Texas to take up bill requiring Ten Commandments in every public school

[jamil]

Ever find astrology in schools? What about celebrating the earth? halloween? Who determines what definition we use for religion?

Astrology fits as a religion. Many earth day zealots are in a cultish religion. Halloween is a holiday. I’m fine with saying if we allow one in schools we allow all; if we ban one we ban all.

 

[jamil]

Yes. There is no such thing as “federal money“ or “state money”, it is just the peoples money and it should be given to successful private schools…

This conversation has crossed into clown world. “Federal money” is what we call the people’s money collected at the federal level. “State money” is what we call the people’s money collected at the state level.

Now. If you want to say taxation is theft I’m amenable to that to a certain extent. But that’s far from what we’re discussing. Every time a straw gets shred you guys grasp for new ones. Now the pro HOA guy is arguing for anarcho-capitalism as long as it can get the 10 commandments posted in every school.

 

[JettaKnight]

Ever find astrology in schools? What about celebrating the earth? halloween? Who determines what definition we use for religion?

Astrology? No.
Earth Day? I mean the earth is God's creation, so...
Halloween? Seriously? Churches celebrate that!


Everyone loves holidays fun costumes, candy, and no requirements to have dinner with your in-laws.

 

[Ingomike]

Halloween? Seriously? Churches celebrate that!

Not all churches, but some…

 

[jamil]

No one has claimed the exclusion of religious education determines what atheism is. Everyone has faith; either in
Jesus, man made religion or one’s self.

Atheism is a religion. One has faith in their own ability to determine if there is a god or not.

Deny it all you wish.

Having faith in something does not make it a religion. Having faith that my car will start doesn't make putting that faith into practice a religious exercise. It looks to me like it's two things that are needed for it to be a religion. Faith (1) in something or someone supernatural (2). It doesn't require a belief in deities to be religious. Buddhists aren't typically deists. But they believe in a supernatural process whereby, a cycle of rebirths into lives of suffering can be escaped by reaching a state of enlightenment.

Atheists do have to rely on faith to an extent, because evolution doesn't answer all the questions. But the faith is in a natural process, not a supernatural one, and with some evidence that at least makes the natural explanation plausible.

I'm not saying this to disparage your world view or the importance of your faith. Just to put forth the reasoning for what makes the two different, and why that makes one a religious faith and the other one not. I don't wish to claim that your way of knowing is inferior in an absolute sense. It should not upset your faith if atheists' faith is not religious. I really don't understand why that argument is even put forth or how people of religious faith find value in it.

 

[DadSmith]

Having faith in something does not make it a religion. Having faith that my car will start doesn't make putting that faith into practice a religious exercise. It looks to me like it's two things that are needed for it to be a religion. Faith (1) in something or someone supernatural (2). It doesn't require a belief in deities to be religious. Buddhists aren't typically deists. But they believe in a supernatural process whereby, a cycle of rebirths into lives of suffering can be escaped by reaching a state of enlightenment.

Atheists do have to rely on faith to an extent, because evolution doesn't answer all the questions. But the faith is in a natural process, not a supernatural one, and with some evidence that at least makes the natural explanation plausible.

I'm not saying this to disparage your world view or the importance of your faith. Just to put forth the reasoning for what makes the two different, and why that makes one a religious faith and the other one not. I don't wish to claim that your way of knowing is inferior in an absolute sense. It should not upset your faith if atheists' faith is not religious. I really don't understand why that argument is even put forth or how people of religious faith find value in it.

religion
noun
re·li·gion ri-ˈli-jən
3
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

faith
noun
ˈfāth
1
a
: allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY
lost faith in the company's president
b
(1)
: fidelity to one's promises
(2)
: sincerity of intentions
acted in good faith
2
(1)
: firm belief in something for which there is no proof
clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return
(2)
: complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction


Sounds like evolution is a religion to me.

 

[breakingcontact]

Get your kids out of the government schools.

How about that?

 

[jamil]

religion
noun
re·li·gion ri-ˈli-jən
3
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

faith
noun
ˈfāth
1
a
: allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY
lost faith in the company's president
b
(1)
: fidelity to one's promises
(2)
: sincerity of intentions
acted in good faith
2
(1)
: firm belief in something for which there is no proof
clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return
(2)
: complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction


Sounds like evolution is a religion to me.

