it leaves me mystified as to why so many of your claims concerning it are cloaked in a vague collective like "religion." I would expect somebody with "a lot of religious study background" certainly to know better than to lump all "religions" into one thing and make incorrect pronouncements about what they "all" advocate. But I won't challenge that.

I use "religion" more to reference the etymological origins as a reference to life (or any 'living' reality) beyond our present physical condition. Those beliefs about absolute historical origins regarding nature that does not act literally the way others believed it to be, those phenomena that reference literal present magic, ....like that God 'answers' (subserviantly gives in to those who beg when closing their eyes and placing their hands together like magic), or any powers beyond our capacity to share by common measurements, are all 'religion' to me, as it is with most athiests/agnostics.

I don't condemn those using traditions based upon religion whereby they are means of a philosophical set of things used for real purposes. One can then be a 'Christian', say, for following the ideals of the religion in practice like I might take value out of looking at the Simpsons, Family Guy, or South Park, as inspirational philosophy reflecting our present realities. In that way, they are relatively 'non-religious' and 'secular' for being practical to anyone as entertainment with functional value.

I too enjoy discussing with you too. I place the person apart from the argument and actually enjoy those who disagree BUT still engage with compassion. So thank you too.

Yes, I think that's the right way forward. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing, so long as one does it with mutual respect and a recognition that the other is a fellow human being. I appreciate your humanity and civility, even while you feel free to take strong exception to particular ideas. That's the right spirit, I think.

Thanks for also holding up your end of that, Scott.

Dito.
[/quote]

[Immanuel Can]

The ONLY way this functions meaningfully is when the meaning of "establishment of religion" means anything written in law that asserts an association of some specific belief that necessarily implies some particular religion, even if this is one's private beliefs alone because there is no way to prove nor disprove some declared religious beliefs about some universal being with very specific intents for us.

No, actually. Put it in its historical context, and you'll see that was not the idea at all.

The founders were a bunch of things...Christians, Unitarians, Deists, Puritans, Quakers, Freemasons...all kinds of stuff. But Atheists, there were not. Most of them had absolutely no thought of a kind of person who believed in no God at all. As they saw it, "religion" was something everybody was bound to have...it's just that the State could not be allowed to be the arbiter of religion, or to legislate in favour of a State religion. That was the intent.

As for the abortion issue, (to coin a pun) they did not even conceive of it. Abortion "rights" were not going to become either an issue or anything possible until the late 20th Century.

What you've got to do is stop backdating your own beliefs and projecting them into theirs. They were very different men from you, Scott.

Note that the Amendments were written in light of the "Age of Enlightenment", rationalism, science, and ANTI-religious thinking.

This, I have to say, is a myth of very recent vintage, and doesn't stand up to even the most basic historical scrutiny.

The thinkers of the so-called Enlightenment were often a mix of various shades of Christians, Deists, Humanists and other such. Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method and as important a figure in the period as anyone, was a devout Christian. So was Newton. So was Locke, from whom all talk of universal 'rights" is originally derived. So were most of the signatories of the Constitution, even if some were only so in a superficial way. The thought of anybody not being some kind of nominal "Christian" was just not considered yet.

I know this stuff, Scott. I have studied American history and literature.

...please find any American law that mentions some religious decree.

I already pointed you to the declaration on US currency and to the very wording of the Constitution itself. What more do you need?

Now, I get that you think about it differently nowadays. But your "nowadays" doesn't accurately project back on American history. As I say, your version of the motives of the founders is a set of motives they were actually incapable of having. It's an anachronism.

Thomas Paine,

Tom Paine was an exception...a very unusual man for his time.

...those of us who are not religious would be lynched as well.

Where did this happen, Scott? I'm not familiar with the incident.

Well, you have a right to advocate anything you want, of course; but what you're describing is not Socialism. Socialism is an economic arrangement of redistribution and nationalization of industry by big government, in the name of equalization. It's not as vague a concept as you suggest at all.

You make it seem that what I said doesn't include those specifications. "Big government" is still less dangerous than "I am the government", as would be the case of the system run without popular voting.

Well, voting is not Socialist, but democratic. Traditionally, Socialist countries have only one party, so "voting" is limited to supporting the party candidate.

The conservative favors only governments that act as their servants in a way that prevents power to the masses.

This isn't true at all. You might be speaking of something like "monarchy," but certainly not of liberal democracy of any kind.

Conservatism just refers to that cluster of beliefs that advocate "conserving" some set of responsibilities, traditions or institutions from the past. It doesn't specify which ones, nor rule out adding new ones; it differs from "Progressivism" in that it does not regard all of the past as a waste or as a legacy of nothing but oppression, darkness and evil. Conservatism tends to work forward from stability, rather than shaking all the foundations down to ground level by way of revolution.

That's a big subject...but you've got conservatism wrong there.

Given the definition that you at least accept and gave, what is the problem with economic redistribution?

It's theft.

If I break into your house, and take things I have not earned, the things you have, and you try to stop me, what would you think of me if I said, "Well, you had more than me?" You'd rightly call me a thief. So how is that different if I send the government to do it to you for me?

Do you think inheritance is 'fair'?

You mean, if your father has, say, a house, he has no right to pass it on to you in his will? He owes it to other people, you think? Why?

... inheriting a father's sins...

This is a total misnomer. Nobody can ever "inherit" anybody else's sins. It's impossible.

We are all responsible for what we personally do; we are never responsible, even a little bit, for what somebody else did, especially somebody older, who lived long before you and I could ever have even agreed to approve of his deeds.

Sins belong to the person who does them. That is why when God judges men, He judges them one by one, as individuals. John Locke actually pointed this out. But it's Biblical. See, for example, 2 Cor. 5:10, or Rev. 20:12, or Matthew 12:36. You may or may not believe that, but since you, as an Atheist, cannot believe in "sin" (or rather, cannot find any basis in your worldview for believing it), what's your complaint? However, the Bible does believe in "sin," and since, probably, the people to whom you refer who do believe in "sin" get their conception from the Bible, then any statements about it can only be referred to what the Bible say about it.

