Yes, I was trying to goad you, though not to defensiveness or anger but to attempt to make an actual argument and come up with some actual facts instead of continuing to present mere assertions. Apparently, you can't do that, so the rational thing to do would be to admit that, let go of your baseless and ugly fanaticism and take a more reasonable and humane approach; but that will take some humility...and resorting to defensive ad hominems won't help you get there. — Janus

I think all of the frustration is coming from your words, not mine. You only offer pantomime style responses, you offer no supporting evidence or examples or valid counter arguments.
Janus: "Universeness! Make an actual argument." :cry:
Me: "I already have, many of them, many times" :roll:
Janus: "Oh no you haven't, admit it!" :groan:
Me: "Oh yes I have, so you need to read my posts again and try harder to understand them" :smile:
Janus: "Oh no you haven't, and oh no I wont, I wont, I wont, I wont! You're a fanatic!! Universeness!" " :broken:

look, look, is that in an invisible hand? — Vera Mont

:rofl: I love that logic as akin to the kind of logic peddled to people by monsters such as M Thatcher via her admiration for Smith. When will all the people understand that you cannot see an invisible hand by looking! They still seem able to fool some of the people all of the time and that still seems to be enough for the nefarious to get rich on.

The question dealt with what harm there was from the good acts that resulted from the belief in god, and your response here is that it makes you sad. — Hanover

Perhaps that's because I don't take things at face value. I consider the possible ramifications of my personal decisions, on the lives and well being of others.
I think folks like Gandhi and MLK did as well, but they got the source of their humanism completely wrong.
I am sure some members of the proud boys or the KKK have performed 'good acts' but I still wish to dismantle their organisations and any influence they have as completely as possible.

Other than that consequence, you need to describe the negative impact of their religious motivation. If there isn't one, then you have a pragmatic justification for a belief in God. — Hanover

I have already stated what I think are the negative impacts of the religious aspect of the motivations of folks like MLK. There is no evidence that the source or main support of his motivation, exists. That harms everyone, as the truth matters.

It's entirely irrelevant whether one could have done the same thing without such a belief. What is relevant is that in those instances, that was that motivation. — Hanover

On the contrary, it's very relevant indeed, as it demonstrates, no god required.

If people do right for what you designate as the wrong reason, you are left with an absolutist definition of wrong, which suggests consequences are irrelevant, but that there is a over-riding principle that determines what is a right reason. — Hanover

No, what you are left with is a person doing something for a wrong reason, not an absolutist definition of wrong. You are exaggerating again. Helping another human because that's what you think god wants you to do, is an inferior moral position imo, compared to helping another human because that's what you want to do, no god sanction required.

This over-riding principle has already been identified in other posts, and it is what we are referencing as "atheistic dogma." That dogma holds that any belief not empirically justifiable is to be discarded, regardless of the utility it might have in bringing about good to the world or to the individual believer. — Hanover

Yes, and I strongly disagree with your and others description of atheistic dogma, because atheism is a response to theism. God has to be posited before it can be refuted. Theism is the original dogma. Atheism seeks to defend against that original and continuing religious dogma.
No, any belief, not empirically justified, should be considered pure speculation at best, and as such, would by no stretch of rationality, ever be allowed to influence so many peoples lives in the very negative ways it is allowed to, in this 21st century.

If you don't feel you must give justification for this principle I have just identified, then that is the very definition of dogma. — Hanover

What 'principle' are you assuming you have identified?
I have already dealt with that, in stating that I strongly disagree with the descriptions offered so far in this thread, that you are attempting to pool together, as valid descriptions of atheistic dogma and I have already explained why.