Yeah. I saw that one too. So when you googled "religion" why did you pick that one over this one? You google "define religion" and this is what it shows on the page. It's from Oxford. Or, you can scroll down the results and click on several. Some are vague like the one you posted. Many are more specific like this one:




Now I don't really care for that definition either because it places a higher importance on belief in deities, which, fair enough, ~60% of the world's population believes in one or more deities.

Instead of what defines it, I went about looking at the worlds religions, and the thing they have in common, they have faith in something supernatural.

There is another way to use "religion", like in the example above under "similar", where it says "consumerism is the new religion". Obviously consumerism isn't literally a religion. It's that people caught up in it can behave as if it were a religion. I think noting common attributes is probably better than an official definition, since dictionaries can't agree on a common one. I doubt you agree with the one from oxford, because it doesn't really fit your belief that atheists are religious too.

Again, I'm curious why Christian apologists need to insist that. And you guys don't even mean it in the alternate sense, like the above example, saying consumerism is the new "religion". I would agree that some atheists behave as if it were religion. So I would accept that. But then it's more like the alternate definition. It does not mean that it's literally a religion. So how does believing that not believing in god actually a religion? How does that help the cause of Christianity? Not believing in deities can be a feature of other religions. Again, Buddhists are usually atheists (do not believe in deities), but they do hold supernatural beliefs.

Can you explain why it's necessary to call atheism a religion?

BTW, I am not an atheist, per se.

 

[jamil]

Get your kids out of the government schools.

How about that?

They can't indoctrinate them if they have no access to your kids.

 

[DadSmith]

Yeah. I saw that one too. So when you googled "religion" why did you pick that one over this one? You google "define religion" and this is what it shows on the page. It's from Oxford. Or, you can scroll down the results and click on several. Some are vague like the one you posted. Many are more specific like this one:

View attachment 269405


Now I don't really care for that definition either because it places a higher importance on belief in deities, which, fair enough, ~60% of the world's population believes in one or more deities.

Instead of what defines it, I went about looking at the worlds religions, and the thing they have in common, they have faith in something supernatural.

There is another way to use "religion", like in the example above under "similar", where it says "consumerism is the new religion". Obviously consumerism isn't literally a religion. It's that people caught up in it can behave as if it were a religion. I think noting common attributes is probably better than an official definition, since dictionaries can't agree on a common one. I doubt you agree with the one from oxford, because it doesn't really fit your belief that atheists are religious too.

Again, I'm curious why Christian apologists need to insist that. And you guys don't even mean it in the alternate sense, like the above example, saying consumerism is the new "religion". I would agree that some atheists behave as if it were religion. So I would accept that. But then it's more like the alternate definition. It does not mean that it's literally a religion. So how does believing that not believing in god actually a religion? How does that help the cause of Christianity? Not believing in deities can be a feature of other religions. Again, Buddhists are usually atheists (do not believe in deities), but they do hold supernatural beliefs.

Can you explain why it's necessary to call atheism a religion?

BTW, I am not an atheist, per se.

I picked Websters dictionary over the rest yes it's well established.

Religion has a broad meaning you don't seem to want to accept.

 

[jamil]

I picked Websters dictionary over the rest yes it's well established.

Religion has a broad meaning you don't seem to want to accept.

If Webster's had the same definition as Oxford, would you have picked a different one? Websters is well established. Oxford is well established. Cambridge is well established.

I think religion has a broad meaning too, which is beneficial to broaden 1st amendment rights to freedom of thought. But, surveying the worlds religions, the only one I can find that does not include a belief in supernatural is atheism.

Of course I'm not going to accept something I believe is untrue. If I said, "areligious" is not religious, would you complain about that too? So again, what harms Christianity if atheists are not religious?

 

[KLB]

I picked Websters dictionary over the rest yes it's well established.

Religion has a broad meaning you don't seem to want to accept.

And you think the founders had this more general definition in mind when they wrote the BoR?

 

[DadSmith]

If Webster's had the same definition as Oxford, would you have picked a different one? Websters is well established. Oxford is well established. Cambridge is well established.

