Language is cultural, imperfect, and using words to describe something where words can't exist will always incur problems, debates, etc.
There are 'gods' for everything imaginable. But there it is, right there, that 'GOD' is a product of the imagination. It is not for you to say who or what I am, or anyone, for that matter, insofar as personal views on their (ours, or mine ) religiosity Say what you will, but you are entitled to your opinion. If someone tells me they are not religious, and are moral, as long as their deeds to not contradict that statement, I take them at their word therefore, being moral and not religious is possible. You may disagree, well go right ahead, you are entitled to your opinion, but it is not for you to tell someone else who are what they are, on religion, or lack thereof, matters.
Several States have those articles in their current constitutions. It was common in the 18th century. https://ballotpedia.org/State_constitution
non sequitur, you have not shown any such connection exists, except in your imagination Oh but it is! Religion is your philosophy/ethics in action, actions can be 'observed', if your religion is such that murder is ok and you murder someone you are a murderer, period......if you are married to the same sex I will tell you that you are in a same sex marriage despite your denial. If you are not in a same sex marriage, and its nothing more than a philosophical argument, then it 'may' not be your religion, though most would automatically make the deductive assumption that is the case. false, unless what you are calling a moral is nothing more than academic banter, putting your morals into action IS religion. Like most you are trying to make a distinction with no difference I do and did
"Religion" involves more formalization than that. As usual, you're still dodging the aspects of worship, the fact that a religion is a particular system, that supreme importance is involved, etc.
Some States have, and those laws are still on the books, just as the laws that bar Atheists from holding elected public office in some States are still on the books. Notwithstanding the fact that Atheism is not a religion, you fail to understand those First Amendment clauses written by Men who were infinitely smarter than 99% of Americans. The first part of the clauses bars the creation of a national religion like nearly all Euro-States and many other States have. That clause alone is insufficient. Why? Because those Men were infinitely smarter than 99% of Americans. What is another way to create a national religion? Simple. You outlaw all other religions. That religion which is not barred by law then becomes the de facto national religion. But none of that matters, since Atheism is not a religion, since there are no sacred texts, no cosmogony, no lineage, no hierarchy, no silly rules and no eschatology.
It is you who is using fantastical "creativity," of argument, here but, at least, it can be tangentially connected to the thread's topic. The answer to your question is no, I do not see your example, above, about repeating standard medical advice, based on hard, factual, evidence, to be anything at all similar to judging the health, or declaring the death, of someone else's religion, much less of any religion's total, WORLD congregants, not even to mention, the adherents of ALL RELIGIONS, en masse. When did the AMA begin diagnosing spirituality? And where would one buy the appropriate monitor, that could give one a reading for billions of people, in a single test?
That's a pretty high-- I would say unrealistically, and blatantly so-- expectation of any societal institution or construct. By that measure, all of human civilization has been a failure. I feel that you are being Bill Barr, requiring me to do my Kamala Harris impersonation: Not, exactly, condemning? Then, blaming, for the worst of society's ills?... Scapegoating?... Indicting, without proof?... Castigating?... Denigrating?...
Believing there is no god is no more or less religious than believing there is God. ...which means only agnosticism can constitutionally be outlawed While we're on the subject of being uber-technical about it, where does spirituality fit in?
Your comments above has nothing what-so-ever to do with these questions... You're accusing me of..... when all I have done is stated opinions below... Those are my observations, my opinions, I'm not condemning anyone or anything. So ask yourself.....
Thanks. That's an interesting statement. A "failure" in what sense do you suppose? Jesus put it this way.... "And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul? Is anything worth more than your soul?"
Has anyone asked you WHY we would assume this as a possibility, or even as a desire? As a Constitutional issue, as I & others have already answered, it would clearly violate numerous rights & freedoms, described in that document. But even the thought, that government would try to regulate thought, or philosophy, is so beyond the pale, that it is difficult to image that Constitutional theory was as much a motivator of your thread (in the Religion & Philosophy Forum, after all), as was the idea of outlawing ATHEISM. So my question to you, is what possible reason-- putting aside the Constitutional realities-- would anyone have for WANTING to do that? Would you contend that there would be any benefit to society, in doing this? Do you believe that atheists have more faults, about which a nation should be concerned? Or would you maintain that the religious make better citizens, and for what reason(s)? Lastly, do you know of any objective evidence, to support your ideas?
