Afterlife….How About For You?

[Meriweather]

But they could become a molecular biologist if they really had a doubt about evolution. Therein lays the chasm between religion and science.

There is no chasm between religion and science any more than there is a chasm between math and English. Religion is a philosophy and studying science does not mean what has to give up pursuing philosophy as well. I manage it quite well, and if I can do it, so can anyone.

 

[Flash]

I said their assurances ring hollow.

It doesn't ring hollow for me. You must not be doing it right.

Or maybe I just don't believe everything people say

Belief in a higher power comes from the heart for the most part.

 

[Meriweather]

An in depth study of the history, language, and culture surrounding the Bible, we clearly see a change in the Gods. The Gods of the OT are demonstrably different in terms of applied human attributes thatn the Gods of the NT.

No. How we understand the stories today is different from how they were understood in yesteryear. Partly this is because in ancient times they did not have the scientific knowledge we have today. But mostly what we do not understand today, is that the stories were about human behavior, not God's behavior.

 

[Hollie]

I can only form an opinion on issues that have data by which to form the opinion. You claim that this is done for you personally by some divine communication that you alone experience, that cannot be shared or fully explained to others. That is fine for you, but the Gods haven’t found a reason to communicate with me. Within these forums, posters make claims. I look at their validity and apply the same standards of reason and rationality as I would for any and everything else upon which I base my replies. I don't ever appeal to some unexplained and unexplainable method that precludes others from coming to some understanding. There's no eternal mystery for me-- it's just the need for discovery, quite within the capacity of the human mind to incorporate as the species continues to explore the universe.

The only information I have given is that God Is. My own experience of God was quite limited. I did not receive a personal revelation that He, indeed, created the universe, parted the Red Sea, or knows what I am going to have for lunch a week from tomorrow. I cannot testify to any of that--merely that God Is, and that God is Love.

Sorry for the late reply but I was in the middle of making ritual sacrifice of lambs and other livestock to curry favor with the Gods. Next up - a virgin. (((((SHAKING)))))

What has struck me within these various threads is that It is clear the theist has a very bleak view of humanity, and the atheist has a very positive view of humanity. I have hope for us because one can empirically see progress. One can see the lessening of slavery, an awareness of the environment, a more concerted effort to avoid war, better and faster ways to communicate, the growth of agriculture and medical expertise, and so on-- all based upon technology, all in spite of religious beliefs which do not evolve as man does (though people rewrite the tenets anyway)-- yes, despite the nastiness going on in the world, I have a far more hopeful and brighter expectation for man than many theists do, who ultimately need a god to establish for themselves the very thing that they could establish on their own.

 

[Meriweather]

No I have nothing against religious people.

My mother was extremely devout. I was dragged to church every week Sunday school the works until I was about 12 or 13.

And I never said that religious people were hollow. You are misrepresenting and telling me what you think I said when the words I said were quite clear.

I said their assurances ring hollow.

There is a couple of things I note. While you claim you have nothing against religious people, you go on to say you were "dragged" to church. Second, we were speaking of an assurance that I made, and you respond that religious people's assurances ring hollow.

It appears you do have something (even if it is a little something) against religious people.

 

[Hollie]

An in depth study of the history, language, and culture surrounding the Bible, we clearly see a change in the Gods. The Gods of the OT are demonstrably different in terms of applied human attributes thatn the Gods of the NT.

No. How we understand the stories today is different from how they were understood in yesteryear. Partly this is because in ancient times they did not have the scientific knowledge we have today. But mostly what we do not understand today, is that the stories were about human behavior, not God's behavior.

Curious that while the stories are the same, our understanding (or interpretations of the stories), are different. That would suggest an obvious parallel that as humanity has grown and learned, the stories have been adjusted to conform to societal changes. The religions themselves have shown obvious evolution. (<-----oops, I said that word)

Within the evolution (oops, I said that word) of the Abrahamic faiths, there were theistic thresholds crossed that allowed the later religions to establish themselves as unique, even though it’s obvious these later religious incorporated much theology from their predecessors. Judaism began as communal sect within Canaanite polytheism as an elevation of their communal god, Yahweh, to the singular status of the only god, rather than one among the others. Christianity began as an esthetic sect within messianic Judaism. Christianity was derived from the Pauline theology elaborating the divinity of Jesus and his substitution for atonement for sin. Islam began as a Unitarian sect which arose within Arab Christianity. It was the acceptance of an example for behavior and law in the person of Muhammad.

Each of these transitions (evolutions), is basically one part of a continuance in which the preceding religions are relevant to the later in that much of the theology evolves from the former. There are of course departures from the old which are incorporated in the creation of the new.

 

[Meriweather]

What has struck me within these various threads is that It is clear the theist has a very bleak view of humanity, and the atheist has a very positive view of humanity. I have hope for us because one can empirically see progress. One can see the lessening of slavery, an awareness of the environment, a more concerted effort to avoid war, better and faster ways to communicate, the growth of agriculture and medical expertise, and so on-- all based upon technology, all in spite of religious beliefs which do not evolve as man does (though people rewrite the tenets anyway)-- yes, despite the nastiness going on in the world, I have a far more hopeful and brighter expectation for man than many theists do, who ultimately need a god to establish for themselves the very thing that they could establish on their own.