And it says that "sins," (should any such turn out to exist) are personal, not inherited.

"Children" is a term we default to the living. You are using it as an 'affect' term to rhetorically assign equal relevance when that is YOUR opinion only.

We can debate the abortion issue. But it's too long to do here. Suffice to say, if you abort somebody, then plausibly, you could be killing her. If you decide not to abort somebody, then there is zero chance you're killing her. But we should avoid that debate here, not just because it's long, but because it's also a complete anachronism with regard to anything we're talking about. No American law concerning abortion, was made prior to the late 20th Century...except the law that you couldn't murder babies.

I only need a word to express that I'm not religious.

Yes, I knew that. I was only pointing out your claim that that is the "default" is not true. If anything, human beings seem universally inclined to suspect that there IS a God, and to reject that conclusion, rather than to assume nothing. And the universality of the religious impulse in primitive societies is a good indicator of that fact.

"Athiest is just one "without religion", in light of religion being a norm for most people.

Well, no...that's an "agnostic," definitionally. An "Atheist" is one who actually rejects belief in God, not somebody who just lacks a belief.

Again, that's a larger debate. I can refer you to Andy Bannister's book, "The Atheist Who Didn't Exist." You'd enjoy that one.

It is the question of "who made who?" where we invented 'God' andand noty the other way around.

That's what Nietzsche thought. Of course, he never proved it was so, nor even attempted to; he just assumed it, said "What if," and rolled straight forward with that assumption.

But it was merely presumption.

In fact, we find awareness of the supernatural is deeply embedded in the anthropological psyche. Rather than being "invented," it very much looks either innate, or something so obvious from the immediate natural world that ancient man could universally regard it as automatic. It certainly wasn't "invented" for some strategic purpose, as Nietzsche supposed, or it would not have been universal.

The American system, that coderived with other similar novel political ideas, was intent on overthrowing the power of governments to dicate in the name of some religious belief.

No, it wasn't that. As you see, God gets into the Constitution right at the top of page 1, as the grounds for the whole project. So it wasn't "godlessness" they were aiming at: it was freedom from State interference. But read the literature of the period, and you'll know that's true.

Pretend it was true that no God exists. Would all your behavior in the name of this delusion, then, mean that your illusions did not exist regarding it?

I'm sorry again, Scott...I don't understand this thought-experiment to which you invite me here. Can you explain? You want me to imagine there's no God, and then...what?

"Socialism" is STYLE of government that places priority of management to PEOPLE over PROPERTY.

Not at all. Socialism holds that "property" is very, very important...it is, in fact, a fundamental aspect of humanity, in Socialist thinking. You can tell, because "redistribution" of property holds pride of place in all their thinking -- it's literally their solution to everything.

You are thinking of 'socialism' similar to 'atheism':

No, not at all.

Socialism and Atheism are often partners, it's true. But Atheism is a position on the "God" question, and Socialism is a position on the issue of economics. But Socialism derives from Marxism, and Marx, by his own testimony, was a thoroughgoing Dialectical Materialist. He believed that economic relations were the fundamental ones, and the question of who owns which "property" was the most important of all questions. That's why "redistribution of property" is such a fundamental Socialist belief. They're actually really keen on property...just not private property.

One can be conservative and entirely Libertarian, or even anarchistic.

I don't disagree that there is some problem when the masses get to have more collective power in numbers. It's also why religion exists as the predominating power in the same popularity.

Well, here you and I have a point of agreement, Scott. I don't think that collective power in numbers should ever be allowed to dictate either economics or belief. But this is the problem of speaking of "religion" as a collective noun. For there are some "religions" that are very collectivist, and some that are very individualist. So we have to say more about which "religion" we mean.

Catholicism or Islam are ardently collectivist and authoritarian, and both have political ambitions. But Quakerism? Anabaptism? Mennonism? Not a bit.

"Conservatism" is the side of the wealthier and more fortunate who demand they KEEP (conserve) their present power of position and control.

No, Scott...that's at worst a misrepresentation, and at best an overgeneralization. Conservatives can want to "conserve" all kinds of different things, institutions, or arrangements. As I said before, many conservatives are actually highly individualistic, libertarian or anarchist. And that certainly does not describe the extreme you're suggesting.

What's more, Conservatives are both statistically and practically more charitable than Socialists. In fact, Socialists don't want to be charitable at all; they want the government to solve all such problems on their behalf, without them ever having to lift a finger.

The dollar's "In God we Trust", was put forth as "in the good nature we trust (of each other)"

Heh. That's funny, Scott. No, that was not the case. And trusting in the "good nature" of others is usually fatal to the human race. That's one thing history has abundantly shown us.

I use "religion" more to reference the etymological origins as a reference to life (or any 'living' reality) beyond our present physical condition.

And you can choose to do so. But very few people, I suspect, and certainly none of the current academic literature in "religions" employs anything like that definition. That's strictly your own. So when you speak to people about "religion," you'll have to make it clear from the start that you don't mean anything like what they are likely to be thinking.

But enough said. It's time I let you speak. Carry on, Scott.

[Scott Mayers]

[Note that I make some errors below that I cannot seem to find to correct when editing in plain text. I am just leaving it knowing that you'll read it correctly in context. I need to break some of this up to deal with easier later.]

The ONLY way this functions meaningfully is when the meaning of "establishment of religion" means anything written in law that asserts an association of some specific belief that necessarily implies some particular religion, even if this is one's private beliefs alone because there is no way to prove nor disprove some declared religious beliefs about some universal being with very specific intents for us.

No, actually. Put it in its historical context, and you'll see that was not the idea at all.

The founders were a bunch of things...Christians, Unitarians, Deists, Puritans, Quakers, Freemasons...all kinds of stuff. But Atheists, there were not. Most of them had absolutely no thought of a kind of person who believed in no God at all. As they saw it, "religion" was something everybody was bound to have...it's just that the State could not be allowed to be the arbiter of religion, or to legislate in favour of a State religion. That was the intent.