If you suggest that any use of non-empirically based justifications for beliefs will necessarily result in some negative consequence, you will have to show empirically what that it is. If you can't, you will be in violation of your own principle, and you will actually be invoking faith as your basis. — Hanover

Such certainly can and absolutely does result in negative consequences. All current organised religions are non-empirical justifications for belief in a god and have no evidence or valid justification at all, for daring to base and impose, a moral code on humankind, that claims to be the revealed wants of a creator of this universe. If you want evidence of the harm done then you should seek out the live testimony of those who describe such harm done to them. I am sure they can produce further and further evidence that demonstrates what happened in their life due to religious pressures applied to them, alongside all this 'good' you claim the 'religious' mindset does.
Try watching something like:

I am in violation of no principle I hold to be important, and you have so far, exemplified nothing of consequence that challenges that position imo.
Whereas imo, you have yet to even begin to justify the theistic views you maintain. If you need full guidance/advice on how to deal with everyday human issues such as gossip, and interacting with neighbours, then secular humanism can do that for you, as well, or probably better, than passages from Leviticus and the writings of Mr Kagan, as god and god threats for non-compliance will have been removed.

you are simply bowing down to your principle as infallible without proof. — Hanover

Quote where I suggested that atheism or secular humanism is infallible!
It's the religious fanatic that claims god is beyond question and is absolute fact.
Atheism makes no such equivalent claim. I think folks such as @Jamal, kens this fine.

Sounds like an admission of inability to me, given that you are always saying that you argue against those who you believe won't change their minds, for the benefit of other readers. A real evangelist you are, but unfortunately without substantive evidence or argument, which is not uncommon with evangelists. — Janus

Your bad attempts to goad me are just that, bad attempts, but then you do use a two faced god as your representation image. Perhaps you are just trying to live up to that image.

Explain why the person who lives a fulfilled life, positively contributing in every way to society, and who does that as the consequence of his deluded belief in the most basic anthropomorphic God and simplest literal interpretation of scripture, is worse than the strict scientific empiricist who suffers terribly from the hard knowledge that life is devoid of purpose. — Hanover

I would put Gandhi or perhaps such as Martin Luther King as exemplar lives that you attempt to describe above. I consider both of these men to be exceptional human beings.
I remain saddened that neither man could understand that their motivation/drive to try to improve the lives of their fellows, was fully credited to themselves and not a god.
There are many such exceptional men and women and hesh who have contributed as much of themselves to assist others as Gandhi or MLK, who were totally godless.
Life was never devoid of purpose to humans who are alive. We created purpose.

I suppose the main difference between us is that I care a lot more about what is true than you do.

we owe most of the achievements of civilization to the latter and much of the incorrigible inertia / neglect to (the wallowing of) the former. — 180 Proof

:clap:

I go back and forth on that. Who wants to be depressed, but the thought of losing my intellect horrifies me. — RogueAI

:clap:

Whereas the infinitely intepretratable, adaptable, reframable, malleable, divisible, re-inventable, religious narrative never can be, since it instructs each believer in believing whatever he wants to. — Vera Mont

Best exemplified every time science makes a new discovery about the universe. Folks like William Lane Craig tries to play catch up and search for another gap he can run to and find god can still be reshaped into it.

If you can't see that, then of course you won't agree — Janus

You are correct, I absolutely don't agree.

were once devout, or at least heavily conditioned by religion when they were young, and I'm betting you fit in that category. — Janus

Pay up, You lost your bet, perhaps donate some of your money to the on-line atheist community. I have been atheist since I could think about the topic of god posits. All my family were non-believers to a lesser degree and in the case of my mother, around the same 99.999% conviction level as I.
I wont start to list and post evidence to respond against your:

I just don't see religion as being a major contributor to the array of problems humanity faces. — Janus

I realise I would be wasting my time.

:up:

Well thanks for the info but I think I will leave that personal investigation of IMX for now.
I will happily work cheek by jowl with theists of any variety to gain a more progressive politics.
I will still counter theistic claims in the same way I have always done, especially when they are presented as absolute truths hidden behind stealth tactics and camouflage.

There is a lot of 'netiquette' guidelines out there. There are even ones for in-house use, written by a particular company or organisation.
A guideline such as: Netiquette and capital letters.
When writing emails or any web content on the internet, there’s a general rule that frowns upon the use of blocks of capital letters. It's seen as shouting and as such deemed aggressive behaviour or poor etiquette. There are exceptions to the rule, most commonly for short headings, where uppercase type can bring focus to a specific section.

mentions 'blocks of capital letters' and identifies some exception. So in the school I taught computing science in for 30+ years, we taught that there were some exceptions to a blanket ban on the use of capitals in electronic type. Capitalisation for the purpose of emphasis was ok if the content was not threatening. I am quite willing to switch to the preferred use of bold for emphasis.