You may be right. However, this is how I see it. On this planet, there is a smaller area that is 'my world'. It is peaceful and happy and fulfilling and following Tenets or the Way of Christ has been instrumental in building this great world. However, when I look at what is going on around the entire planet (especially in the political realm) the atmosphere is so different from my world I see all that is yet to be done. It is often frustrating to see how much I can do in my world--yet how little I can accomplish on the planet.

 

[Meriweather]

Each of these transitions (evolutions), is basically one part of a continuance in which the preceding religions are relevant to the later in that much of the theology evolves from the former. There are of course departures from the old which are incorporated in the creation of the new.

This should give every parent hope that our children do learn from us!

In Old Testament stories, where there was no knowledge of science, there was human suffering even though God was good and that He made a good world. We see these two sentiments stated continually throughout the Old Testament. The conclusion people reached in that day was that if God was good and the planet was good...they were the ones being bad. And, of course, compared to God that was as obvious to distinguish as it is to distinguish a painting of a master from a painting of a first grader.

Notice in every account, humans pointed out that they were bad, and they could be better. In the century before Christ's birth, people had decided they were just so bad that the only solution was to have God, Himself, come down to rule the world. This became known as The Day of the Lord. People had given up on themselves as a whole.

Christ came with hope. He went around telling people they were good--the salt of the earth--and that their sins are forgiven. They did not bring God's punishment down around themselves, they brought God's love--and that love is eternal.

 

[Hollie]

What has struck me within these various threads is that It is clear the theist has a very bleak view of humanity, and the atheist has a very positive view of humanity. I have hope for us because one can empirically see progress. One can see the lessening of slavery, an awareness of the environment, a more concerted effort to avoid war, better and faster ways to communicate, the growth of agriculture and medical expertise, and so on-- all based upon technology, all in spite of religious beliefs which do not evolve as man does (though people rewrite the tenets anyway)-- yes, despite the nastiness going on in the world, I have a far more hopeful and brighter expectation for man than many theists do, who ultimately need a god to establish for themselves the very thing that they could establish on their own.

You may be right. However, this is how I see it. On this planet, there is a smaller area that is 'my world'. It is peaceful and happy and fulfilling and following Tenets or the Way of Christ has been instrumental in building this great world. However, when I look at what is going on around the entire planet (especially in the political realm) the atmosphere is so different from my world I see all that is yet to be done. It is often frustrating to see how much I can do in my world--yet how little I can accomplish on the planet.

That’s actually a great point. While I’m fairly honest, love my friends and family, try to treat people fairly and even do some volunteer work, I realize I’ll never have an impact on the world so I hope to make my small portion of it a little bit better.

 

[james bond]

Some people think they have something then realize it was all just fantasy

Like your invisible dark matter and dark energy.

It is called dark matter because we have no idea what it is.

We cannot see or detect it but we can see the effects of its existence .

The universe behaves as if there is much more mass and energy present than we can see or verify , at least according to our limited understanding.

As I said before we only have an understanding of about 5% of the universe.

We can't see it because there is no dark matter nor dark energy. You even admit you have no idea what it is so you have no empirical evidence nor understanding. The best you can say is I don't know.

Only the evolutionists make up stuff about our universe. For example the universe is 13.7 billions years old. How did you calculate that? From your answer, I can prove it isn't correct.

 

[Blues Man]

I said their assurances ring hollow.

It doesn't ring hollow for me. You must not be doing it right.

Or maybe I just don't believe everything people say

Belief in a higher power comes from the heart for the most part.

I rather think one chooses to believe or not for their own reasons.

 

[Blues Man]

Some people think they have something then realize it was all just fantasy

Like your invisible dark matter and dark energy.

It is called dark matter because we have no idea what it is.

We cannot see or detect it but we can see the effects of its existence .

The universe behaves as if there is much more mass and energy present than we can see or verify , at least according to our limited understanding.

As I said before we only have an understanding of about 5% of the universe.

We can't see it because there is no dark matter nor dark energy. You even admit you have no idea what it is so you have no empirical evidence nor understanding. The best you can say is I don't know.

Only the evolutionists make up stuff about our universe. For example the universe is 13.7 billions years old. How did you calculate that? From your answer, I can prove it isn't correct.

I never said what it was I said it is CALLED dark matter. It has been observed that stars and galaxies move AS IF there is some other force acting on them besides the gravitational forces we can account for. In fact i specifically said we don't know what it is.

Scientists assume it is some other kind of matter that is adding this extra force because they assume it is a gravitational force but no one knows what it is and most likely never will



And where did I ever say how old the universe was?

 

[Blues Man]

No I have nothing against religious people.

My mother was extremely devout. I was dragged to church every week Sunday school the works until I was about 12 or 13.

And I never said that religious people were hollow. You are misrepresenting and telling me what you think I said when the words I said were quite clear.

I said their assurances ring hollow.

There is a couple of things I note. While you claim you have nothing against religious people, you go on to say you were "dragged" to church. Second, we were speaking of an assurance that I made, and you respond that religious people's assurances ring hollow.

It appears you do have something (even if it is a little something) against religious people.

I was dragged to church as a child.