As for the abortion issue, (to coin a pun) they did not even conceive of it. Abortion "rights" were not going to become either an issue or anything possible until the late 20th Century.

What you've got to do is stop backdating your own beliefs and projecting them into theirs. They were very different men from you, Scott.

Note that the Amendments were written in light of the "Age of Enlightenment", rationalism, science, and ANTI-religious thinking.

This, I have to say, is a myth of very recent vintage, and doesn't stand up to even the most basic historical scrutiny.

The thinkers of the so-called Enlightenment were often a mix of various shades of Christians, Deists, Humanists and other such. Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method and as important a figure in the period as anyone, was a devout Christian. So was Newton. So was Locke, from whom all talk of universal 'rights" is originally derived. So were most of the signatories of the Constitution, even if some were only so in a superficial way. The thought of anybody not being some kind of nominal "Christian" was just not considered yet.

I know this stuff, Scott. I have studied American history and literature.

First off, it was not safe to overtly state being non-religious. They would use "freethinker" or "rationalist" as terms that while inclusive of many religious people too. The philosophers of science and politics may have been religious but if they lived in today's environment, they'd embrace the essence of a government that could not proscribe PARTICULAR religious laws.

I don't know why you would think your interpretation was to FAVOR religious laws when, if you had to be non-hypocritical, would require accepting ALL religions as equally qualified. The cause of the abuse BY the royalty of Britain was due to the arrogant assumption THAT the King represented God. It doesn't matter whether the royalty's religion was Pentacostal or Al Quada. The only reason to state being against an 'establishment of religion' was to prevent ANOTHER government to get in power and then decree the same powers AS the King of England represented. That they added that they can't discriminate against religion is just an assurance for those who may interpret this as meaning the independent beliefs of the leaders REQUIRE being non-theistic. It is redundant and arrogant to assert people are 'free to speak their mind', and then ADD that this includes 'religion'. This was saying that YOU, if religious, are free to express yourself but NOT be permitted to specify this as a reason for making all people require laws to be FORCED on them that are religiously founded. ...to comply with the potential religious leader who would demand laws that would make others' rights illegal to express for having a difference of belief. Being Athiest is just a perfect example of what a religious lawmaker might PREVENT from expressing, if run by the religious, which goes against 'freedom of expression'.

Also, look at the same arguments of those religious people who opted to make laws that removed Evolution from their biology texts. They failed precisely because their imposition was limiting freedom of speech using government powers to do so. So the next challenge of these religious zealots was to assert their beliefs as 'alternative science', so that they could at least be permitted to treat evolution as a mere 'opinion' by placing alternate science (religion) in their texts. But this was eventually denied precisely because of the First Amendment's interpretation as meaning to SEPARATE 'church' from the STATE.

...please find any American law that mentions some religious decree.

I already pointed you to the declaration on US currency and to the very wording of the Constitution itself. What more do you need?

Now, I get that you think about it differently nowadays. But your "nowadays" doesn't accurately project back on American history. As I say, your version of the motives of the founders is a set of motives they were actually incapable of having. It's an anachronism.

Thomas Paine,

Tom Paine was an exception...a very unusual man for his time.

Note that France turned away from the French here in North America for their support of the traditional beliefs in superiority of monoarchical beliefs. As such, they supported the foundation of the U.S. and contributed to how and why that First Amendment was written. So you 'd have to respect a broader class of people besides merely those Christian Americans of the time.

As to the "In God We Trust", this was added with their own expression that "God" was not specific and included one interpreting this as "Nature" itself. While I disagree with even the use of the term for its bias against the non-religious, I'm being told TO THIS VERY DAY, that the religious preamble of the Canadian Constitution's use of the same word is 'trivial'. That is, many people now presume inclusivity regardless of the technical use of the word God, there. So if I am to ignore how those like you might interpret "In God We Trust" as appropriately 'religious', then all those telling me that I have nothing to fear about the use of "God" in the preamble because THEY THEMSELVES assure me this is 'trivial', needs to respect that some future persons will look back to our time and then have relative justice in asserting that my government did NOT recognize non-religious persons. The point in mentioning this is that there would be discussion in their time of creating that Amendment that would have asserted inclusion by others who would attempt to trivialize those like myself back then too. So I should be correct in demanding that such preambles be removed lest the future falsely interpret our Constitution as implying Athiests as an exception for discrimination for NOT mentioning them as they do "God'.

...those of us who are not religious would be lynched as well.

Where did this happen, Scott? I'm not familiar with the incident.

"the incident"? I had a tough time growing up in a world today that discriminated against the atheist (and basically told to SHUT UP often). So I assure you that back then, it was worse. The exception was TO the intellectual who were freer to express doubt about religion. Darwin was 'religious' technically. But that is irrelevant when, if you take in context how he expressed his proof for his theory, that he was in the process of losing religion. Newton, as many scientific heroes initially begun questioning nature with respect to religion. While they advanced their theories they too were accused in their day of being relatively being blasphemous. The ruling classes ruled on the basis of asserting a religious justification that established themselves as authoritative on what the people should believe.

Well, you have a right to advocate anything you want, of course; but what you're describing is not Socialism. Socialism is an economic arrangement of redistribution and nationalization of industry by big government, in the name of equalization. It's not as vague a concept as you suggest at all.

You make it seem that what I said doesn't include those specifications. "Big government" is still less dangerous than "I am the government", as would be the case of the system run without popular voting.

Well, voting is not Socialist, but democratic. Traditionally, Socialist countries have only one party, so "voting" is limited to supporting the party candidate. [/quote]
We in the West have always been more powerful experts at manipulative propoganda. So, for instance, we falsely misrepresent Socialist countries as "non-democratic", when their system is MORE 'democratic' but has the issues similar to the Athenian form of democracy: when all people are required to play a role in government, the tendency of the LOWEST common denominator to take over is what the actual problem is, not democracy. Today in the news, our media tells the story of the Hong Kong "democracy" fighters going against China as though they are NOT representing the vast majority of its citizens as a whole country.

