Secular folks should worry.

[MG 2.0]

Of course, we just won't talk about how much of that loss of those individual liberties and freedom of conscience is occurring today in countries run by the religious:

Burma: persecution of Muslims and Christians by Buddhists.
Iran: persecution of Bahai's, Christians, Sufi Muslims and Sunni Muslims by Shia Muslims
Saudi Arabia: persecution of anyone other than Sunni Muslims
Central African Republic: persecution of Muslims by Christians
Egypt: persecution of Coptic Christians, non-Muslims and atheists by Muslims
Iraq: persecution of Sunni muslims, Yadizis, and Christians by Shia Muslims
Pakistan: persecution of Shia Muslims, Christians, Hindus, and Ahmadiyya Muslims by Sunni Muslims
India: persecution of Christians, Muslims, and Sikhs by Hindus

I think it’s productive to determine what lies at the roots of societies that end up in decay and/or persecution of its citizens often resulting in widespread death or destruction. Why? Because of course we don’t want to go there. Your list is majority Islam with a Hindu, Buddhist, and one Christian example thrown in.

Doc wants to focus on Stalin, Hitler, and Mao Tse-tung. Great examples of godless megalomaniacs.

Thanks for posting those.

The question still remains. What does the future hold as our country moves into the next decade and thereafter. GenZ and succeeding generations hold the key.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Made it to eighty pages. Wow.

Personally, I don’t think it’s been a waste of time.

Various viewpoints were able to take stage and those in the audience were able to read and draw their own conclusions.

Thanks for the push back and comments from the non theists. Those comments add to the discussion and help with showing the contrasting points of view that we see in our society writ large.

We may be able to wrap things up at this point.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

Except for the many scary hypotheticals MG 2.0 goes on to raise.



Hypotheticals are rather meaningless, unless they're MG 2.0's hypotheticals.



I.e., all godless people are Stalin, Mao or Hitler. The list of democratically elected atheist leaders of countries I provided above is ignored. Because Stalin.



Why is he worried? Pure bigotry. Atheists cannot be as committed to the constitution as god-fearing Americans. Because Stalin.



Yep. American non-believers are all communists.



Of course, we just won't talk about how much of that loss of those individual liberties and freedom of conscience is occurring today in countries run by the religious:

Burma: persecution of Muslims and Christians by Buddhists.
Iran: persecution of Bahai's, Christians, Sufi Muslims and Sunni Muslims by Shia Muslims
Saudi Arabia: persecution of anyone other than Sunni Muslims
Central African Republic: persecution of Muslims by Christians
Egypt: persecution of Coptic Christians, non-Muslims and atheists by Muslims
Iraq: persecution of Sunni muslims, Yadizis, and Christians by Shia Muslims
Pakistan: persecution of Shia Muslims, Christians, Hindus, and Ahmadiyya Muslims by Sunni Muslims
India: persecution of Christians, Muslims, and Sikhs by Hindus

But we don't have to go that far afield. Here's an interesting piece by S.E. Cupp, a conservative atheist, on the GOP's weaponization of religion. https://starherald.com/opinion/columnis ... 09c37.html



The absence of "out" atheists in Congress and other political office is due to one thing and one thing alone: religious-based bigotry. If one doesn't at least genuflect in the direction of religion, it's extremely difficult to be elected to national office. I think that what MG 2.0 is really afraid of is that, if atheists become a majority, we'll treat believers exactly the way they've treated us.

Christian dominionists can now impose their religious beliefs about health care decisions on non-Christians and legally impose their bigotry against LGBT+ folks in public schools. They don't just want to exercise their religion freely: they want to impose their religions beliefs on all Americans. And they're not done yet. So, while the Christian dominionist GOP is today -- right now -- taking away Americans' freedoms by imposing Christian religious beliefs on all Americans, MG 2.0 wants to portray nonbelievers as a threat to freedom of conscience?



And that kind of gives the whole thing away. MG 2.0 wants the law to enforce religious based bigotry that in no way interferes with anyone's free exercise of religion. Refusing to serve "sinners" in commerce is antithetical to Christianity according to Jesus. Does the bakery in question serve atheists? Does it serve adulterers? How about people who fail to honor their parents? How about people who lie? Naw, the notion that baking a cake has anything to do with the free exercise of religion is an absurd, paper-thin excuse to imposed religious-based bigotry on a disfavored minority.