I used to teach netiquette to classes from S1 to S3, and you can use capitals for emphasis rather than as an indication of shouting. I try never to shout but I do try to emphasize on occasion.
In netiquette, whole sentences of capitals are indeed considered shouting, as are capitalised expletives etc.

Well, I expect every current member of YOUR site, is rushing right now to confirm your request.
I doubt I will even have enough time to type this response and post it before EVERY current member of YOUR site confirms that they think I am a fanatical atheist! :scream:

Quote me your idea of my fanaticism dusty!

I am glad I typed something in this thread you are not offended by!
You accused me of being a fanatic Mr Jamal. Quote where, or have the honesty to withdraw your accusation.

Perhaps. I am trying to 'appreciate' where you are coming from in your support of non-literal theism.

Especially if one is using the text non-literally -- then that person is being pretty explicit about what is real and what is myth, rather than conflating the two. — Moliere

'God is love,' is the only offering you seem to have favoured so far from the musings of 'non-literal' theism. Can you offer some more?

, I’m an atheist, but still think Hanover’s position is far more interesting than yours. — Jamal

So you are declaring for Hanover's pov, so what?

if your posts had any effect at all, I think you’d turn me towards God. — Jamal

Well if that happens then I have brought you and Mr Hanover closer to each other and god. Would that not mean all three of you should be grateful to me?

Atheism as such is not a religion, but your sort of atheism is fanatical. Earlier on in this discussion, people including me and you were discussing the causes of oppression, totalitarianism, and genocide, and we broadly agreed that religion could not be identified as the central cause. A better candidate for that cause would be fanaticism and absolute certainty. — Jamal

I know atheism is not a religion. Quote where you think I have typed something fanatical?
I have given my credence level regularly, for the non-existence of god as 99.999%
This is a similar credence level as folks like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennet, Matt Dillahunty, Jimmy Snow, Forrest Valkai, Shannon Q, most scientists in the cosmology and astro-physics community, Roger Penrose, Sean Carroll etc, I could list many many more from the on-line atheist community and the science community. Do you consider all of them fanatics as well?

There is no absolute certainty about ANYTHING, just very high credence levels.
I am no fanatic and you saying I am has no value at all, until you provide convincing evidence for your spurious claim, which I think comes much more down to you trying to defend, your floundering friend and his weak attempts to justify his theism.

What do you mean? That's no answer at all. Are you playing the 'redraft the question' or 'avoid the question,' game of theism? If god 'willed' the universe then whether or not that act, was an act of love or hate(considering views like antinatalism, xenophobia, racism, sexism, capitalism, etc, human suffering and all the woes on this planet) is not the question.
Is it atheist dogma to ask if god + universe in greater that god alone?
I am just asking for you to analyse the proposal I am suggesting considering god as omni this and omni that. You want to find a place god can nestle with/exist with atheism yes?
So, does this god you wish to support belief in, not have any attributes other that some rather fanciful notion of what humans call love?
How do you know who and what god loves?
What do you mean by god IS love. Can an existent fully occupy a human emotion?
Can I be wrath and you be envy?

I'm not sure what you're sending right back at me. — Noble Dust

Your love for me of course! :kiss:

I can certainly empathize with the desire to build a better world. — Moliere

That's very ..... human of you, well done!

I don't believe in a theology of heaven or hell, nor do I think it likely to really help people live better lives. — Moliere

:up:

But I see allies where you see enemies. — Moliere

Now you are making assumptions about me. Would it confuse you, if I said some of my best friends are theists. Including one who recently lost his father, and said to me that he gained more strength from my chats with him than he got from his church.

In what way is this different from the moral code of an atheist humanist?
— universeness

Would it surprise you to hear that it's not? :D — Moliere

No, what is exasperating is your 'glossing over' of the pernicious effect of religious doctrine, as practiced in REAL life. Is the god you support others believing in an atheist secular humanist, because if that is the notion you are playing with, in your 'don't break any eggshells as you walk on them' philosophy, then we can end our exchange on that.

I'm not comfortable here because... well... I'm not?

And I'm trying to point out how the appeal is not an epistemic game or debate. — Moliere

It's ok to be discomforted at times, it gets them neurons firing sir, that's all part of the adventure of human life, no god required.