I was told I had to go I certainly didn't want to go. I was told I had to take Sunday school classes and I sure as hell didn't want another day of school..

No kid does that voluntarily. Well at least none of the kids I knew

For the purpose of this discussion you are a person I don't know who believes in a god so why should your assurances of the existence of a god mean more to me because they come from you and not anyone I have ever known in my life.

 

[22lcidw]

What has struck me within these various threads is that It is clear the theist has a very bleak view of humanity, and the atheist has a very positive view of humanity. I have hope for us because one can empirically see progress. One can see the lessening of slavery, an awareness of the environment, a more concerted effort to avoid war, better and faster ways to communicate, the growth of agriculture and medical expertise, and so on-- all based upon technology, all in spite of religious beliefs which do not evolve as man does (though people rewrite the tenets anyway)-- yes, despite the nastiness going on in the world, I have a far more hopeful and brighter expectation for man than many theists do, who ultimately need a god to establish for themselves the very thing that they could establish on their own.

You may be right. However, this is how I see it. On this planet, there is a smaller area that is 'my world'. It is peaceful and happy and fulfilling and following Tenets or the Way of Christ has been instrumental in building this great world. However, when I look at what is going on around the entire planet (especially in the political realm) the atmosphere is so different from my world I see all that is yet to be done. It is often frustrating to see how much I can do in my world--yet how little I can accomplish on the planet.

There are people who speak of living on and off the grid. Well the grid is insane today.

 

[Meriweather]

I was dragged to church as a child.

I was told I had to go I certainly didn't want to go. I was told I had to take Sunday school classes and I sure as hell didn't want another day of school..

No kid does that voluntarily. Well at least none of the kids I knew

For the purpose of this discussion you are a person I don't know who believes in a god so why should your assurances of the existence of a god mean more to me because they come from you and not anyone I have ever known in my life.

Apropos of nothing, were you an only child? The reason I ask is that I am from a large family where, as a family, we went to everyone's plays, sporting events, recitals, etc. We went ate our meals as a family, played outdoor games as a family, and went to church as a family. I was simply with my family at these times. I didn't feel any more 'dragged' to church than 'dragged' to the picnic. Families went places together, did things together, and watched when one of us had a special activity. Raised my family the same way, and no one ever complained they were being dragged around. In fact, when they are home, my daughters still join me at church, and when I am with them, I join them.

If you never believe anyone who assures you of anything, oh well. So you are a suspicious person and evidently proud of it. Here is the deal. I do not expect you--or anyone--to actually act on my (or any) assurances. I am simply verifying that I--who am only one person--did choose to act, and can assure others, if they choose to seek God, He can be found. If you have made up your mind you have no interest in God or no interest in the search, it is not my (or any other) assurance that is off. Rather, it is you have no interest in the prospect and never will. Which is fine. Your interests lie elsewhere.

 

[ding]

there is no reason to believe in anything without empirical proof

You get absolute proof after you die. It doesn't matter if you don't believe it.

So IF there is an afterlife and a supreme being I will believe it after I see it.

But I don't really think I will see anything after I'm dead

He may just grant you your wish to be left alone and withdraw his spirit from you. Some people don’t know what they had until they lose it.

Some people think they have something then realize it was all just fantasy

Actually that doesn’t seem to be very common. What almost everyone will recognize is that it is extremely common to take something for granted which is exactly what happens to people who don’t realize what they had until they lose it.

which is exactly the denial you are making to avoid the totally uncommon phenomenon you have described. So which one of these two are you at risk for now?

 

[ding]

I don't capitalize the word god because there have been many many gods created by human beings.

I don't capitalize william for the same reason. Too many williams created by human beings.

The name of the Christian god is not God.

I'll capitalize

Assuming, of course, that you’re not a government school nihilist…y'know, and believe human beings are nothing but accidental constructions of mud and dust.

For those of us who believe otherwise.....

1.We learned about reward and punishment early on, perhaps via this catechism:

He's making a list
He's checking it twice
Gonna find out who's naughty and nice
Santa Claus is coming to town
Santa Claus is coming to town
Santa Claus is coming to town

He sees when you are sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He knows if you been good or bad
So be good for goodness sake

2. At some point later in life it became a more serious question, whether there is something after we shuffle off this mortal coil, and might give some of us pause. Of course, not those victims of government school indoctrination, which does everything possible to marginalize, ridicule, erase, any links to religious traditions. For those folks, it’s government we must worship, and the best part is that the great god government is there to reward all no matter if they’re good or bad. Kind of removes that burden of responsibility.



3. But…”Christian beliefs about life after death are based on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Christians believe that Jesus’ death and resurrection are part of God’s divine plan for humankind. Through his death on the cross, Jesus pays the penalty for mankind's sin and mankind's relationship with God is restored. This is called atonement. Christians believe that three days after the crucifixion, God raised Jesus from the dead and he once again appeared to his disciples. This is taken to mean that Jesus’ sacrifice was a victory over sin and death. Although physical death still happens, those who believe in Christ and live good lives will be given eternal life in Heaven.” https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zn6ncdm/revision/3.