I live in Western Canada that was non-existent as provinces when it was being formed. As such, out system is Eastern-biased and why, even though we have more of almost every other language than French, we still have a Constitution that demands French as an 'official' second language. ?? Now, given the whole of Canada has its population still predominating on the Eastern side of the country, they still hold the relative majority. That is, democratically, they have the power to impose laws that have no respect for our reality. Why do we have a Constitution that demands half of all schools to be Catholic Separate school systems (a kind of 'voucher' system) yet Catholics AND French are trivial here?

"Democracy" can also BE abusive, just as those of your own conservative types here in Canada and the U.S. favor a "republican" version that Plato proposed against the then Athenian 'democrats'. The system uses an indirect "college" of voters on the assumption that the masses are generally less intellectually qualified to judge on certain interests. As such, their system (the U.S.) adopted a "representative" government, similar to our British Commonwealth versions but with MORE 'freedom' to lobby (or protest) and contribute by their freedom of expression. The "Democratic Party" in the U.S. is their "democracy" defenders, not the conservative 'right' who believe democracy in principle is bad. Where do you stand? Do you know how the Socialist governments vote? [They are also pro-republican but do it differently. Democracy operates from each person's 'authority' based on their literal occupation qualifications. A person working in mining, for instance, is understood as more qualified to know about mining issues better than non-miners. As such, they vote in the representatives democratically from their literal involvement in an even stronger way then the Athenian versions.

The 'social' label refers to their PRIORITY to favor laws regarding people as equals, not just the "imperialists", such as those presuming that the wealthy are Kings arbitrary of their actual worth or compassion about all others. Note that the very term, "imperialism", that the Communist chooses to refer to us as, points out how others interpret a system that permits "an establishment of religion" as implying that the 'imperialist' believes themselves to be superior for no other reason than their declaration of "God''s favor" to be their sufficient justification to rule. So I can at least assure you that most of the world would be on my side of the interpretation regarding the Amendment as meaning to separate religion from government powers, not to permit more variation of competing religions to rule as government.

This isn't true at all. You might be speaking of something like "monarchy," but certainly not of liberal democracy of any kind.

Conservatism just refers to that cluster of beliefs that advocate "conserving" some set of responsibilities, traditions or institutions from the past. It doesn't specify which ones, nor rule out adding new ones; it differs from "Progressivism" in that it does not regard all of the past as a waste or as a legacy of nothing but oppression, darkness and evil. Conservatism tends to work forward from stability, rather than shaking all the foundations down to ground level by way of revolution.

That's a big subject...but you've got conservatism wrong there.

Your definition is included in mine. But what is being 'conserved' is itself is in GENERAL to conserve what you believe YOU 'own' which as the next repsonse....

It's theft.

If I break into your house, and take things I have not earned, the things you have, and you try to stop me, what would you think of me if I said, "Well, you had more than me?" You'd rightly call me a thief. So how is that different if I send the government to do it to you for me?

...points out. For you to interpret redistribution as 'theft' suggests that you EARN your right to 'own' without limits and think it alright to PASS this on to who YOU think is 'superior' regardless of whether the masses of people disagree.

When Europeans came to North America, they took advantage of the nature of the Natives to still be in transition of a mobile lifestyle to permanent settlements. Did the Europeans not 'steal' the land when they knew that the concept of 'ownership' by tribal life refers to a type of floating ownership,....such as the particular lands withint a given time they happen to be hunting or gathering on.

What about inheritance? If you have a right to GIVE what you believe is yours to your loved ones, you are passing on UNEARNED energy to your childen AT THE expense of those who cannot even EARN such fortune no matter how hard they try. How is it not 'theft' to utilize economic manipulation under the banner of "optimizing profits" where it requires being DISHONEST necessarily? I raised a point about lying being thought of as fair to the business minded. To me, it is more of a theft when and where the capitalist thinks it appropriate to knowingly buy some product from someone cheap but turn around to sell it for the great gains as though the act of being deceptive is a virtue.

You mean, if your father has, say, a house, he has no right to pass it on to you in his will? He owes it to other people, you think? Why?


This is a total misnomer. Nobody can ever "inherit" anybody else's sins. It's impossible.

We are all responsible for what we personally do; we are never responsible, even a little bit, for what somebody else did, especially somebody older, who lived long before you and I could ever have even agreed to approve of his deeds.

Sins belong to the person who does them. That is why when God judges men, He judges them one by one, as individuals. John Locke actually pointed this out. But it's Biblical. See, for example, 2 Cor. 5:10, or Rev. 20:12, or Matthew 12:36. You may or may not believe that, but since you, as an Atheist, cannot believe in "sin" (or rather, cannot find any basis in your worldview for believing it), what's your complaint? However, the Bible does believe in "sin," and since, probably, the people to whom you refer who do believe in "sin" get their conception from the Bible, then any statements about it can only be referred to what the Bible say about it.

And it says that "sins," (should any such turn out to exist) are personal, not inherited.

Up to only a few centuries have we adopted the belief that it is alright for one to 'inherit' ONLY the benefits of your parents. If your father owed a debt, this was appropriately passed on where they also believed in passing on beneficial factors.The Jesus of the New Testament attempted to argue AGAINST ANY 'inheritance' precisely BECAUSE debt, liability, sin, was normally understood to be passed on. That is, the lessons argued for being against declarations of inheritance of sin was used to argue against all forms of inheriting because he argued that all people, even the most indecent, undeserving, or the poor (under the general label, "the meek") were the only rightful 'owners' of the world, not the ones with formal declarations of 'ownership'. Note that the traditional and original Christianity loathed profiteering and why they had laws against "usery". They were the 'communists' and 'socialists' in principle who disapproved of greed.

[I accidentally did something that mixed up the rest of the post. So I'll close here and respond in a different post for the rest where need be.]

