Rainbow crosswalks?

I forgot this, my answer is only if we do.

1 Like

What if everyone in the “public space” WANTS to pray except for one atheist who wants to keep them from doing so? I thought you lefties were all in favor of “majority rules”–at least until the majority wants to do something that they disapprove of. Nobody is forcing an atheist to pray…or even participate in any way with a prayer. They are perfectly free to ignore it.

And what you think is immaterial, CSB.

Most reasoned atheists don’t object to people praying, they object to the state using legislation to force prayer into government or public spaces. Most reasoned atheists would object to the state using it’s power to force private citizens from praying.

I can’t account for everyone because “atheists” aren’t a organized group with a manifesto or a code they agree on (other than they disbelieve in a god/s) any more than people that Hate the New England Patriots have anything in common other than they hate the Pats.

If a group of people objected to people praying in “public spaces” I would gladly stand with Christians and/ or people of other faiths and their right to do so because there is a principle there worth defending even if I disagree with the thing I’m defending.

I’d argue that “life” does not begin when the sperm and egg come together. What egg and sperm have is the potential for life.

Now I’ve said before there comes a point at which the fetus becomes a baby and that point is prior to birth IMO, but I don’t believe that life begins at conception,

This is more a state of our culture than anything. Trump has done innumerable things that the right, including the so-called evangelicals, would have railed against if a Dem had done them. Listing to Republicans twist themselves in knots running from questions, ignoring questions or performing mental gymnastics would be funny if it weren’t so sad.

That said, the Left is, at times just as guilty.

But I don’t put all the blame on the politicians. They are just reacting to their audience and what they want.

Some of the things you’ve said are an issue and there are some things that Dems should do differently. Unfortunately, there are no Dems I’m aware of that represent my interests, it’s just that Republicans generally represent my interests even less. It’s tough deciding to eat the turd sandwich or the turd sandwich with pickles, but those are the choices.

For my part, I’m coming to realize that all we do the left and the right, is spend our time finding the worst examples of the other side and try to use things to outrage others.

In reality, we all feel like the other side are a bunch of hypocrites and we have the moral and ethical justification the other side lacks.

I’m willing to admit that the left has PLENTY of problems. I’m also willing to admit that there are some ideas and traits that people on the right have that are valuable and are in short supply on the left, just as I think there are traits of people on the left that are valuable that are in short supply on the right.

Honestly, I would no more like to live in this nation controlled by people on the far right than I would want to live in this nation if it were controlled by the far right, but for different reasons, obviously.

We’re a better nation if people on both sides learn to compromise and hold each other accountable (including people on “our side”). Instead, we are becoming more tribal and more self-destructive and ignoring “our” flaws and projecting them on others. For my part, I’ve contributed to this problem, even here on RO.

But I realize the solution is not to convince you and the others here your wrong, but figure out a way to come to the table, but I’m pretty cynical at this point. I’m 50 and I can’t imagine that things will get better in my lifetime, not without a life-altering global event.

Is it though?

Pretty sure you said “metaphysical” in referring to the Bible.

If someone misdirected, that’d be you. Also, pretty sure you didn’t know what the word meant.

Actually, they do. Because Paul recast the meaning of the Old Testament; one from a story strictly about people and land (how the Jews approach it), to one about a story of continuous tragedy [finally] being upended by the coming of Christ.

Jews approach the concept of “Justice” from the standpoint of their exodus; of keeping commonality as a people. Something we as Christians never experienced, nor do we think quite so tribally.

Not when the life doesn’t exist.

From what I understand, the vast majority of biologists disagree with you.

Actually, there are at least 3 “organized atheist organizations” that I can think of right offhand. At least two of them sued to have prayer removed from public schools 56 or so years ago and continue to sue to remove creches in public venues, or crosses on public property.

1 Like

Name one thing President Trump has done AS PRESIDENT that the right would rally against if a Democrat had done it…I can’t think of anything either, CSB. That’s really the problem with you lefties. You make dozens of silly accusations of wrongdoing by the President but can’t seem to think of one of them when pressed. “Oh, he’s obstructing justice.” Ask them HOW he’s done that, and they’ll inevitably say something equally vague or stupid.

Yes. You opinion is just that…YOUR opinion…and has no merit nor even legal standing.

Sure, people who are atheists can form groups just as people who believe in god can. But the difference between atheists and Christians is that atheists don’t believe in something and Christians do.

There is no doctrine or dogma around the idea that you don’t believe something. That said, people who are atheist can form groups about things they do believe, but then, it’s not about atheism as atheism is a lack of beleif, it becomes about whatever it is they believe. I for one know of a single group formed around atheism called “Atheists+” (not saying there aren’t more). I have, in the communities that have discussed it brutally ridiculed the idea as utter non-sense. Whatever that group stands for is all in the “+” and has nothing to do with Atheism. It’s cultural corruption of the term just as you might believe that painting the confederate battle standard/ flag a symbol of racism is historical corruption (an idea am in partial agreement with).

All prayer or just that the school officially recognized a time of prayer? I support the former object to the latter.