And if you read Dante, you have a darn good picture of the damage you will face, depending on how bad you are. Although there was a bar called ‘The Ninth Circle,” in the Village, that was pretty OK……

I always gravitated to the view of the Argentine poet, Jorge Louis Borges: "I have always imagined that paradise will be a kind of library"



4. The Old Testament appears to be clear, if subtle, on the issue of an afterlife.

In telling Abraham, the first Jewish person, of his future, there is this:

15.15 As for you, You shall go to your fathers

“Often, in describing death, the Torah and the rest of the Hebrew Bible use the phrase “gathered to one’s kin.” Here, the Torah describes Abram’s eventual death as Abram going “to your fathers.” For reasons I will explain at length, the Torah never directly declares there is an afterlife. But throughout the Torah, an afterlife is clearly implied. Sarna notes, “In whatever form, the phrase certainly originates from the belief in an afterlife in which one is reunited with one’s ancestors irrespective of where they are buried.” Dennis Prager, “Genesis”



Make you feel better?

Why would it?

DEad is dead there is nothing after

So you best make the most of each and everyday you wake up ans draw breath

"Pascal's wager is an argument in philosophy presented by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician and physicist, Blaise Pascal (1623–1662).[1] It posits that humans bet with their lives that God either exists or does not.

Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas he stands to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell)."

Pascal's wager - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

if a god was really omniscient wouldn't he know if a person is only pretending?

You just admitted that you think god can be duped by mere mortals

The two gifts accorded mankind are free will and intelligence.


God didn't create robots.


In Genesis, we have an occasion where God loses an argument to one of his creations....

I refer to Prager's book, "Genesis."


"GOD IS MORALLY CHALLENGED—A FIRST IN HUMAN HISTORY

18.24 What if there should be fifty innocent within the city; will You then wipe out the place and not forgive it for the sake of the innocent fifty who are in it? Abraham argues for sparing the entire city of Sodom if fifty innocent people live there.

18.25 Far be it from You to do such a thing, to bring death upon the innocent as well as the guilty, so that innocent and guilty fare alike. Far be it from You! Abraham not only argues with God, he declares God wrong—“Far be it from You”—if God should kill the innocent along with the guilty. The Hebrew words chalila l’cha may also be translated, “Don’t you dare do such a thing . . .” It is astonishing that anyone would feel he could speak to a deity in this way. Such a statement is unique among all bibles and perhaps all holy literature. But it is the essence of the Torah and of later Judaism that humans may have so real a relationship with God that we can actually speak this way to Him. This negotiation between Abraham and God led Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz to title his book on Abraham and the history of Jewish lawyers Abra- ham: The World’s First (But Certainly Not Last) Jewish Lawyer.

18.25 (cont.) Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?”

Abraham was arguing a principle made famous thousands of years later by the English jurist William Blackstone. Known as “Blackstone’s Formulation” and still adhered to today in Western legal thought, it postulated “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”4 What is as incredible as Abraham’s arguing with God is his assumption that God is just. It is incredible because we know of no other people at that time or be- fore who made such an assumption about their god(s). This assumption changed history. Never had a human being challenged a god or gods on moral grounds. This is one of many reasons the Torah is as different from pre-Torah thought as life is from non-life, and it is therefore one of the many reasons the Torah—like the emergence of life from non-life—can best be explained by attributing it to God.

Equally amazing, God was in no way upset with Abraham for arguing with Him, or even for the manner (verse 25) in which Abraham spoke to Him. God responded to Abraham’s moral argument by agreeing with him.



He prefaced his next request with a statement of humility.

18.28 What if the fifty innocent should lack five? Will You destroy the whole city for want of the five?” As a bargaining technique, Abraham did not say “forty-five.” He wanted to empha- size the number “five” hoping a compassionate God would not destroy an entire city because just five fewer good people resided there.

18.28 (cont.) And He answered, “I will not destroy if I find forty-five there.”

18.29 But he spoke to Him again, and said, “What if forty should be found there?” And He answered, “I will not do it, for the sake of the forty.” Abraham kept lowering the number of innocent people. And God kept agreeing.

18.30 And he said, “Let not my Lord be angry if I go on: What if thirty should be

found there?” And He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”

18.31 And he said, “I venture again to speak to my Lord: What if twenty should be found there?” And He answered, “I will not destroy, for the sake of the twenty.”



18.32 And he said, “Let not my Lord be angry if I speak out this last time: What if ten should be found there?” And He answered, “I will not destroy, for the sake of the ten.”

Nevertheless, a small group, as Abraham’s appeal suggests, can make a moral impact. In fact, most of the good that has ever even achieved has been initiated by small groups. Examples include the extraordinary group of founders of America, the handful of Christians who brought about the abolition of slavery, the dissidents in the Soviet Union and other tyrannies who helped bring down evil regimes, and the moral impact of the tiny group of people known as Jews.

In addition to a preoccupation with justice, Abraham demonstrated a concern for humanity in general (starting with the extraordinary hospitality he exhibited at the chapter’s opening). The people of Sodom are not his family, his people, his ethnicity, or his religion, yet their fate weighed on him."


God, in fact, appears to appreciate his creation exhibiting this sort of behavior and initiative.

So your god would congratulate an atheist for pretending to believe in him and then reward said atheist with eternal life in heaven ?

He kind of sounds like an idiot to me if he is so easily fooled

My 'God' is capitalized.