[Scott Mayers]

By the way, I found this from the "History Channel" on "First Amendment" [https://www.history.com/topics/united-s ... -amendment]

The First Amendment, in guaranteeing freedom of religion, prohibits the government from establishing a “state” religion and from favoring one religion over any other.

While not explicitly stated, this amendment establishes the long-established separation of church and state.

This 'succinctly' expresses my opinion in support. That the separation of church and state was the implicit justification for mentioning the extended notice about religion at all. It is redundant to assert supporting freedom OF religion for the population unless it is intended to point out that government itself cannot 'establish' religion.

This implies that one cannot form specific laws using a religious justification because it would indirectly impose a belief that cannot be defended without recourse to debate about differences of particular religions.

[Immanuel Can]

The philosophers of science and politics may have been religious but if they lived in today's environment, they'd embrace the essence of a government that could not proscribe PARTICULAR religious laws.

That's not how it happened, Scott.

I don't know why you would think your interpretation was to FAVOR religious laws

Did I ever say that? I don't recall having said any such thing. I don't favour religious laws, I favour legitimate, truthful, moral laws.

...if you had to be non-hypocritical, would require accepting ALL religions as equally qualified.

I disagree. There's nothing at all "hypocritical" about saying that one faith is better than another, or even that one is comprehensively true. That's exactly what ever secularist says...that secularism is the right way to go. If they don't think so, they'd be something else.

It doesn't matter whether the royalty's religion was Pentacostal or Al Quada.

That depends. I wouldn't fear a gang of radical Pentecostals, even though I would disagree with them. On the other hand, Islamists are a different kettle of fish.

Also, look at the same arguments of those religious people who opted to make laws that removed Evolution from their biology texts.

Hmmm... the whole evolution-in-schools thing is a big argument. Do you really want to get into that one? I can go there...I'm not sure how interested you'll be when I do.

I'm being told TO THIS VERY DAY, that the religious preamble of the Canadian Constitution's use of the same word is 'trivial'.

Well, it no longer reflects much that the Canadian government believes today, but it once reflected what everyone believed.

Canada was originally named "The Dominion of Canada," based on Psalm 72:8 "He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth." Speaking of God, of course.

We in the West have always been more powerful experts at manipulative propoganda. So, for instance, we falsely misrepresent Socialist countries as "non-democratic", when their system is MORE 'democratic'

Heh. That's just dead wrong, and verifiably so. Which country would you rather live in? Venezuela? Cuba? Russia? China? North Korea?

As they used to say during the days of the Cuban Boat Lift, "All the boats are going one way." Nobody wants to live in a Socialist country.

Why do we have a Constitution that demands half of all schools to be Catholic Separate school systems (a kind of 'voucher' system) yet Catholics AND French are trivial here?

I agree with you totally. There's no good reason for it to be allowed. What's more, Canada has received three formal condemnations from the UN for their discriminatory education policies...all of which, the government has ignored, of course.

The system uses an indirect "college" of voters on the assumption that the masses are generally less intellectually qualified to judge on certain interests.

Oh, you're totally mistaken about that, Scott. You've misunderstood the whole purpose of the college. It's to prevent large states from having total control over smaller states, so that the smaller states can have a voice in what happens.

To explain it simply, if there were no college, then one state -- let's say Texas, which is large and populous -- could make any laws regardless of their consequences in a smaller state, like Vermont. And Vermont would have no voice. So then, what would Vermont's incentive for staying in the United States be? Why would they want to surrender all their interests to Texas?

Now, we can argue over whether or not the American electoral college is the BEST possible, but we can hardly argue that they shouldn't have one. If they didn't, there's be no rights for states.

The 'social' label refers to their PRIORITY to favor laws regarding people as equals,

Actually, it does not. The "social" refers to their giving of priority to the demands of the collective over the personal rights of the individual.

It's theft.

If I break into your house, and take things I have not earned, the things you have, and you try to stop me, what would you think of me if I said, "Well, you had more than me?" You'd rightly call me a thief. So how is that different if I send the government to do it to you for me?

For you to interpret redistribution as 'theft' suggests that you EARN your right to 'own' without limits...

If you make money honestly, because you are clever, or hard-working, and you employ other people, start a company, and create goods people want to buy, have you not earned what you receive?

Explain why not.

What about inheritance?

I was asking you about that, too.

Does your father or mother have a right to pass on their goods or home to you? If not, why not? You didn't answer my question, Scott.

The Jesus of the New Testament attempted to argue AGAINST ANY 'inheritance'

He actually did not do this.

But if you think he did, what passage would you refer to?

[Belinda]

If I may I interject my idea.

I think of myself as a socialist because I give the state the power to protect vulnerable people such as children, the sick, the poor, the youth in need of education, the old and frail, the criminal, the immigrant, the developing nations, all who need infrastructures of clean air, water, food distribution and transport, public open spaces, and defence against aggressors.

I have to devolve those powers on the state as I cannot do it for myself.

I think of myself as an atheist because my religion is so eccentric that only the Unitarian Universalists are somewhat similar. Most people would call me 'atheist' and I don't mind accepting that name as 'atheist' is not term of abuse.

The more the government enhances the welfare of the rich elite at the expense of the needy, the less socialist/liberal and the more dictatorial the government is, regardless of what they call themselves.

[Scott Mayers]

[Note Immanuel, that this is a long response. I will be patient to not look for a quick response if you so choose. Break it up if need be. I notice that I made some trivial errors that in context I'll keep in where I think you can recognize. Had to fix the missing quotes but may have left the odd word where I was about to say one thing but opted to change in midstream. ...like when you just peed and thought you were done but then discovered you still had a few drips more ....after you pulled up your pants!

If you need a paragraph of caveat, perhaps you should be a special needs teacher to instead of a philosopher with the person you're responding to.

It feels that way sometimes. I used to get people more often demanding Tweets only. My hope it to communicate effectively and I figure if you can get to the point where you CAN do this effectively for even a child AND be understood correctly, this would be the ultimate skill acheivable. I doubt I nor anyone could ever be that powerful, but it is still a good goal post to aim for.