Still one to go! Are you finding this one hard to deal with?

Is god + universe greater/better than god? If you think it is then you have just identified something greater than or better than god! So god alone cannot be 'greatest,' can it? If god + universe is greater/better. — universeness

Yeah, as nice as Mr Ehrman is and as expert as he demonstrably is regarding theism. His deconversion remains a little incomplete, but then, it's a big ask for him to dump every aspect of the Christian doctrine he has invested most of his life in. Perhaps too big an ask.

In what way is this different from the moral code of an atheist humanist? The world has over 8 billion people in it and we need a global system that is as equitable as possible towards them. How's that for a non-church communitarian ethos, no god required, and how about answering the questions I have put to you instead of cherry picking.

I repeat:

Give me one of YOUR examples of a theistic claim, that might be made by a non-literal theist? — universeness

Is god + universe greater/better than god? If you think it is then you have just identified something greater than or better than god! So god alone cannot be 'greatest,' can it? If god + universe is greater/better. — universeness

Though I'll note I don't think "supernatural" stands up to scrutiny, here it's a non-starter because this is looking for what is true and what exists, when the non-literal interpretation isn't concerned with either.
— Moliere
So what is it concerned with that is representative of theism? — universeness

I'd say that's a literal claim, and then we're in the literalism camp. — Moliere

Give me one of YOUR examples of a theistic claim, that might be made by a non-literal theist?
Your example from the non-denominational church (a.k.a 'HOUSE OF GOD,') you attended, that from a non-literalist pov, god is love. :roll: was just awful!
The question of 'what evidence do you have?' would remain, as it always has!.
God is love, still posits a prime mover that created this universe as an act of it's will.
Is god + universe greater/better than god? If you think it is then you have just identified something greater than or better than god! So god alone cannot be 'greatest,' can it? If god + universe is greater/better.

None. — Moliere

We agree on that at least.

Though I'll note I don't think "supernatural" stands up to scrutiny, here it's a non-starter because this is looking for what is true and what exists, when the non-literal interpretation isn't concerned with either. — Moliere

So what is it concerned with that is representative of theism?
You seem to be trying to find some 'pointless' use for the concepts of theism/religion/theosophism,
when secular humanism is standing right in front of you, screaming at you but you remain too busy, searching at the bottom of an empty vessel, trying to find value in musing over that which remains divinely hidden because it is non-existent.
Your efforts are mere exasperations, for those of us who are impatient for the human race to grow up, take hold, and build a better world, which utterly refuses to show deference to any BS threats or guidance from non-existent deities, described via the mouths and writings of nefarious, delusional or frightened humans.
There is no 'negotiated settlement' possible between the supernatural and the natural as any scientific discovery makes the hitherto unknown process, effect, substance etc, natural.
If god shows up, then it becomes natural, if it does not then it's either non-existent or utterly irrelevant.

then that person is being pretty explicit about what is real and what is myth, rather than conflating the two. — Moliere

And it one or more decide to declare their god variant REAL, regardless of what is stated or written by anyone? Then what?

I don't think that follows. Especially if one is using the text non-literally -- then that person is being pretty explicit about what is real and what is myth, rather than conflating the two. — Moliere

What conviction level do you personally assign to the proposal that the supernatural has one or more existents?

Yes, that's what a non-literal interpretation of the Bible would indicate, wouldn't it? — Moliere

So why not recommend the final step and recommend that if you are a theist or you are religious or you are a theosophist then you are irrational, as you are conflating fables and myth with reality. The supernatural has no demonstrated existent and never has had. If you agree with that then WE agree.

Oh my goodness, please, I do not want all you offer. I think it would be absolutely dreadful to have everything without it being because of my own effort. — Athena

Progress allows us to focus on higher order tasks than before. Would you still rather clothes were washed in the local stream in comparison with using a washing machine? Think of how mush time and effort people could assign to improving their knowledge and pushing the current boundaries of what we know, if everyone could take all basic needs for granted.