Didn't you learn that in government school?


Bet you can't quote where I said "god would congratulate an atheist for pretending to believe in him and then reward said atheist with eternal life in heaven."

Either you aren't the swiftest of students, or you believe that lying is a valid manner of advancing your argument.
Which is it?


To correct you, I've said that there is a determination for reward and punishment in an afterlife.

I don't capitalize the word god because there have been many many gods created by human beings.

So tell me why are you using Pascal's wager for an argument if the god you believe in can see right through it?

if you really believe that your god is omniscient wouldn't you be telling people that those who would make Pascal's wager are doomed because their ruse would be immediately discovered by a god that knows all?

Or do you really believe people should lie about believing in a god?

"I don't capitalize the word god because there have been many many gods created by human beings."

You know very well you're lying.....and that's the answer to my earlier question....you believe lying is acceptable.

The reason you don't capitalize the term is to show the sort of disrespect for the concept, and you've been trained to do.

I am not lying.

Humans have worshiped many gods.

The one you worship is just one in a very long list of gods.

And I told you why I don't capitalize the word god. It has nothing to do with your beliefs.

And FYI my mother was extremely religious so no one taught me not to capitalize the word god. I decided to do that of my own free will

There is only one God, it is the Judeo-Christian one that served as a foundation for the folks who created this nation.

You really didn't learn anything in that government school, did you.



Out of pity, I'll provide this:

The reason our revolution was so different from the violent, homicidal chaos of the French version was the dominant American culture was Anglo-Saxon and Christian. “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2010/02/new_column_libe_4.html

No religion should be taught in public schools

And YOU say there is only one god and you are hardly a credible source

I for one have seen no proof that any gods exist

One is being taught now, you fool: militant secularism, neo-Marxism.

The only religion banned is that of our Founders.



1. "Third-Grade Teacher Has Students Write ‘Get Well’ Cards To Cop Killer Mumia Abu-Jamal A third-grade teacher at a public school in New Jersey is under fire after she encouraged her students to write letters to notorious convicted cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, who recently fell ill in prison.

Marylin Zuniga teaches language arts and social studies at Forest Street School in Orange, N.J."

Third-Grade Teacher Has Students Write ‘Get Well’ Cards To Cop Killer Mumia Abu-Jamal



2. - School's Nation of Islam Handout Paints Founding Fathers as Racists


"School's Nation of Islam Handout Paints Founding Fathers as Racists
The teacher also told Sommer that her son was not supposed to take the Nation of Islam handout home. It was supposed to stay in the classroom. That bit of news caused her great alarm.
“The fact that students were cautioned against allowing their parents to see anything is deeply troubling,” West told me. “The only reasonable explanation is they don’t want parents to know what it is their children are learning.”

3. Under pressure from transgender activists, progressive politicians, teacher unions, and the education establishment, and despite parents’ opposition, America’s public schools are capitulating to ideologues and implementing the radical transgender agenda with full force.
...regardless of biological sex, .... Activists want every child, from kindergarten on, to learn that “sex” is something “assigned at birth” rather than a biological reality. They want children to think that individuals get to choose their own “gender identity” (not limited to male or female), and that everyone else must affirm that “gender identity” as true.


...nothing that parents (or teachers) can do to prevent the schools from imposing policies designed to indoctrinate children with gender ideology.

In public education, the “deep state” describes a coalition of various groups – including teachers’ unions, progressive advocacy groups, major corporations, and philanthropists --that work together to promote the progressive worldview..."
America’s Public Education System: The Ultimate Deep State





4. The National Education Association approved a new "business item" expressing support for abortion access during its annual conference in Houston.

"[T]he NEA will include an assertion of our defense of a person's right to control their own body, especially for women, youth, and sexually marginalized people," the resolution states. "The NEA vigorously opposes all attacks on the right to choose and stands on the fundamental right to abortion under Roe v. Wade."

The NEA is the largest teachers' union in the U.S. with more than 3 million members. It collected nearly $400 million from American educators in 2018, according to federal labor filings. The union is also one of the most politically active in the country, spending $70 million on politics and lobbying in 2017 and 2018. Nearly all of the union's political action committee spending went to Democrats during the midterm cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.


NEA's 2019 adopted New Business Items (NBIs) reveal what savvy teachers have known for decades: state and national teachers' unions are essentially the political action committee of the Far-Left,"
Largest U.S. Teachers' Union Endorses Abortion




5. the 20-minute video being shown in American classrooms entitled The

Story of Stuff; a catchy title to appeal to grade school kids. This piece of anti-capitalist propaganda was

put together by Greenpeace member Annie Leonard.







6. NYC schools allow kids to go on #ClimateStrike
“TEN YEARS. We have ten years to save the planet,” Mayor Bill de Blasio cautioned in a tweet. “Today’s leaders are making decisions for our environment that our kids will have to live with. New York City stands with our young people. They’re our conscience. We support the 9/20 #ClimateStrike.”

Legions of adolescent activists across the globe are expected to demand immediate action to combat climate change in advance of a major UN conference on the issue next week.

As long as mom and dad sanction their principled truancy, absent kids won’t have attendance records dinged, the DOE said.

The September 20th event will feature Sweden’s “Climate Crisis” sweetheart, 16-year old Greta Thunberg.

