Should Freedom of Religion include Freedom from Religion?
- Thread starter Goldtop
- Start date
No, many religions are fabrications because their underpinnings have shown to be derived from other religions, often politically driven and even self-contradictory. (Genesis 1 vs 2 is a good example there.) There is certainly no empirical evidence FOR religion; if there were, it wouldn't be religion.
I have provided arguments referencing articles and information ftom other websites. Does that mean my arguments are fabrications simply because they are derived from another source?
Is it reasonable to expect that religion not find any cultural expression in politics, or is this yet another imposed glass ceiling that has the finger prints of atheists all over the top-side of it?
Especially in the minds of atheists.
If you don't have a christian scholar before you to explain the contradiction or even the relative merit of genesis or even the OT or even the broader issues of historiography, you can always try google.
The fact that you can't see the same is also true of atheism is the problem here.
No one has claimed anything of the kind. You are inventing strange things for other people to have posted.
Perhaps your continuing inability to keep "religion" and "theism" separate in the first place, followed by some kind of a muddling of the Abrahamic deity with all the others, has confused you? Just a suggestion. The faceplant of taking the peculiarities of fundie Abrahamic bs about evolution etc as some kind of universal aspects of religious faith and belief appears quite often in your posting.
Not all religion conflicts with empirical fact. Not even all theistic belief creates such conflict.
Of course - as always here, in my posting.
You should likewise adopt such ordinary clarity and sense.
Last edited:
Nope.
But political expression in culture, direct involvement in commanding the power of the State, is prohibited in the US and anywhere people value religious freedom (or any other) highly.
Goldtop
Registered Senior Member
Okay, if you say so, if Wiki is where you get all you're information.
Ah, so others have either provided information or they can change stuff themselves? And here all along, you kept saying Wiki provides "over a century of well documented data" then it looks like you just refuted yourself. Well done.
It's really funny how you're just clinging to this ridiculous notion for no reason at all.
And, on and one you go. Are you actually trying to make a point that Wiki rules the world or something? You lost the argument long ago when you failed to understand how Communism and Dictatorships work.
Your ability to distinguish fact from fantasy seems to be well known here by just about everyone, so I'm not going to continue arguing the ridiculous notions that keep popping into your head.
Difference of opinion is not schism. And discussion doesn't even require difference of opinion. It only requires the potential for difference of opinion.
You're assuming that there is a difference between gods and pixies, a point that you have not established.
god - well one version
Pixie
I think anyone can see the differences
Of course both being mythical you will never see either in real life
Those are ends of the continuum. I'm looking for the dividing line between a godlike pixie and a pixieish god.
Like shades of colour they are melded together in such a way that moving from one to the other does not actually produce a dividing line
That's what I'm saying but Musika et al insist that there's a fundamental difference.Like shades of colour they are melded together in such a way that moving from one to the other does not actually produce a dividing line
If I find no good (empirical) reason to believe in God, and I don't, that makes me an atheist. It's the default state. You don't have to believe God doesn't exist to be an atheist. This is an important point, please make a note of it.
Well I have him on Iggy since his verbal output matches Jan, also on Iggy, and in my view lowers my IQ (I'll say it - which is already low enough)
Not so! God makes regular appearances on Stephen Colbert. I've seen other strange guests on that show, but never a pixie.
That's either because they don't exist or they're camera-shy.
If the differences are mutually exclusive, it's a schism.
Your assuming there is no difference.
There lies the schism.
You are already establishing the schism the moment you present the view that God is pixielike, at the express opposition to the view that God isn't.
That may default you to an atheist, but it's not the empiricism. There are plenty of theistic arguments to suggest its not reasonable, in the first place, to establish God as something empirical. Your atheism is more about what you expect empiricism to be capable of, rather than what you can discern with it. It faces the exact same problems of those who point to something within the empirical sciences as evidence of God.
If someone wants to try to float an opposing idea that is so far out of left field in comparison to documented events or findings that it becomes dubious to conceive of them even being within the stadium precincts, wiki is an effective tool.
Your ideas of life under the iron curtain, Stalin and Communism are on par with holocaust denial.
Billvon already has.
Spidergoat just did.