I think religion has a broad meaning too, which is beneficial to broaden 1st amendment rights to freedom of thought. But, surveying the worlds religions, the only one I can find that does not include a belief in supernatural is atheism.

Of course I'm not going to accept something I believe is untrue. If I said, "areligious" is not religious, would you complain about that too? So again, what harms Christianity if atheists are not religious?

If a person calls themselves an atheist then spouts evolution they are no longer atheist.
Evolution is a religion by definition put forth in the dictionary.

 

[DadSmith]

And you think the founders had this more general definition in mind when they wrote the BoR?

If they were alive we could ask them. Otherwise like the Supreme Court well have to go by what they wrote.

It is the definition today though. As such it is pushing a religion and denying other religions.

 

[Ziggidy]

So again, what harms Christianity if atheists are not religious?

What harms atheists if Christian’s ( and others) say they are religious?

 

[KLB]

If they were alive we could ask them. Otherwise like the Supreme Court well have to go by what they wrote.

It is the definition today though. As such it is pushing a religion and denying other religions.

I have a feeling you will be hard pressed to find a court that will agree with your take on this.

 

[Route 45]

Can you explain why it's necessary to call atheism a religion?

Because they can't wrap their minds around the fact that some people just don't need a religion.

 

[DadSmith]

I have a feeling you will be hard pressed to find a court that will agree with your take on this.

Of course that is because of the times we live.
I don't expect things to get better.
I believe in biblical prophecy, and it will only get worse worldwide until the 2nd coming.

 

[Route 45]

Evolution is a religion by definition put forth in the dictionary.

This is clown world level nonsense.

Evolution is a scientific theory. There is no worship involved. There are no services, and no bake sales to buy new DNA sequencing equipment. Nobody is threatening to throw you in a pit of fire if you don't accept a scientific theory.

I'm agnostic, but lean heavily towards suspecting that we evolved from a common ancestor of other primates, since our DNA matches over 98% of Chimpanzee and Bonobo DNA. We can observe that. Seems more legit than boom boom 7 day magic from a god who saw fit to create childhood luekemia along with the puppy dogs and flowers, and every animal species in the world living within walking distance of an old man with a big boat.

 

[jamil]

If a person calls themselves an atheist then spouts evolution they are no longer atheist.
Evolution is a religion by definition put forth in the dictionary.

Spouts evolution? Evolution is a scientific working theory. It is not a belief in something without physical evidence. I'm not disparaging you because you believe in something without physical evidence. But I am pointing out that you do believe in something without physical evidence.

I think the problem here is that evolution presents a viable path for the basis of a godless worldview. But that does not invalidate your worldview. Just because something can be explained by natural means does not mean yours is wrong. It doesn't mean theirs is wrong either.

You might not agree with what I'm gonna say here, but you might like it in a way. It's based on human evolution, so try not to roll your eyes too hard through it, it's social more than physical.

Pretty much every human society that has existed before now has had the concept of religion. Religion itself has gone through a sort of natural selection. Societies whose religions helped their believers survive were passed on. Religions which did not help their believers survive, died.

Here's an example. Like the ancient cave dwellers in the south western US. They believed that the smoke from their fires was sacred and had supernatural healing powers. They had these pits dug into the ground that they could cover. They'd make fires in these pits and go in them and breathe in the smoke. As you'd expect their average life expectancy was cut short. They tended to die from lung cancer. Their religion went extinct with them.

Contrast that with Christianity. It has stabilized society, eventually. They had to endure persecution and dark ages, and then they themselves committed plenty of atrocities, but overall, eventually it brought about stabilizing behaviors. I would say Christianity is good for the world.

What I'm saying, I don't think humans, as a collective, have the capacity to override their instincts for religion and survive as a collective. Christianity tends to prevent most of their adherents from society-destroying behaviors. And it looks to me that as a collective, people who override the instinct for religion will replace the religions that have stabilized society and adopt something else that takes its place that acts very much like a religion. Woke is effectively a religion, and a woke society will ultimately fail.

I think not everyone who overrides the instinct for religion will fall for the society-destroying replacements. People who tend to think independently, individualists, non-conformists, anti-collectivists, would tend not to fall for the replacement religions.