God is not a person...with emotional problems like anger and jealousy as religion has described Him. He is not a "Him" or even a "Her". Humans created the word "God" to describe what is indescribable...and yet is. Once you assign the word "God" to some thing or some one... the true meaning is lost.
Here is the complete post.... IMO....If "religion" had accomplished what it's founders intended, humanity would not be in total chaos as it is today. That is merely my observation. Attempting to condemn religion, or outlawing atheism is pointless...but re-examining it's usefulness and even it's true purpose, may be helpful in these difficult times.
I think it would violate the First Amendment in that it would be a law against speech. Forbidding someone to profess something even if it's detestable not saying atheism is seems like a free speech issue so no I don't think they could outlaw atheism anymore than they could outlaw any other idea
How can you not get this? A person is DIAGNOSED as a DIABETIC by a DOCTOR, based on SCIENTIFIC measurement of something TANGIBLE (sugar), in the blood. Therefore, there can be no debate over whether OR NOT a person is a diabetic. That is why your analogy utterly fails, Dr. gabmux. You are ASSUMING that your diagnosis is correct, which is the very thing that I am contesting. If you can show me a blood sample measurement for every religious adherent, proving that they all have a problem, analogous to diabetes, but with their psyches-- based on comparing their own readings, with a scientifically studied & established, ideal range-- then you have an analogy. But your saying that all practitioners of religion have a problem, is no more proof of that, than your looking at a group of people and deciding, "they are all diabetics." Compare your hypothetical source for the information in your statement, "IF you were a diabetic..." and the source for the analogous diagnosis of all those, who you claim must be kept from their "sugar." If those two sources are comparable, then you have an analogy. If they are not, all you have is a pretext, dressed up like one, through a specious argument. Put more succinctly: your analogy is completely bogus.
There never was a debate as to a person being diabetic, nor have I medically diagnosed anyone. Here is the conversation again... You've wrongly accused me of.... I've given you an example of why that is not so.... You've also wrongly accused me of.....
I'm not going to speculate as to whether this is disingenuousness, self-delusion, or plain stupidity, on your part, but UNLESS YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE AN ANALOGY between your diagnosis of religion as being a problem for humans, so prescribing its elimination, and a similar declaration about sugar to a diabetic, then this is not a thread about diabetes, and it is completely irrelevant whether or not you are, "condemning," sugar by telling a diabetic to stop eating it, because that is in no way comparable to saying that people should avoid religion; that is the whole idea of an ANALOGY: any statement about one situation can only be implied to have any validity in the other, if the 2 situations are analogous. If they're not, your sugar question has no place in this conversation. And I've already explained,twice, that (if you are claiming an analogy) it is a false analogy you are trying to make. You do not have the credentials, nor does anyone, to diagnose religion as the bane of mankind. Here, I will show you how I can do the same thing you are doing, to "prove," my point. But after that I am done humoring your foolishness. If you were a pre-Supremacist white person, who yet had a sexual yen for black women (brown sugar), and I told you that mixed-race children weaken the white genetic line, so you should avoid sex w/ black women, "am I condemning black people?" Compare: gabmux said: ↑ If you were diabetic with an attachment to sugar, and I said to you that "sugar is not helping your condition...you should let go of it "... am I condemning sugar? Am I condemning you? The answer in my example, is yes, it would be a pretty condemning remark I would be making about your, "poison." The answer you are implying in your example is, "no," though that's not even, strictly speaking, accurate: you would be condemning the intake of excess sugar, because of its seriously deleterious effects. But it doesn't matter, because neither example is a direct analog for your saying that it is time for people to bury their religions (though my example is actually closer to that, than is yours, as those are the two based only on non scientifically-substantiated opinion, rather than medical fact). Again, this red-herring of an argument you have introduced has nothing to do with anything we are discussing. I had just posted quotes of yours, showing from where I had taken the idea that you had been condemning religion, by saying things like, "what has religion done for humanity? People still killing each other off...still greedy, selfish, egotistical bast**ds. gabmux said: ↑ If "religion" had got it right...humans would have stopped killing each other off long ago gabmux said: ↑ My point about "religion" is simply that "religion" has missed the whole point completely. It is worthless. That IMO is the REASON society continues to deteriorate.... Your adding something about the environment too, doesn't change that you are blaming-- the way I read those comments-- religion, for the deterioration of society, for our greed, selfishness, egotism, and for war & killing. And your counterargument, has something to do with high blood sugar, apparently.