[Scott Mayers]

If I may I interject my idea.

I think of myself as a socialist because I give the state the power to protect vulnerable people such as children, the sick, the poor, the youth in need of education, the old and frail, the criminal, the immigrant, the developing nations, all who need infrastructures of clean air, water, food distribution and transport, public open spaces, and defence against aggressors.

I have to devolve those powers on the state as I cannot do it for myself.

I think of myself as an atheist because my religion is so eccentric that only the Unitarian Universalists are somewhat similar. Most people would call me 'atheist' and I don't mind accepting that name as 'atheist' is not term of abuse.

The more the government enhances the welfare of the rich elite at the expense of the needy, the less socialist/liberal and the more dictatorial the government is, regardless of what they call themselves.

Nice note. I'm thinking similarly. Given how we are witnessing the ridiculousness of the extremes today that tell us people are either very dumb or very intentional to 'play' dumb using Machivellian tactics, I fear that the inevitable result will force society into either total annihilation or we have to resort to a Communistic world that while suffering many drawbacks, it may be the only leftover option. If we can't remove the destructive factors of religion, religion itself has to be banned. It takes very little for religion to be utilized for abusive purposes. And while many keep trying to tell me of all their 'good' intents, it is the 'bad' ones that rise to the top and are effective the most. It's sad.

[Scott Mayers]

The philosophers of science and politics may have been religious but if they lived in today's environment, they'd embrace the essence of a government that could not proscribe PARTICULAR religious laws.

That's not how it happened, Scott.

I don't know why you would think your interpretation was to FAVOR religious laws

Did I ever say that? I don't recall having said any such thing. I don't favour religious laws, I favour legitimate, truthful, moral laws.

Then what are we arguing about? I already treat government AS the place we assign 'moral' rules. They are people-based because that is all we CAN deal with. I fear only that if we permit laws based on one's self-declared beliefs alone, we lose the ability to reason with such people when they are in power. As such, no person in power should be accepted to utilize religion because they will always become abusive.

Your concern against the atheist is odd though. While the tendency of one who is not religious may lead one to feel nihilistic, those who admit of having no religion are still being ACCOUNTABLE to the people in that they have no means to back out of their responsibility. If the reality is nihilistic, then so be it. We have to face it and then CREATE our own rules of ideal conduct. We become the 'gods' and, for what I interpret of the story of Adam and Eve, we are cursed into the responsibilities as the gods were: knowing that reality is unfair and that only DEATH itself is our relief from this curse. To be responsible, the lesson is that we HAVE no choice but to accept that Paradise was just an illusion. THAT was the curse of discovery that eating of the tree of wisdom exposes. Note that the 'gods' (Elohim is plural in Genesis) are not themselves IN Paradise. They just created it FOR the naive and innocent we all represent in our youth.

[I don't have time to say anymore for now. I'm too exhausted and need a break.]

[Advocate]

[quote="Scott Mayers" post_id=480061 time=1605450421 user_id=11118]
[quote=Belinda post_id=480046 time=1605435340 user_id=12709]
If I may I interject my idea.

I think of myself as a socialist because I give the state the power to protect vulnerable people such as children, the sick, the poor, the youth in need of education, the old and frail, the criminal, the immigrant, the developing nations, all who need infrastructures of clean air, water, food distribution and transport, public open spaces, and defence against aggressors.

I have to devolve those powers on the state as I cannot do it for myself.

I think of myself as an atheist because my religion is so eccentric that only the Unitarian Universalists are somewhat similar. Most people would call me 'atheist' and I don't mind accepting that name as 'atheist' is not term of abuse.

The more the government enhances the welfare of the rich elite at the expense of the needy, the less socialist/liberal and the more dictatorial the government is, regardless of what they call themselves.
[/quote]

Nice note. I'm thinking similarly. Given how we are witnessing the ridiculousness of the extremes today that tell us people are either very dumb or very intentional to 'play' dumb using Machivellian tactics, I fear that the inevitable result will force society into either total annihilation or we have to resort to a Communistic world that while suffering many drawbacks, it may be the only leftover option. If we can't remove the destructive factors of religion, religion itself has to be banned. It takes very little for religion to be utilized for abusive purposes. And while many keep trying to tell me of all their 'good' intents, it is the 'bad' ones that rise to the top and are effective the most. It's sad.
[/quote]

The problems with religion aren't in his they're interpreted but in that they must be. There is literally no way to create a cooperative society around ideas that everyone will definitely have different opinions on.

[Belinda]

Advocate wrote:

The problems with religion aren't in his they're interpreted but in that they must be. There is literally no way to create a cooperative society around ideas that everyone will definitely have different opinions on.

The more opinion is reasoned the more the people think alike. It is only when people lack reason their judgements are impaired. When people are deprived of liberal education they lack reason and require to be governed by an intelligent elite . It is bad for education to be the preserve of the ruling elite as the ruling elite , as is human nature, are then tempted to be greedy. Therefore democracy is the heart of good governance.

Given that religions are for helping people to live peacefully and cooperatively, the religions can be made to be reasonable religions. Religions can be democratic institutions

[Immanuel Can]

I don't know why you would think your interpretation was to FAVOR religious laws

Did I ever say that? I don't recall having said any such thing. I don't favour religious laws, I favour legitimate, truthful, moral laws.

Then what are we arguing about?

Do you want me to say honestly?

Okay. I think what you're arguing is a position you don't quite actually understand yet. You're supposing I'm some kind of religious autocrat, which I am not. But I am somebody who agrees with John Locke that all human beings have right to free conscience -- and that conscience has to be allowed to choose even Atheism. But it also has to be allowed to choose against Atheism. Moreover, one of either Atheism or Theism is actually true; and the best laws will be those that are ultimately founded on what's true.

I already treat government AS the place we assign 'moral' rules.

How? On what basis do we know which rules ought to be assigned to government?