But that's what has MG 2.0 quaking in his boots. Meanwhile, we won't even talk about religious-based interference with access to health care or religious-based restrictions on teaching in public schools. Let's not talk about the actual losses of freedom that are occurring today because of Christian domination of governments. Let's talk about cake.



Yes, yes. We can totally trust the Christians in government who are currently taking away our freedoms by imposing their religious beliefs with the force of law, but we can't trust nonbelievers because only religious people can be trusted to uphold the Constitution. Get it? If you're not a "religious American," you just can't be trusted. Because Stalin.



Narrator: And it was true. He was in the middle. Of the far right.



Of course he knew it. Because, despite all his denials, he knows that he holds views about nonbelievers that are pure bigotry and that non-bigots object to that kind of thing.

I want to be crystal clear: I don't think religious folks are per se less trustworthy in terms of holding political office. Far from it. I don't think that religious belief says anything about an American's commitment to uphold the Constitution. I think I'm one of the most outspoken defenders of the First Amendment, sometimes to the dismay of others on the left. That includes the free exercise and establishment clauses. To claim (or worse, insinuate) that an American is less trustworthy in terms of upholding the Constitution simply based on religious belief would be bigotry -- pure and simple.

And the reverse is exactly the same thing.

Thank you for your response, Res Ipsa. I’ll answer in the same vein as I did to Dr. Steuss. All thoughts and ways of viewing the world should be put out there in the marketplace of ideas. It never ceases to amaze me how different folks with the opportunity to look at and assimilate all the information available can come up with such conflicting ideas.

To the point of calling out the ‘other’ as a bigot. Even if untrue.

But thank you for your point of view also along with Dr. Steuss. It does help lay out some of the lines of demarcation we see in our country between theists and non theists.

It will be interesting to see where things go.

We, of course, will find ourselves on opposite sides of the line along with many others of differing views in regards to God and the Universe.

I hope we can retain a civil society in the larger world and that this thread is not an indicator of the misunderstanding and misrepresentation that seemingly occurs between people that have divergent schools/ways of viewing the world.

I would be happy to have you as my neighbor.

Best Regards,
MG

That would sound much more sincere if you hadn’t just finished insinuating that I can’t be trusted to uphold the Constitution based solely on your bigotry toward people who don’t believe in God.

[Gadianton]

While MG 2.0 has repeated his platitude about government overreach, millions being trampled on, and moderate conservativism being our only hope, he's given only a single example of the godless atheist communist threat: The gay wedding cake.

While I disagree with government forcing a small shop to serve a customer contrary to their traditional beliefs, it's not the kind of example that threatens to go the way of Stalin and Mao. MG 2.0 probably doesn't realize there are some significant differences between Eastern Marxism / leftism and Western Marxism / leftism. The communist doctrine that threatens individuals is the most scary ways is the idea that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Never mind the abuses, even if implemented in purity, any and all individuals exist to serve whatever is defined as the common good. The Western ideal values individual liberty, and perhaps errors at times going too far to make sure the fewest and most vulnerable members of society get a fair shake. When you have a member of an underclass pitted against a small shop whose conservative practices maintain its credibility with its customer base, it's a really tough call, in my opinion.

Think about something less morally charged, like Soviet exclusion of people with disabilities because the disabled aren't materially useful to the many vs. Western leftism putting handicap parking and wheelchair access everywhere, against the grain of market efficiency.

[dastardly stem]

Made it to eighty pages. Wow.

Personally, I don’t think it’s been a waste of time.

Various viewpoints were able to take stage and those in the audience were able to read and draw their own conclusions.

Thanks for the push back and comments from the non theists. Those comments add to the discussion and help with showing the contrasting points of view that we see in our society writ large.

We may be able to wrap things up at this point.

Regards,
MG

If you had brought anything of value to the topic, I'd agree with this. But from the start you posted links to articles that relied on studies which were not supporting the points in the articles nor the points you raised. You followed that up to more studies and opinions that again did not support your points. You ignored it when anyone pointed this out to you, but you followed up with more nonsensical claims and faulty reasoning that simply did not make a contribution to the topic. It went on for 80 pages because you posted tons in response to people, including outlandish claims about the other side, other posters responded to correct your points, to attempt to reason with you, and to call you out for your behavior. Considering your history its not surprising it went on for 80 pages seeing as there were plenty of people interested in the topic.