Teen activist and Swedish sensation Greta Thunberg, who recently docked her zero-emissions sailboat in New York, will speak at the event which will snake its way through lower Manhattan to Battery Park.

Kids with parental permission to attend will be granted excused absences from school, Education Department officials tweeted Thursday.

The infamous “Green New Deal” will be promoted as well.

The New York City climate strike is backed by more than 100 environmental and political activist groups and other institutions, including New York Communities for Change, The New School and the Sierra Club.

The protesters’ demands include a “Green New Deal” that would end fossil fuel extraction and move the nation onto entirely renewable energy sources by 2030. Green New Deal policies have been backed by the likes of U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Personally, if I were one of the kids, I might argue about going to school at all. After all, if the Earth only has 10 more years before we are going to die, wouldn’t it be better to spend the time having fun or spending quality time with family?

On the other hand, if the New York City school officials were really invested in solving the climate crisis, wouldn’t they emphasize science and math? Perhaps keeping the kids in school and having them conduct experiments or perform calculations would inspire an interest in real climate science.

One theory that seems to prove true and is certainly consistent with what is happening with the New York City schools: When global problems are emphasized by locals, serious local matters are being ignored.

Case in point: New York state test results for third- through eighth-grade public school students are out, and the results are underwhelming.

Statewide, more than half the kids flunked yet again: Just 45.4% were deemed proficient in reading and 46.7% in math. In the city, 47.4% passed the reading test, while 45.6% got by in math.

Think the problem’s skimpy funding? Sorry: In 2017, the Empire Center’s E.J. McMahon reported in May, New York shelled out 89% more per kid than the national average. And that gap has been growing fast: In 1997, per-pupil outlays here were just 45% above average.

…In the city Thursday, Mayor Bill de Blasio and Schools Chancellor Richard Carranza tried to spin the results positively. The pass rate in English, they noted, is up 0.7 percentage points — and three whole points in math.

“Growth counts for something,” Carranza insisted.

Huh? That paltry uptick is what they’re proud of? Even though more than half the kids bombed? Please.

Notably, kids in the one category of public schools de Blasio and Carranza (and their union pals) don’t run — i.e., the charters — beat their counterparts in the regular schools by more than 10 percentage points in both English and math.

At least the kids won’t be flying private jets to attend the event. That makes them substantially less hypocritical than the celebrities who will be indoctrinating them during the Manhattan event.



NYC schools allow kids to go on #ClimateStrike



7. “Fifth-grade teacher defends wearing 'Columbus was a murderer' shirt to school” https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/16/fifth-grade-teacher-defends- earing-columbus-was-a/
8. “Seattle Public Schools Say Math Is Racist
The Seattle Public Schools Ethnic Studies Advisory Committee (ESAC) released a rough draft of notes for its Math Ethnic Studies framework in late September, which attempts to connects math to a history of oppression.” Seattle Public Schools Say Math Is Racist

9. “The sex and gender revolutionaries have officially taken over the Austin Independent School District without firing a single shot. In spite of overwhelming opposition from parents and pastors, the district’s trustees voted early Tuesday morning to implement a pornographic sex education policy that includes instruction on anal sex and how to place a condom on an erect penis.

The father of a fifth grader demanded to know who gave the school district the right to teach his child how to have anal and oral sex.” Texas School District Implements Pornographic Sex Education Policy

10.” It appears the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU), which held a solidarity rally this Saturday afternoon, …. seemed more like a convention of far-left radicals than the image of clean-cut teachers the CTU would like to project. Thousands of red-shirted Chicago Teachers Union members flooded into Chicago’s aptly named Union Square Park at noon today to demonstrate for solidarity and workers’ rights. Protesters embraced radical revolutionary imagery, wearing shirts with Che Guevara on them and holding signs emblazoned with the “iron fist.”

Occupy Chicago and anarchist groups as well as the Progressive Labor Party, International Socialists, SEIU, AFL-CIO, and others stood alongside teachers chanting for solidarity…” Radical left coalesces around Chicago Teacher protest


More



In the vid, teacher’s union with the Socialist iron fist banner…







11. “Racial Literacy Curriculum,” elementary schools in Virginia, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, California, Rhode Island, Missouri, and Illinois have all adopted the mind-blowing, politically-charged brainwash that they tout as education. Topics for Kindergarten to Grade 8 include: implicit bias, white privilege, intersectionality, LGBTQ issues, racism as a “primary institution of the US,” and other such leftist agenda talking points.” EXCLUSIVE: New Leftist ‘Racial Literacy Curriculum’ Brainwashing Elementary School Children

12. The Pollyana Curriculum…nationwide

“Beginning in Grade 3, the Pollyanna "Racial Literacy Curriculum" asks students to become activists in order to achieve leftist goals. The 3rd Grade chapter is entitled "Stories of Activism – How One Voice Can Change a Community." The expected result is for students to understand "how we can be agents of communal, social, political, and environmental change."

…Pollyanna takes leftist activism to new heights, fabricating an image of a racist America that children are taught to rebel against.