They are people-based because that is all we CAN deal with.

But nothing can be "based on" people, because people are temporal, contingent, local, personal beings. Not one of them has any universality. So in order to "base things on people" you're going to have to put some people in charge of the others -- but you will never be able to say why the power-group you put at the top is the right one, the legitimate one, because no reasons for that actually exist.

So Atheism is going to issue in tyranny, every time. It can't do anything else.

...no person in power should be accepted to utilize religion because they will always become abusive.

"Utilize"? If you allow a person to "utilize" religion, then they are doing something illegitimate, automatically. A truly religious person does not "utilize" his religion; his religion instructs and "utilizes" him.

But I take your point, in that a religious or a secular view cannot be imposed. The problem is not the "religion" or the ideology itself, which anybody could be allowed to have according to his or her conscience; the problem is when one of those gets linked with political power. Then, we get issues.

Many modern political philosophers argue that, for that reason, the best way to make laws is permissively, and looking to allow as many different views as possible, but seeking out a "modus vivendi," as they call it -- a "way of life" that allows disparate persons to still get along, even though it's not quite ideal for everyone. And that's what the American experiment was: a kind of "modus vivendi" plan, not a unilateral demand for secularism.

Your concern against the atheist is odd though.

Given Atheism's bloody past, I hardly think there's anything "odd" about mistrusting it at all.

While the tendency of one who is not religious may lead one to feel nihilistic, those who admit of having no religion are still being ACCOUNTABLE to the people in that they have no means to back out of their responsibility.

Yes? You think so?

Let's think again. On what legitimate basis are they being "accountable"? What gives this group you call "the people" the right to demand "accountability" from individuals? And why do you exclude "religious people" from "the people," as you call them? After all, agnostics are not more than 4% of the world's population, and avowed Atheists not more than another 4% (CIA). That means you are claiming that 92% of the people are not "the people" of whom you speak.

So what gives that 8% the right to demand of the other 92% that it should be "accountable" to them?

If the reality is nihilistic, then so be it.

Well, if it is, then nobody is legitimately "accountable" to anyone or anything.

We have to face it and then CREATE our own rules of ideal conduct.

Who is "we"?

We become the 'gods'

No, we don't.

We might want to imagine we do, but we remain the hopeless detritus of indifferent "evolution," no matter what we imagine.

Okay, we can take a break here, Scott. I have no desire to wear you out.

We'll talk again when you're rested, if you feel inclined. Meanwhile, thanks for your thoughts.

[Advocate]

>Okay. I think what you're arguing is a position you don't quite actually understand yet. You're supposing I'm some kind of religious autocrat, which I am not. But I am somebody who agrees with John Locke that all human beings have right to free conscience -- and that conscience has to be allowed to choose even Atheism. But it also has to be allowed to choose against Atheism.

If your conscience leads you to believe in the validity of arbitrary bullshit then no, you shouldn't be free to exercise it in any way that affects others.

[Immanuel Can]

If your conscience leads you to believe in the validity of arbitrary bullshit then no, you shouldn't be free to exercise it in any way that affects others.

Well, then, you're obviously against Atheism. For Atheism is arbitrary. And so no laws can be made that take Atheism as a starting point.

I'm fine with that.

[Scott Mayers]

Did I ever say that? I don't recall having said any such thing. I don't favour religious laws, I favour legitimate, truthful, moral laws.

Then what are we arguing about?

Do you want me to say honestly?

Okay. I think what you're arguing is a position you don't quite actually understand yet. You're supposing I'm some kind of religious autocrat, which I am not. But I am somebody who agrees with John Locke that all human beings have right to free conscience -- and that conscience has to be allowed to choose even Atheism. But it also has to be allowed to choose against Atheism. Moreover, one of either Atheism or Theism is actually true; and the best laws will be those that are ultimately founded on what's true.

I think you are believing that politicians require to believe in your God and that if they don't (as the atheists don't), then you think they are somehow inadequate to lead because you presume a lack of religion leads to definite corruption at least somewhere.

What I hear you believe is that even IF there were no God, that the Athiest would still be wrong in your eyes. This implies to me that you think that the wrongful delusions that some people could have by being religious and still incorrect about reality, are still more valid than trusting one who bases their leadership purely on real people. Given that if you took away the atheist in a society where there were no actual gods, then we would be left with ONLY electing leaders who are delusional. How can you assume that IF THERE WERE NO GOD (that possibly you are wrong), that we'd crumble in to chaos? If it were true AND you are still correct about us crumbling in such a possible reality, why have we ever had ANY success or prosperity at all? You would still be begging that the nature of ANY 'goodness' suffices to justify asserting 'God', as though good nor bad could ACTUALLY mean anything even practical (like how a placebo is effective without being what the person credits it to be).

I already treat government AS the place we assign 'moral' rules.

How? On what basis do we know which rules ought to be assigned to government?

We set up any organization or meeting place with the intent to negotiate between DIFFERENT people and ideas, or between competing demands we have in common. What more in common do we have realistically than the fear of our own deaths? And because we are concerning how the opponent is the one killing you or your own is also shared, we AGREE to a contract law, "we agree that we will not kill each other in order to stay peaceful and have to assure consequences against those who violate this by some means."

That is just the first example of a 'moral' WE create that does not have to be something that Nature itself is bound to obey. We cannot control Nature (or God, as this is extended to mean by the religious). As such, Nature itself is non-negotiable. We cannot get Nature (God) to present itself to PROMISE that killing is not something that Nature itself would not permit by default. If Nature is God's domain or inclusive of it, it would either NOT be possible to die, should it be against God's will, OR God (as Nature) permits the possibility of disobedience to some moral law suggested by it.

Your only out here is to prove that your specific God exists and disdains our FREE CHOICE to do evil by assuring NO CHOICE exists to cause evil. Why would God (as Nature) give us 'free will' to go against his non-free preference to favor only those doing 'what he demands? Why would it penalize the very evil for which it created for us to HAVE free choice at all?