I've gone to some non-denominational churches which were similar in their emphasis that the story of Jesus is a transformative story which centers love -- and God is love. — Moliere

So how does that particular church, explain the maniac god of the OT, who commanded the ethnic cleansing of some tribes, sends she bears to kill children, smites a guy for accidently dropping one side of the box with the stone tablets in them, supports human slavery and considers women inferior to men. I seem to be unable to associate such a monster with the concept of 'god is love.'
If none of these biblical stories are to be taken literally, then perhaps the story of god should not be taken literally, and we could just see such, as a creation of the Freudian ID.

Right back at you! With bells attached pilgrim!

That is, the miracle of the burning bush is all around us, but, obviously, there is no real burning bush. I don't see how literalism (as opposed to allegory) could work. Do we look for real burning bushes and actual parting seas? — Hanover

No, that's human wonder and awe at the universe we observe. 'Look at the trees!' or wow! look at the stars, is not evidence for the existence of god. I know you have already denied you feel that way with stuff like:

By analogy, can you not see the folly in trying to convince me I'm not actually inspired by the sunrise? That you may just see the cycles of time and planetary movement isn't relevant to me. — Hanover

But then why type such words as "the miracle of the burning bush is all around us," what exactly are you referring to?

It seems to me, that theists are so afraid to take FULL ownership of their own existence and experience this life as a truly free individual, who has learned that they no longer have to cower themselves, due to a kind of PTSD residue from what we inherited, instinctively from our ancestors experiences in the wilds.
We don't need your god. We create, we intelligently design, we create purpose and meaning, we are OF the universe, a universe not created from a thinking agent, but one in which thinking agents evolved.
You want to credit everything we are to a non-existent esoteric! You continue to downplay, downgrade and dismiss your own species as CHRISTopher Hitchens tried to explain to you.

"Once you assume a creator and a plan, it makes us objects, in a cruel experiment, whereby we are created sick and commanded to be well. I'll repeat that: created sick, and then ordered to be well. And over us, to supervise this, is installed a celestial dictatorship, a kind of divine North Korea. Greedy, exigent—exigent, I would say more than exigent—greedy for uncritical praise from dawn until dusk and swift to punish the original sins with which it so tenderly gifted us in the very first place. However, let no one say there's no cure: salvation is offered, redemption, indeed, is promised, at the low price of the surrender of your critical faculties."

provided they do not try to force their ideas onto others, and their beliefs do not in some way necessarily cause social, personal or environmental harm. — Janus

BUT they DO! Constantly, they preach, many of them will actually knock on your door, at home!
The decisions made by religious organisations and the many many people in authority they directly influence and in many cases fully control, DO very much! 'cause social, personal or environmental harm.' Are you fully comfortable with your

I think believers generally don't think too hard on these matters; they just want a comforting story to live by. I support their right to do that, or believe whatever they want — Janus

When you can offer NO guarantee, that they will comply, in any way, with your conditions. How will you assist the victims of their dictates?, since you have given them your support, but you do not say how you scrutinise the actions/policies/influences of the religious organisations involved.

Are these the types of atheists you are referring to?



I can list many more if you like.
These are serious biblical scholars, who know more about theism that anyone on TPF, I'd wager.

I have read the bible cover to cover, twice. First in my mid 20's, next in my mid 30's. I am 59 now.
I was an atheist before, during and after. There are many stories in the bible that have a useful moral relevance to any intelligent human, which can and has been used to assist humans in formatting secular moral code.
ALL STORIES, past or present can have this slant/relevance towards humans, thinking about how they should respond in hypothetical scenario's. The Scorpion and the frog story for example, is not from theism, but can equally inform secular moral code. The claim by some theists that we have NO source of morality, other than gods, is utter nonsense.
I have no issue with reading the bible in a similar way to reading marvel comics or Lord of the Rings or the Epic of Gilgamesh and garnishing some position, on an issue of modern secular morality. BUT,
It just becomes 'silly' at best and 'irrational/backwards/regressive/ridiculous/embarrassing/dangerous/nefarious/deadly,' at worse, to claim, similarly to your own comment;

I've mentioned throughout that it's partly the fault of literalist theists who insist on the truth of the scriptures — Moliere

that the bible or ANY written text or relayed story, that has ever existed, contains the memorialised communications of the creator of the universe.

