It seems that the people most resistant to reality and adhering to ideological fantasy despite all manner of facts to the contrary tend to be religious, though.

__________________

I mean... you can argue with me that a living human being isn't a living human being, or you can argue with some of your fellow liberals that easy universal access to the most effective firearms doesn't result in frequent mass shootings (even though that's what's been happening).

And economics? Once a human finds his economic philosophy and clings to it, it seems so personally intuitive to him that everyone else is obviously living in an "ideological fantasy" about how numbers and reality work.

I'm not saying all beliefs are equal, because they aren't. But part of empathy is remembering that people have reasons for believing what they do. It's not always a blind lockstep.

@Sarah, when I think militant atheist I think one that is very critical or religion and outspoken about it. I'd also argue that is the general usage of the term. I certainly did not mean to imply you go around rounding up believers and throwing them into gulags, or even just imaging doing it

Ultimately you and I would probably agree on most things though I feel our outlooks are quite different. For example I too am 99,99999% sure there is no magic of any kind but I am sad about this fact because a brief stint in a meaningless universe followed by eternal darkness is about as depressing as it gets imo. I want to want to believe but I can't, don't have it in me. So I am not very religious and would not like being faced with an overbearing theocracy. And while I can agree that religion was used to justify bad things it also inspired people to be good, also religion is another tool that can bind a bunch of people into a society. You probably don't think that matters and (if I recall your beliefs correctly) think we should be loyal to the whole species rather than any subsection. Which I would argue is a laudable thought but quite unlikely to matter any time soon. I'd also argue that tradition matters, that we have a debt to our ancestors to at least pay homage to what they fought and died for. Which I am sure you'd dismiss outright.

... So yeah, similar ideas but quite different outlooks

A court has ruled that it's okay to discriminate against certain guests from giving invocations/prayers based on their religion or lack thereof.
"Although the court found that Barker was injured, and that the defendants did not have legislative immunity, she ruled that none of the defendants was ultimately responsible for that injury.
The judge claimed that the chaplain was powerless to allow Barker to give the invocation, due to House rules yet also dismissed Barker's claim against the House itself. The decision fails to identify who, if not the House chaplain and the House itself, could be sued for implementing a rule excluding nonbelievers from participation."
There's an impressive level of bullshit there. Yes, there was wrongdoing, no, nobody is immune, but who did it is a mystery that cannot be solved so don't bother trying!
https://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/...t-wake-up-call

__________________

Are you fucking shitting me?

__________________
Brought to you by Sanguine Enterprises.

My Worldbuilding:
http://bloodinkworlds.tumblr.com/

A non issue and a foundation drumming up controversy for the sake of it.
woo.

If the judge had at least said who the real defendant should be, I might buy that. If not them, then who?

Edit:
A Satanist in MO has won a case about anti-abortion laws violating her freedom of religion. I love these guys.
http://www.worldreligionnews.com/rel...igious-beliefs

__________________

Please try to avoid double posting.

__________________
So you wish to join the unofficial SoL Discord? Say no more!

I thought it was okay if the second post included new news on the subject. My bad.

__________________

No problemo. (As far as I know, there need to be at least 3 days between the posts regardless of the subject.)

__________________
So you wish to join the unofficial SoL Discord? Say no more!

Well, good news for the Aztecs.

So, me rambling thoughts and everything right now.
I've come to see political ideology as a far greater threat than religion.
While religion fancies itself with silly fantasies one thing I've come to realize is that it's often less dangerous due to the concept of "personal salvation." Personal salvation allows for an individual to exist within a society of other people while simultaneously gaining "utopia". On the otherhand, a political ideology which has the main aim of establishing a utopia on earth can only arrive at "salvation" through either creating or taking control of society. Thus political ideologies require more than the individual and involve social control not personal discipline, a highly bloody existence.

While it is in the realm of possibility for society to develop competing philosophies on what is "the good life" and for these to compete for individual attention and "salvation" it does not seem to have a strong enough pull.

The GOP is trying to turn churches into PACs.
http://ramedium.com/republicans-usin...-church-state/
I don't understand why so many religious people hate the first amendment.

__________________

It's probably related to why everyone in the country "hated the first amendment" until 1954.

Yeah, I've said before that I think this can only end with religious organizations losing their tax exempt status (likely followed by charitable groups forming as "independent" satellites of these religious groups, and those charities gaining the tax exempt status). But I feel it's only tangentially related to the religious establishment clause of the First Amendment.

EDIT: Meh, the whole thing is de facto null right now anyway.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/johnwha...amendment/amp/
Tell me Planned Parenthood doesn't endorse or oppose political candidates, and then we can all enjoy a hearty bellylaugh together.

You just quoted a source saying that they don't. You do know that religious PACs are a thing, right?

__________________

Everybody knows which candidates the various churches, preachers, and Planned Parenthood leaders endorse. The value of saying they can't endorse candidates is nil, because it happens anyway. That's my point.

https://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...llary-clinton/

Technically, technically. The churches don't technically support anyone, either. Meh, the value of technically?

Still separate, and still not sending money to campaigns.

__________________

Pause. I seem to have made a goalpost error. Lemme rewind...

I missed the crux of your article:

That is a problem. Honestly, politicians should be able to agree that the Johnson Amendment is silly and therefore unenforced (which the article does seem to confirm) and act accordingly WITHOUT trying to create new legal divisions between spiritual and non-spiritual non-profits.

Random tidbit from another thread...

Incidentally, that would make the Republican fellow neither Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Coptic, Assyrian, nor nearly any type of Christian that came before the 1500s.

He is also not Martin Luther, Thomas Cranmer, or John Wesley... but I guess we also know that because they died.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perp...ginity_of_Mary

He probably meant when Mary was married to Joseph (though she was probably closer to twelve when they married). Honestly, the whole way this is being handled is stupid.

__________________
I like to cook. Here's a thread on how it relates to Warcraft.

From another thread:

The groups Genesis refers to represent a sort of secularizing trend. They're the mainstream (non-evangelical) Protestants.

I am of the opinion that they lack roots, that most of their membership are destined to become atheists (like Genesis) or members of a different spirituality/religion (like myself).

Nope. Fuck you, BaronGrackle and your disrespectful mouth. You don't speak for me, my experiences, or my current beliefs. You know nothing. Speak for yourself, but not for me. And for the record, your condescending brand of Roman Catholicism turns me off more than anything mainstream Protestants have said, done, or professed. It has nothing to do with "roots" or secularizing trends. So take your poor excuse for a shitty half-baked opinion and cram it up your ass so far that you can chew it in your mouth.

I honestly can't tell if you're being serious or not.

__________________

And you have a theology-related classroom. For the life of me, I don't understand why this is your nerve.

EDIT: Seriously. When I get told my ilk is the Whore of Babylon and enemy of true Christianity, I understand why and want to answer. When an atheist indicates my folk are the historical enemies of progress and all things good, that's something worth talking about. I know they're looking out for me as a person, to enrich me and the world. So I jump at a chance to answer. We sharpen each other that way. It's a journey for truth, right?

To be fair, I can see why the protestant mindset of "do literally whatever you want as long as you feel bad about it later and tell Jesus you love him" would be opposed by more traditional sects.

__________________