They are people-based because that is all we CAN deal with.

But nothing can be "based on" people, because people are temporal, contingent, local, personal beings. Not one of them has any universality. So in order to "base things on people" you're going to have to put some people in charge of the others -- but you will never be able to say why the power-group you put at the top is the right one, the legitimate one, because no reasons for that actually exist.

So Atheism is going to issue in tyranny, every time. It can't do anything else.

Now you are moving into the realm of the 'next' world that you are sure exists independently of this one. If there is no God, then technically we are all either atheists or delusional. You are either like an object that has no posited predisposition to believe (as an 'atheist' is) OR you would be deluded for mismatching in your mind what you think is real.

Your concern against the atheist is odd though.

Given Atheism's bloody past, I hardly think there's anything "odd" about mistrusting it at all.[/quote]
Given any animal's bloody past, even if there were no god, would the poor behavior of the animal, if it is assumed 'bad' to you, prove that God exists?

While the tendency of one who is not religious may lead one to feel nihilistic, those who admit of having no religion are still being ACCOUNTABLE to the people in that they have no means to back out of their responsibility.

Yes? You think so?

Let's think again. On what legitimate basis are they being "accountable"? What gives this group you call "the people" the right to demand "accountability" from individuals? And why do you exclude "religious people" from "the people," as you call them? After all, agnostics are not more than 4% of the world's population, and avowed Atheists not more than another 4% (CIA). That means you are claiming that 92% of the people are not "the people" of whom you speak.

So what gives that 8% the right to demand of the other 92% that it should be "accountable" to them? [/quote]
If everyone jumped off a bridge, does this mean it is a 'good' thing to do? You just said above that you believe that "...nothing can be 'based on' people". Now you are taking a hypocritical stance for decreeing that the vast majority must be the deciders of what is or is not 'true' or valid even IF some law by God's will is fixed without respect to the people's opinions.

No amount of people can assure what is true about God's existence either, without God actually existing independent of our opinions. But given we cannot literally force God to come down here and take over the throne, we are left ONLY with people to form a system that assigns what is to be or not to be 'moral'.

There is nothing to stop anyone from believing that some god is or is not operating behind the scene of reality. What I am asserting is that we cannot allow one to assert that some behavior is justly appropriated as 'good' to some God. The best we can do is to 'test' laws that we guess is 'moral' and see if it leads others to comply. We have to trust ONLY what the particular members of a convention, such as government is, decide will be the laws we test. But when you permit extensions to 'members beyond the convention' (as God would be for not showing up), then the 'negotiating' between members is itself useless. The 'atheist' in a society without God would be a convention of members who showed up. The nut case would be the members who denied reality by imposing that they have the value of MORE THAN ONE VOTE by decreeing they have someone they are representing beyond themselves. So, do we give this person the benefit of the doubt by trusting he represents this non-present member's existence and right to represent them by proxy? Why not add more than 'god' to this by invoking that you have the formal proxy of any number of non-present real people whom you think your vote represents? [Hmmm, sounds like Trump's present tactic to declare he is the 'winner' of the election for secretly having the power to know that the majority voted him in regardless of proof, wouldn't you say?]

If the reality is nihilistic, then so be it.

Well, if it is, then nobody is legitimately "accountable" to anyone or anything.

Then you are suggesting that you would see no option BUT to BE deceptive given it would be all that is left to compete with, correct? You would believe that your ends suffice to behave however you want to meet your desired means, right? If you personally believe this, then I'd have to question whether you should BE a member of such a negotiating democratic system for admitting as such. If you cannot conceive of a system that could function with practical common purpose, then you have to excuse yourself FROM being a participant in the government being created becaues your only certain behavior would be to deceptively undermine it.

The athiest would be an idiot to admit themselves openly AS an "athiest" IF they recognized your belief was correct. In that case, IF they should still exist in government, they'd have to PRETEND to be 'religious' so as not to be exposed for being certainly deceptive and be kicked out as a member of this convention. Thus we come full circle because in a system that permits religion as a virtue, the brightest athiest would come across as the devout Christian (or whichever the most effective dominant religion exists at present there). Then this devout fake, being of pure evil, would trick all the real 'God fearing' members into believing he is the best among them to represent good leadership!!

We have to face it and then CREATE our own rules of ideal conduct.

Who is "we"?

Humans in general in a world that lacks any 'god'. We'd be just like the elemental atoms in us that have no real feelings or consciousness but evolve the illusion of it with intent. The laws we make as members of a government become the contempory 'rules of conduct' that we agree to enforce and penalize of those who break them, ....not because we think these lawbreakers are 'wrong' to the Universe, but because it is an effective decision we negotiated among members seeking common comforts or virtues from common enemies or vices. Such a system would be a 'conditional' value system we test and prune in the hopes of achieving the desired comforts we seek in common, if not in the present, but for the hope of the future.

Note that IF there is a 'god', the one thing that you COULD take advantage of this process is by proving the we can create the very properties of what we think some real God could be. THIS would prove to ourselves that AT LEAST this God is possible! Would this not be worthy of both ourselves as individuals AND potentially validiting God's possible existence as a first step? That is, why waste time on arguing whether some god exists if you cannot prove that Nature itself CAN be 'good' independently? If God is Nature, then should we not be able to recreate this 'nature' without a need to invoke religious opinions?

We become the 'gods'

No, we don't.

We might want to imagine we do, but we remain the hopeless detritus of indifferent "evolution," no matter what we imagine.

Okay, we can take a break here, Scott. I have no desire to wear you out.

We'll talk again when you're rested, if you feel inclined. Meanwhile, thanks for your thoughts.

I think I've made an excellent argument here that you cannot deny. I am not trying to defeat any 'goodness' in you. I already believe it is possible without invoking God, especially if there were no god as a possible fact. If a God exists that set us free to behave AND he chose it in such a way that you CAN doubt his existence, perhaps this 'God' would be welcoming of our intent to TRY in light of no hope!