Far left publication comes out for impeachment

[ElNono]

Making the assertion that you are Christian is one thing. Believing the God exists is quite another. Same is true for atheism. There are those who profess atheism but hedge their bets by calling themselves agnostic atheists, in hopes of appearing more honest and open minded.

So you either believe a god exists or you do not. If you can believe because you choose to, you are basically delusional. I knew a woman who was delusional, convinced herself that she didn't have terminal cancer. She didn't continue treatment and was shocked when someone told her the reason she was 90lbs and had a urine output half a normal person (and 3rd spacing fluids) was because she was dying of cancer. That's what "choosing to believe" is. It's not a normal belief mechanism.

Would you feel comfortable saying most Christians don't believe in Jesus?

I largely agree with this post. However, I would note that delusion (both self or externally inflicted) is extremely common. Isn’t that central to the fake news debate, for example?

Faith in general is delusion (here I go generalizing). But it can also have a utilitarian value. We discussed this before, and it’s mainly why, unlike Blake, I don’t dismiss religion outright. If the delusion helps some people and don’t directly affect me, then my position is that fighting it is just being an ass.

To answer your question, I wouldn’t feel comfortable, because I think it’s less plausible than the opposite claim.

[Spurminator]

Close enough.
"Not at all. Evangelicals have always been bad, IMO."...RG

Evangelicalism is a specific subset of Christianity. Fundamental to its belief is that they are among the select few who get to go to Heaven after their death, and everyone else is an inferior who will spend eternity being tortured in the fires of . Not only this, but they deserve such a fate for rejecting (or lacking exposure to) Christianity.

And Evangelicals believe that they are the ones who must expose the savage unbelievers to the Word of God so they have a chance to be saved from such a terrible eternity.

It's certainly reasonable for a non-Christian to say this doctrine is bad. Especially when that doctrine influences national policy that impacts people who don't share those beliefs.

[DMC]

I largely agree with this post. However, I would note that delusion (both self or externally inflicted) is extremely common. Isn’t that central to the fake news debate, for example?

Faith in general is delusion (here I go generalizing). But it can also have a utilitarian value. We discussed this before, and it’s mainly why, unlike Blake, I don’t dismiss religion outright. If the delusion helps some people and don’t directly affect me, then my position is that fighting it is just being an ass.

To answer your question, I wouldn’t feel comfortable, because I think it’s less plausible than the opposite claim.

I think confirmation bias is more to blame than delusion for accepting fake news. I am talking about being clinically diagnosed as delusional, or demented. I think delusional people can convince themselves of things they otherwise know to be false. The people you are referring to are quick to accept things as true that fall in line with the currently held beliefs. Supers ious people are likely more easily compelled to believe based on a lower evidence requirement. Either way, I don't think the person chooses to believe it. Otherwise you could simply choose to believe something before you are even made aware of the claim. I have an envelope with a claim inside - will you believe it or not? Decide now. If you could choose, you wouldn't need to know what the claim actually states.

[boutons_deux]

Like everything else in religion, very fuzzy, variations, schisms, disagreements, even violence

Evangelicalism, evangelical Christianity, or evangelical Protestantism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism

[DMC]

Evangelicalism is a specific subset of Christianity. Fundamental to its belief is that they are among the select few who get to go to Heaven after their death, and everyone else is an inferior who will spend eternity being tortured in the fires of . Not only this, but they deserve such a fate for rejecting (or lacking exposure to) Christianity.

And Evangelicals believe that they are the ones who must expose the savage unbelievers to the Word of God so they have a chance to be saved from such a terrible eternity.

It's certainly reasonable for a non-Christian to say this doctrine is bad. Especially when that doctrine influences national policy that impacts people who don't share those beliefs.

Whatever the doctrine states, there are many people who don't share the beliefs of the people who created the doctrine. There's always some underlying belief system causing people to act. Religious people advertise theirs. Others may not even be aware of the dogma they rely on to make decisions. These are always made on an "ought to" system of some sort.

[DMC]

I don't see a pattern of lumping all Christians together on this forum. I don't see it as a personal attack if someone calls Christians bigots or phobic because I'm not personally either of those things. Unfortunately, though, I know the numbers and I have plenty of lifetime experience in churches where this is the case. Christians have unfortunately been way behind the times when it comes to civil rights in this country and there's no reason for it other than bigotry.

So I'm less concerned by blanket statements by non-Christians than I am by the behavior of Christians I've grown up with, and the leaders of this country who promote Christian tribalism to forward an un-Christian agenda.

Religions across the world have a long history of being behind the times of more secular human rights movements. Christianity isn't alone. It just seems to get more airtime here. Blake likes to semen shield for Allah though. We know the Muslims are at the "cutting edge" of human rights, human heads, human limbs, etc...

[RandomGuy]

I largely agree with this post. However, I would note that delusion (both self or externally inflicted) is extremely common. Isn’t that central to the fake news debate, for example?

Faith in general is delusion (here I go generalizing). But it can also have a utilitarian value. We discussed this before, and it’s mainly why, unlike Blake, I don’t dismiss religion outright. If the delusion helps some people and don’t directly affect me, then my position is that fighting it is just being an ass.

To answer your question, I wouldn’t feel comfortable, because I think it’s less plausible than the opposite claim.

How do you know, or will you know, specifically when it will affect you?

What one believes to be true guides just about every action we take.

Should we wait until some faith-based position leads lawmakers to pass a law mandating school prayers?