[MG 2.0]

Made it to eighty pages. Wow.

Personally, I don’t think it’s been a waste of time.

Various viewpoints were able to take stage and those in the audience were able to read and draw their own conclusions.

Thanks for the push back and comments from the non theists. Those comments add to the discussion and help with showing the contrasting points of view that we see in our society writ large.

We may be able to wrap things up at this point.

Regards,
MG

If you had brought anything of value to the topic, I'd agree with this. But from the start you posted links to articles that relied on studies which were not supporting the points in the articles nor the points you raised. You followed that up to more studies and opinions that again did not support your points. You ignored it when anyone pointed this out to you, but you followed up with more nonsensical claims and faulty reasoning that simply did not make a contribution to the topic. It went on for 80 pages because you posted tons in response to people, including outlandish claims about the other side, other posters responded to correct your points, to attempt to reason with you, and to call you out for your behavior. Considering your history its not surprising it went on for 80 pages seeing as there were plenty of people interested in the topic.

Hi stem,
It should come as no surprise that you would view things differently in regards to this thread, the opinions expressed, and the information made available. We are coming at it all from two diametrically opposed worldviews. I don’t need to go into detail as to the differences. Honestly, I don’t think there is really anyway to bring our two worlds together on this topic when we see things so differently. But as I said, it is important to get all points of view out there for all to see.

Thanks for your participation.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Made it to eighty pages. Wow.

Personally, I don’t think it’s been a waste of time.

Various viewpoints were able to take stage and those in the audience were able to read and draw their own conclusions.

Thanks for the push back and comments from the non theists. Those comments add to the discussion and help with showing the contrasting points of view that we see in our society writ large.

We may be able to wrap things up at this point.

Regards,
MG

If you had brought anything of value to the topic, I'd agree with this. But from the start you posted links to articles that relied on studies which were not supporting the points in the articles nor the points you raised. You followed that up to more studies and opinions that again did not support your points. You ignored it when anyone pointed this out to you, but you followed up with more nonsensical claims and faulty reasoning that simply did not make a contribution to the topic. It went on for 80 pages because you posted tons in response to people, including outlandish claims about the other side, other posters responded to correct your points, to attempt to reason with you, and to call you out for your behavior. Considering your history its not surprising it went on for 80 pages seeing as there were plenty of people interested in the topic.

Yes. That initial link was a doozy, and the reporter misused it egregiously. Mg could have fixed that and moved on but that's not his style.

[Res Ipsa]

If you had brought anything of value to the topic, I'd agree with this. But from the start you posted links to articles that relied on studies which were not supporting the points in the articles nor the points you raised. You followed that up to more studies and opinions that again did not support your points. You ignored it when anyone pointed this out to you, but you followed up with more nonsensical claims and faulty reasoning that simply did not make a contribution to the topic. It went on for 80 pages because you posted tons in response to people, including outlandish claims about the other side, other posters responded to correct your points, to attempt to reason with you, and to call you out for your behavior. Considering your history its not surprising it went on for 80 pages seeing as there were plenty of people interested in the topic.

Hi stem,
It should come as no surprise that you would view things differently in regards to this thread, the opinions expressed, and the information made available. We are coming at it all from two diametrically opposed worldviews. I don’t need to go into detail as to the differences. Honestly, I don’t think there is really anyway to bring our two worlds together on this topic when we see things so differently. But as I said, it is important to get all points of view out there for all to see.

Thanks for your participation.

Regards,
MG

All hat. No cattle.

[Res Ipsa]

Of course, we just won't talk about how much of that loss of those individual liberties and freedom of conscience is occurring today in countries run by the religious:

Burma: persecution of Muslims and Christians by Buddhists.
Iran: persecution of Bahai's, Christians, Sufi Muslims and Sunni Muslims by Shia Muslims
Saudi Arabia: persecution of anyone other than Sunni Muslims
Central African Republic: persecution of Muslims by Christians
Egypt: persecution of Coptic Christians, non-Muslims and atheists by Muslims
Iraq: persecution of Sunni muslims, Yadizis, and Christians by Shia Muslims
Pakistan: persecution of Shia Muslims, Christians, Hindus, and Ahmadiyya Muslims by Sunni Muslims
India: persecution of Christians, Muslims, and Sikhs by Hindus

I think it’s productive to determine what lies at the roots of societies that end up in decay and/or persecution of its citizens often resulting in widespread death or destruction. Why? Because of course we don’t want to go there. Your list is majority Islam with a Hindu, Buddhist, and one Christian example thrown in.