By Grade 8,after nine years of acute indoctrination, the children are ready to fight on behalf of leftists in America. "tudents will set commitments for rectifying current social ills, such as learning and planning how to carry out anti-racist activism and/or social advocacy in their communities and/or to improve their everyday lives." The 8th Grade chapter is entitled "Racism as a Primary 'Institution' of the U.S. – How We May Combat Systemic Inequality." EXCLUSIVE: Leftist Activism Is A Requirement Of New Elementary School Curriculum



13. “Minnesota ‘Teacher of the Year’ takes knee during National Anthem at NCAA title game” Minnesota ‘Teacher of the Year’ takes knee during National Anthem at NCAA title game | The College Fix

14. "School in Brooklyn Hands Out “Drag Queen in Training” Stickers to 4-Year-Olds” School in Brooklyn Hands Out “Drag Queen in Training” Stickers to 4-Year-Olds

15. “Teacher: “No Regrets” for Desecrating American Flag in Classroom” Teacher: “No Regrets” for Desecrating American Flag in Classroom

What gods are central to this religion you say is being taught in public school?

The great god, government.


Children are taught to worship Gaia, mother earth.......on the day of Lenin's birthday.

Gee I guess I missed that class because I am no fan of the fucking government either but you are.

Funny how the atheist (me) is critical of all government while the believer( you) is a fan of government.

Seems to me you are a little confused about who is actually indoctrinated here

No vulgarity.

Fuck fuck fuck

Yeah, it looks you were not privileged enough to be sent to Parochial school.
Yes, the education was better than public schools.

I even kept the same book from 7th grade and used it in public school 9th grade.

The book? American Civics. Check it out sometime.

Publisher? Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.


Yes, there is a God that created this world, and you denying this doesn't make it not so.

And you believing doesn't mean it is so

Reason and experience say otherwise.

there is no reason to believe in anything without empirical proof

There’s plenty of empirical evidence. It is literally all around you.

But putting that aside 90% of everything we know was accepted on authority of others. We didn't actually do the work or see the evidence. We took it on the word of others. Anyone who would scoff at accepting knowledge on the authority of others would have to go around knowing next to nothing their whole life.

With that said we shouldn’t blindly accept knowledge on the authority of others either. We should make some effort to see if what they claim makes sense.

We in all our arrogance think we understand the universe when in reality 95% of it is an utter mystery

But the mere fact that we do not understand something is in no way proof that a supreme being is responsible for it

My dog will never understand fractions because her brain has real physical limitations.

I believe that the human brain also has limitations and that we very well may be incapable of understanding the universe.

I have always found more than interesting that the biblical order of the creation of the universe is the very same that modern science has come around to proposing.

1. God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain! Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun? So says science. And so says Genesis. Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.

a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.



2. Modern science has largely revealed the earth’s history with respect to the land and the seas. Coincidently, the first chapter of the Bible relates a formation, a creation narrative, strangely similar to scientific understanding.


a. Genesis 1: 6-10…”And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dryland appear: and it was so. And God called the dry landEarth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it wasgood.


b. “The formation of the sea as well as the land is chosen as the second stage in the creation on the Bible’s first page. Modern science reveals that land and sea certainly were in place before the next stage in the scientific account of the history of the universe.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p.54. What a coincidence….or confluence.


Curious, the author of Genesis lived in a landlocked region; and Moses wandered in the desert, not along the coast. Yet…sea and land appear in this prominent position in Genesis. Must be a coincidence….



3. The opening page of Genesis asserts that plant life appeared after the seas were formed, and names specifically, grass, herbs and fruit trees. According to the author of Genesis, this is the stage where life actually begins: this is the first mention life of any kind. Plant life. Yet, the simple forms of life that are considered plant life were not discovered until a couple of millennia after Genesis was completed. So…how come Genesis mentions grass, herbs, and fruit trees at precisely this moment on the creation narrative? Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter four.


a. Genesis 1: 11-12 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed,and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


b. “ From about 400 million years back to 600 million years, all kinds of complex multicellular life would have been confined to the waters of the earth….Our world's ecosystems depend upon photosynthesis to construct the fuel that all life runs on; in an ancient world with conditions similar to today's, you would need plants (as organisms that can make complex "fuel" molecules using simple building blocks and energy available from the environment, plants are known as one type of autotrophs, or "self-feeders") to evolve first, or there would be no bottom link to the food chain.” Biology of Animals & Plants - Origins & History of Life on Earth



4. Track the events in the creation account of Genesis and it’s amazing how closely the events conform to the current view of modern science. An explosion- the universe – oceans/land - plants- …And next, in verse 20, we find: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.


Kind of unusual…since the author of Genesis, and, if we are to believe that the first one to speak those words, Moses, didn’t really live in a habitat that one might call ‘sea side.’


Would have been understandable if this space in the Bible had, instead, have focused on the numbers of land mammals, birds, or insects found in ancient Israel, wouldn’t it? But, instead, marine organisms are specifically named: ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,…’


Wouldn’t it be interesting if science find lots and lots of marine organisms extant at this point? Imagine if Genesis actually parallels the history of life on earth as expounded by science. Be a heck of a coincidence.

a. A truly important development took place some 521 million years ago, in the geological period known as the Cambrian. “The most abundant and diverse animals of Cambrian time were the trilobites. Trilobites had long antennae, compound eyes, many jointed legs, and a hard exoskeleton like many of their modern arthropod relatives, such as lobsters, crabs, and insects. The Cambrian is sometimes called the "Age of Trilobites"…” Redirect


b. No earlier fossils were found during Darwin’s lifetime: “If the theory [evolution] be true it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited ... the world swarmed with living creatures. [Yet] to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these earliest periods. . . I can give no satisfactory answer. The case at present must remain inexplicable.” http://www.paleosoc.org/Oldest_Fossil.pdf

....life at this stage, about 500 million years ago, was entirely marine.