Dunno. Most people aren't really all that push about it, but the ones that are the most pushy seem to be the ones who are most motivated to become lawmakers. THAT worries me.

[Spurminator]

Religions across the world have a long history of being behind the times of more secular human rights movements. Christianity isn't alone. It just seems to get more airtime here. Blake likes to semen shield for Allah though. We know the Muslims are at the "cutting edge" of human rights, human heads, human limbs, etc...

See, here you're circling back to whataboutism. We've covered this already. You object to criticism of domestic religious practices because it's not globally inclusive enough.

Blake is an American, thus it makes sense for him to focus criticism on the most powerful religion in America. Commentary on foreign religious theocracies and civil rights crimes is not required to do so. I've yet to see him or anyone else condone or "semen shield" for the Taliban or any other radical Islamist group. There's an entire, multi-hundred page thread about radical Islam and, if we want to play the whataboutism game, I don't see you or anyone else suggesting that thread isn't inclusive enough of other religions. And you shouldn't.

[DMC]

See, here you're circling back to whataboutism. We've covered this already. You object to criticism of domestic religious practices because it's not globally inclusive enough.

Blake is an American, thus it makes sense for him to focus criticism on the most powerful religion in America. Commentary on foreign religious theocracies and civil rights crimes is not required to do so. I've yet to see him or anyone else condone or "semen shield" for the Taliban or any other radical Islamist group.

Meanwhile there's an entire, multi-hundred page thread about radical Islam and I don't see you or anyone else suggesting that thread isn't inclusive enough of other religions. And you shouldn't.

It makes sense for Blake to semen shield for Islam because he's an American? Blake is on that other thread defending his little heart out.

[DMC]

How do you know, or will you know, specifically when it will affect you?

What one believes to be true guides just about every action we take.

Should we wait until some faith-based position leads lawmakers to pass a law mandating school prayers?

Dunno. Most people aren't really all that push about it, but the ones that are the most pushy seem to be the ones who are most motivated to become lawmakers. THAT worries me.

So you're saying that you're not as motivated to be a decision maker as someone else is who you disagree with, and that worries you?

[Spurminator]

It makes sense for Blake to semen shield for Islam because he's an American? Blake is on that other thread defending his little heart out.

I don't follow every Blake post but I don't recall seeing him defend Islamic Theocracy. You seem to want equal time directed towards a powerless American religious minority as the dominant domestic religion. That's silly. No one should have to say "Sharia Law bad" in order to say "Christians impose too much of their religious views on American legislation."

[Blake]

Because you say so. You're now the arbiter of truth, no explanation needed.

So it's truth because you post it. Because you always back up your claims.

[Blake]

It makes sense for Blake to semen shield for Islam because he's an American? Blake is on that other thread defending his little heart out.

I've never shielded Islam other than ask what you want to do about it here in America since you think it's bad. Your only move is to go ad hominem and run away.

[ElNono]

I think confirmation bias is more to blame than delusion for accepting fake news. I am talking about being clinically diagnosed as delusional, or demented. I think delusional people can convince themselves of things they otherwise know to be false. The people you are referring to are quick to accept things as true that fall in line with the currently held beliefs. Supers ious people are likely more easily compelled to believe based on a lower evidence requirement. Either way, I don't think the person chooses to believe it. Otherwise you could simply choose to believe something before you are even made aware of the claim. I have an envelope with a claim inside - will you believe it or not? Decide now. If you could choose, you wouldn't need to know what the claim actually states.

Confirmation bias goes more towards cheerleading, but it’s actually all too common lately (as seen numerous times here, for example) of people taking claims at face value based on who makes the claim as opposed to actually evaluating the claim itself. Isn’t that in a nuts choosing regardless of what’s inside the envelope? That’s delusion, plain and simple.

This phenomenon is far away from critical thinking skills, and points directly towards full fledged ignorance. I think a lot of that is borne out of the psychological fear most people tend to have of the unknown or unexplained, which is a perfectly logical and fine position to have.

[ElNono]

How do you know, or will you know, specifically when it will affect you?

What one believes to be true guides just about every action we take.

Should we wait until some faith-based position leads lawmakers to pass a law mandating school prayers?

Dunno. Most people aren't really all that push about it, but the ones that are the most pushy seem to be the ones who are most motivated to become lawmakers. THAT worries me.

How do you know you have a cold? There are symptoms that come around and affect you in ways you detect, and then act accordingly. That there’s a church out there and people congregate peacefully doesn’t affect me one bit. A lawmaker trying to pass legislation based on his religious moral guides do affect me. It really isn’t that complicated to tell.

[RandomGuy]

should we wait until some faith-based position leads lawmakers to pass a law mandating school prayers?

Dunno. Most people aren't really all that push about it, but the ones that are the most pushy seem to be the ones who are most motivated to become lawmakers. THAT worries me.

So you're saying that you're not as motivated to be a decision maker as someone else is who you disagree with, and that worries you?

Not at all.

What worries me is that people sunk into highly delusional belief systems tend to be the ones that want to control the government most.

Good evidence-based policymaking rarely results from delusional worldviews.

[RandomGuy]

Whatever the doctrine states, there are many people who don't share the beliefs of the people who created the doctrine. There's always some underlying belief system causing people to act. Religious people advertise theirs. Others may not even be aware of the dogma they rely on to make decisions. These are always made on an "ought to" system of some sort.

All moral systems can be boiled down to "ought to" systems.

Does that necessarily mean they are dogmatic?

How does one tell the difference between dogmatic, and non-dogmatic systems, if at all?