Doc wants to focus on Stalin, Hitler, and Mao Tse-tung. Great examples of godless megalomaniacs.

Thanks for posting those.

The question still remains. What does the future hold as our country moves into the next decade and thereafter. GenZ and succeeding generations hold the key.

Regards,
MG

Fascinating how you can claim that nonbelievers are an existential threat to civil society in one breath, and then turn right around and throw your fellow believers under the bus when you don't like the actual facts. I didn't throw anything in. I went through one of the many reports you can find online that catalog persecution of religious minorities. If you want to read it, I'll check my browser history and post a link.

The point, which you studiously avoided, is that there is nothing magical about belief in God that makes someone more likely to preserve civil society or to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Believers and nonbelievers alike can and will abuse political power. Believers and nonbelievers alike can and will persecute believers.

How do we avoid that here? Step one: Stop portraying entire groups of people as existential threats to civil society or the Constitution based on bigoted stereotypes. Stop trying to make people afraid of "secularists" or "secular humanists" or "progressive secularists" (I guess now we have to throw in Muslims, right?) and recognize that there are millions of people in those categories who are just as committed to the U.S. Constitution and civil society as you are. And that there are also millions of believers who are not. You are making enemies out of people who would be your allies on those fundamental issues if you simply didn't reject them out of hand because they don't share your religious beliefs.

Every person who holds a bigoted belief about a group also believes their bigotry is justified by evidence. You are no exception. One thing I respect about Ajax18s bigotry is that he owns it. He doesn't try to hide it with superficial, insincere politeness. When you invoke Communist dictators as a basis to fear monger against your fellow Americans, that's about as uncivil as it gets. No amount of smilies or patronizing "I'd be happy to be your neighbor" makes up for that.

You want to avoid tyranny? Stop crapping on your fellow Americans you are committed to creation of a civil society and upholding the Constitution as you are. Divides like the one you keep emphasizing -- believers v. nonbelievers -- are what weaken a country and make it susceptible to capture by authoritarians and tyrants. You are the problem you claim to be worried about. Are you willing to make even a tiny effort to fix it?

[Nimrod]

If you had brought anything of value to the topic, I'd agree with this. But from the start you posted links to articles that relied on studies which were not supporting the points in the articles nor the points you raised. You followed that up to more studies and opinions that again did not support your points. You ignored it when anyone pointed this out to you, but you followed up with more nonsensical claims and faulty reasoning that simply did not make a contribution to the topic. It went on for 80 pages because you posted tons in response to people, including outlandish claims about the other side, other posters responded to correct your points, to attempt to reason with you, and to call you out for your behavior. Considering your history its not surprising it went on for 80 pages seeing as there were plenty of people interested in the topic.

Hi stem,
It should come as no surprise that you would view things differently in regards to this thread, the opinions expressed, and the information made available. We are coming at it all from two diametrically opposed worldviews. I don’t need to go into detail as to the differences. Honestly, I don’t think there is really anyway to bring our two worlds together on this topic when we see things so differently. But as I said, it is important to get all points of view out there for all to see.

Thanks for your participation.

Regards,
MG

I doubt, MG, that you'd like anything more than that your faith approach (hope for something devoid of supporting evidence) be considered alongside propositions for which there is empirical evidence and results from logic applied to such evidence. However, they are not comparable. Faith is unreliable, and not even in the same league of value to mankind. Look at this tabled list (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_d ... tic_events) of predicted apocalyptic dates in the past that came and went without the event having ocurred. It did not matter how many people believed--the dates just came and went without the predicted event.

I see "where you are coming from." You have deluded yourself into acting on hopes, barren of empirical data and logic therefrom. Just because I "see" how you've deluded yourself does not mean that I (nor anyone else) should consider it on a par with empirical observation/logic, nor "god forbid" act upon it.

Even a Pascal's Wager is a folly of wasting one's life. Of the thousands of different religious iterations, it's a blind dart throw as to which one to follow. Get the wrong "god" and it's, "close but no cigar." Just a life wasted denying yourself.

In your thousands of posts here, you've not moved the needle. It is still on empty.