I fully advocate, that we need to provide high quality, free, education for all citizens from cradle to grave.
I think we both agree that YOU should have ZERO concerns at this stage in YOUR life, (or indeed at any stage of life) regarding good quality accommodation, free and fully available for as long as you require it. Free and full access to any medical assistance you ever require and that assistance should be the highest quality available within current technology. Free education in any subject you wish to pursue. Access to opportunity to give you as many options as possible for how you wish to direct your life in accordance with, 'from each according to ability and will, to each according to need.' Finding your own cause and purpose in life should be fully supported by your local, regional and national authorities.
You should also be able to take all other basic needs for granted including, food, drink and personal security. That is the human civilisation/culture I think we CAN build, and will eventually build, on a global scale.

I read Leviticus 19:16 and I found out a little about Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan and scanned some of the content from his book on the link you posted.
So we basically have 'what to do, if ....... happens and what do to next depending on the outcome of this suggested action or that suggested action. Do's and dont's, based on various circumstances a person might encounter when dealing with a neighbour or someone in your immediate community.

I have so many questions for you that have nothing to do with the content of the text you offered or whether or not, I find it fit for purpose. We can discuss my opinion of it as moral guidance if you wish, but first.
Moses is supposed to have personally wrote Leviticus but I assign high credence to the proposal that Moses never existed. So have you looked at evidence from folks such as Dr Richard Carrier? and a list of other highly qualified biblical scholars who are convinced Moses never existed and neither did the biblical Jesus Christ.

Could a tribe of humans that have never heard of judaism or any other human religion. A tribe that has had no communication with the 'outside world.' But they have been a tribe for many centuries and they have experience of the idea of having, and dealing with, neighbours. Do you think they could come up with a list of do's and don'ts to advise their new generations about how to best deal fairly with neighbours and what is and is not acceptable behaviour when dealing with neighbours?
Why are you convinced only a god can advise you on such matters via an interpreter or his/her/hesh writings?
How do you know Rabbi Kagan did not make many errors when he was interpreting what his god wanted you to do when dealing with neighbours?
Why does your god not just tell you how to deal with neighbours directly?
If we took all mention of theism from Mr Kagans old book and removed such poorly conceived, almost 'silly' sentences and titles such as:
3. Speakers with the same sins cannot speak
All this applies if the witness is a better person than the transgressor. If, however, the witness is just as bad a sinner, sick with the same immoral behavior, it is forbidden to publicize the incident.
Could almost any group of secular humanists come up with at least as good as a set of guidelines, for dealing with gossip and neighbours in general. Why do you need 'god said this?' When you have no evidence that your god exists and it remains divinely hidden to you.
Why is it not communicating with you directly?

But this just again misses the point. It's not that I'm evasive at all. You're just not following the argument or you're choosing not to. If I were to spill out massive amounts of theology (which I will for the sake of argument), am I really going to be interested in your cursory take of it, and do you not see that your take on it would be entirely irrelevant to the question at hand, which is whether I subjectively find value in what I cited? That is, the question is not whether it passes muster for you, but you've got the impossible task of convincing me that it's subjectively valueless to me despite my insistence otherwise — Hanover

This quote above is imo, an admission that your current theistic viewpoints are completely petrified/ossified. That's fine by me. I agree that no matter what logical or rational counter points I offer you, you will dismiss them in automode, before they even land or can impact any memory of skepticism you once had.
If your critical thinking can no longer assault your theism then yes, you are fully cooked.
Debating you on the area then, is only of value to any readers, of the exchange who may be in danger of theistically ossifying as you seem to have. That possibility alone is worth my effort and my attempt.

By analogy, can you not see the folly in trying to convince me I'm not actually inspired by the sunrise? That you may just see the cycles of time and planetary movement isn't relevant to me. — Hanover

Can you calm your sense of your own primary importance for a second or two, and realise YOU were never my main target in this exchange/this forum/ this thread or this life?

But, since you asked, let's look at Leviticus 19:16. This sets off the prohibition of not being a talebearer among your people, which, at first glance appears to simply be a simple proscription against gossip. Let's turn though to the Chofetz Chaim, the seminal volume on Leviticus 19:16 and see what it has to say. But, let's jump ahead to Chapter 10 for the hell of it, and see when such speech is permissible. Sometimes it's permissible you say? Yes, read on: https://torah.org/learning/halashon-chapter10/

Take a look at that and outline it for me. Your task isn't to show me where it's not valid or where the analysis comes short, but it's to explain to me why it's of no significance in my life, even if I insist that it is. — Hanover

Now that's far more interesting! However, I think you are being rather arrogant with your preamble about what you have dictated 'my task as,' but I will analyse your offering, and respond asap.