As far as creches and crosses in public areas, I think there is a bit more nuanced approach to this. As I said, I’m against using the government as a hammer to attack one’s political/ ideological/ religious opposition (solely for that reason). I think we should consider the context/ time in which these effigies were created and the reason they were created and they can be decided on a case, by case basis. Going forward I don’t think we should create more, but for the ones that exist, I think removing them, by-and-large creates more problems than it solves. There is plenty of private lands that people can install these symbols and I have no problem if they can be seen from public spaces.

Despite what you might think, I recognize the significant contribution religion plays/ has played to human social and cultural evolution. I recognize the rather paradoxical idea that religion or the belief in gods may be one of the reasons that humans have come so far so fast over the last 10,000 years. I just think we’ve reached a point where we need to rely less on dogma and more on an understanding of facts supported by evidence.

However, the social bonds formed in religious groups cannot be underestimated and if we separate from religion we need to find something to replace it and I think, so far, we’re not doing a very good job. Organized religion has had a significant positive impact on our culture and society, I don’t deny that.

This is a forum, right? Where people come to share opinions? I never claimed that my opinion is anything more than that, but opinions resonate, people read them and they either agree or disagree, change their minds or don’t. If someone reads what I write and it alters their thinking, even subtlety, it does matter.

I admit, my time here at RO has caused me to change how I feel about some issues, but that’s a good thing. Diversity of ideas, entertaining thoughts you don’t necessarily agree with.

I mention it already, but my feeling about the Confederate flag and statues were changed (albeit incrementally). My voice here is different, I have different ideas and beliefs. Frankly, I think the problem is that Conservatives talk to each other about things they already believe and liberals do the same. This results in very little diversity, and fewer ideas and I think we’re all worse off for it.

That’s just it, a zygote isn’t life. Any more than if I cut my arm off, it is alive even though it has many of the traits of life. Cut my arm off it dies, remove the Zygote, it dies. However, at some point, the fetus has the capacity to maintain it’s own life, even if it lacks the ability (e.g can eat, but lacks the capacity to feed itself). I think there are some subtleties to fact in, like when the baby develops the capacity to form memories, feel pain ect…So I think the threshold is probably earlier than the deficition ive given above, mostly because lungs for relatively late, but I wouldn’t support abortion just because a baby hadn’t developed lungs yet, if it can feel pain, form memories ect.

Sure, but you of all people aren’t suggesting that we conform just because the majority believes something?

I mean, we’re not discussing something as straightforward as F=MA, there is a debate here because it really all depends on how we feel about this issue. Gravity doesn’t leave a lot of room for my feelings or yours, this issue does.

Actually it doesn’t, CSB…leave a lot of room for how you FEEL about whether or not life begins at conception or at some later time in the baby’s development. How you “feel” about it, is immaterial. The FACT is, that human life DOES begin at conception and EVERY honest biologist agrees. After conception occurs, one of six things happens. The fertilized egg–the “zygote” if you prefer–fails to implant in the uterus and is expelled from the woman’s body at menses. Second, the fertilized egg implants outside of the uterus–usually in the Fallopian tube–and must be surgically removed to save the mother’s life and future fertility. Third, the fertilized egg implants normally, but some genetic defect is present which causes the developing baby to die in utero and must be surgically removed to save the mother’s life and future fertility. Fourth, the fertilized egg implants normally and the mother miscarries and the the embryo is expelled from the uterus “naturally”, what most women refer to as a “miscarriage.” Fifth, the fertilized egg implants normally and the "mother"chooses to kill it and undergoes an abortion, or Sixth, the fertilized egg implants normally and the baby grows to maturity and exits the womb as a live, full-term baby. In EACH of the above instances, the zygote, embryo, baby is a live, human being from the instant of conception. Even if only a pair of cells sharing chromosomes.

That’s just it. You think that feelings have nothing to do it, but you’re 100% wrong. How people feel about this is EVERYTHING.

Here let me say this another way…

Yes, life begins, logically at conception, but a human zygot is not alive. It is the precursor to life as you and I know it.

But, whatever, not that interested in debating this, I’m not going to change your mind and you’re not going to change mine. That’s why how we feel matters. If everyone agreed with you, the laws and culture would refelct that. If everyone agreed with me, the laws and culture would reflect that. Right now there is no clear majority on this question, which is why how we feel about it matters.

Wrong, CSB. How one “feels” about an issue usually (not always) has nothing to do with the facts surrounding the issue. I REALLY wish the left would get off of this “feelings” nonsense. Facts are facts and truth is truth. If a murder occurs, it only occurred ONE WAY. How you may “feel” about it, is immaterial. If a novel is written, it only says what it says. How you “feel” about it is immaterial as to what it says. If a woman becomes pregnant, how you “feel” about it is immaterial as to whether or not she is actually pregnant. She COULD experience any one of the six outcomes I listed above, but that doesn’t change the FACT that she’s pregnant. If a fertilized egg isn’t “alive”, how does it know to replicate itself and grow into a human baby and not a giraffe?

There are organized Atheists.

So well organized in fact, they’re excommunicating each other.

1 Like

That’s pretty funny, even considering the source…

This isn’t just a majority; this is a SUPERmajority of professional experts on the subject. This is science, not feeling.

1 Like