As for central idea of Christianity, it is a horror story. — Vera Mont

However it's spun - unpacked, excavated, commentated-on, encyclicaled or eviscerated - this story doesn't work for me. It is morally repugnant and aesthetically dissonant. — Vera Mont

:clap: :clap:

World government based on human rights with effective enforcement? As things stand, many people would experience that as a tyranny. But perhaps we wouldn't care?
— Ludwig V

A tyranny? Can you give me an example of what you think their main complaint might be? — universeness

Loss of freedom. Being forced to do what they don't want to do. — Ludwig V

But this claimed 'loss of freedom' would have to be justified in a global system where all stakeholders can take their basic needs for granted, for free, from cradle to grave.
I am positing a resource based global economy, administered by a global democratic, secular authority of, for and by the people, which demonstrates fully open governance, under strongly entrenched checks and balances, which ensure that any nefarious, narcissistic, autocratic intrigues are revealed and countered asap. I don't think such a system is infallible or impossible. I think it would actually be very simple. The initial way that the almost money free USSR Gosplan worked, was a good model, that was soon corrupted by greedy, nefarious managers and politicians.
I don't see why individuals would lose any fundamental freedoms or have to be forced to do anything, but I have discussed this before in other threads.

I have been involved in discussing many topics in this forum, AI, Politics, Physics, Cosmology, Logic, Socialism, secular humanism, theism, religion, trans rights etc, etc. There are one trick ponies on this site, especially of the antinatalist variety, but I am certainly no one trick pony, or only capable of defending my atheist viewpoints alone. I assumed you would be happier that I was trying to connect the theism being espoused by some, to your OP that claims atheism is a dogma that causes religious fundamentalism when all religion is trying to do, is assist people to live moral lives in some benign way. :roll:

4. Pretend not to notice that religious texts, although they do not clearly make the fact/value distinction, are primarily concerned with 'first philosophy' – how one should live, what virtues to cultivate and what vices to resist, and what values to hold to one's heart and live by. — unenlightened

Do you consider dictates that start with 'thou shalt' or 'thou shalt not,' open for discussion, gentle moral guidance, benign advice?
What 'other stuff' do you suggest I am preventing discussion on?

Why do we keep going over this? I consider its literal truth irrelevant and its historicity — Hanover

You're a one trick pony with your only ability to point out that Christian fundamentalists have an unsustainable position. — Hanover

Nonsense! Stop just spitting at me for the sake of it and debate me instead.
Give me examples from the torah or talmud OR ANY OTHER SCRIPTURAL SOURCE, that you use to guide your own life and the life of your progeny but make sure the example is theistic in content or in 'spirit' and let it be held up to critical assessment by others.

I'm not going to restate it. Just scroll up and see if you can follow how I've placed the value in the interpretation. These are people looking for meaning, not inerrant gods decreeing truth and who can't be defied. — Hanover

I UNDERSTAND what you have already claimed but you HAVE NOT exemplified your theism from that which is written or interpreted by others into how you employ such in your life!
Your poor attempts to insult me are ineffective, debate me instead or YOU leave the conversation.

one has to wrestle with the local mud one was born in first, before one can get to the calm waters of comparative religion — unenlightened

Is that personal wrestle still on going in your head or is the fight settled and buddhism or it's 'zen' variety won?

But you're not actually asking seriously, are you? — unenlightened

I can only insist that I am!

I think you are just carrying right on with your rhetorical defence of your own fiction that you have identified with. — unenlightened

Exactly which of us is guided by fiction when choosing how to live their own life is for others to assess.
My priority remains ensuring that I don't surrender my skepticism and critical thinking to unsupported conjectures and the esoteric imaginings of others alive today or in the past.
My awe and wonder and how I choose to live my life, remains credited to me, and not imagined esoterics, interpreted by so called religious humans, who assume they have the authority to do so, based on the illusion that some non-existent god or buddha caricature speaks through them.