How could the Genesis writer have gotten this right?

That writer…he’s landlocked, knows little of diversity….what are the odds that ‘chance’ is the answer?


What are the odds?



5. The sequence of events from the creation of the universe, to the present, begin with great explosion that produces the universe, including the earth. The earth cools enough for oceans to form. The first life is plant life, able to photosynthesize, and add oxygen to the atmosphere. All sorts of simple non-plants fill the seas, most wormlike, with soft bodies. Along come the trilobites, hugely advanced, with hard bodies…and most amazingly, with true eyes! This makes them the primary predators….but, imposes enormous evolutionary pressure on the other organisms. The result is the Cambrian explosion, lots of small organisms with defensive armor and hard exoskeletons, some 521 million years ago. So says modern science.


a. “…Genesis shows remarkable accuracy when compared to the scientific story of life’s evolutionary journey. Here, the Genesis writer envisioned great creatures evolving from those tiny Cambrian forms, eventually making their way out of the sea….Genesis seems to have picked out all the events of the highest order of importance, and put them in the right order….I don’t know the odds against such a parallel- against making a successful guess at the scientific orthodoxy of three thousand year into the future from a knowledge base of nothing- but they must be extraordinarily long.” Parker, Op. Cit., p.163-164.


b. An interesting sidelight is the ‘evolution of the Bible’ itself. Christians have incorporated a great deal of science’s process. Early in the 20th century, the Scofield Reference Bible was published. This was a new version of the King James Bible with which added a note to Genesis, suggesting what is called the “gap theory.’ It allows that millions of years could have passed between God’s creation of the heavens and the earth, thereby freeing Genesis from the literal six-day process. “What it left was a series- the same series- of timeless events; and it is these that match the scientific account of life’s history.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p. 160.


6. Unavoidable is the recognition that, once the restrictions due to the ‘six-day’ view are removed, the order of events established by modern science conform to the sequence in the first chapter of Genesis, written millennia earlier: light from an explosion (the Big Bang), universe/earth formed, the seas from the cooling earth, plants as the first life forms; abundant sea life (the Cambrian explosion), the (evolution) of the flora and fauna we see today. Neat, eh?

Lucky guess by the author of the creation account of Genesis?


7. If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that life forms were photosynthetic. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.


The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.


Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!


The alternative explanation is divine intervention.

Both are merely theories that are unproven

....but taught in government school as though there were facts.

I have never seen the big bang be called fact.

It is the best theory we have based on our observations.

But then consider the fact that we have only observed about 5% of the matter and energy that comprises the universe you have to admit that the big bang even if it is the theory that best reflects our observations is not adequate.

Unlike some, I see no need to attribute the origins of the universe to a god simply because we as human beings may be incapable of every understanding the process.

It’s a little more than that. It’s energy being created from nothing according to the laws of nature which means they were in place before space and time and those laws predestined intelligence to arise. In effect the universe is an intelligence creating machine. It’s not an accident.

It is exactly that.

We do not understand 95% of the matter and energy that comprise the universe.
it is my belief we may never be able to understand it.

Saying a god made everything because we don't know the answer is a cop out.

And so what if your life was an accident? That makes it even more precious because it's the only one you will ever get

No. It's not a cop out to say that spirit created the material world. It's the logical conclusion of studying the material world. Something I doubt you have ever done.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale - like you do - then everything you see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that you will agree with or accept. Whereas if you were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world you would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument I will use my perception of God because your perception of God is a fairy tale and designed to get fairy tale answers instead of seriously considering the proposition. My perception of God is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us. God exists outside of our four dimension space time. So my premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create. In other words, it's not an accident that intelligence arose. The universe is an intelligence creating machine.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All I have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if you assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

But wait... there's more.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

This is the basis for my belief. So what is the basis for your belief?

 

[ding]

Inalienable Rights are an illusion, but as long as everyone has the same illusion, the Rights will stick.

No. They are based on reason and logic. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered.

Yes, here we go. Injecting realism and reality into a faith-based on a theological concept.

Again, no. It is based upon reason and logic. I am certain that if you make an effort to search natural rights you will find ample explanations for the reason and logic for having this belief. If you can't, please let me know and I will be glad to help you.

We understand that "their duty and obligation" is a creation of man, by men, who were motivated by factors (sometimes described as divine inspiration) which we are never really sure about there origin.

You mean like Israel's claim to their lands?

 

[ding]

It reminds me of people who live for the afterlife and never live the life they have to the fullest

And therein lies your error, faith in God isn't about the destination, it is about the journey. It is faith which allows life to be lived to the fullest.

 

[Hollie]

But they could become a molecular biologist if they really had a doubt about evolution. Therein lays the chasm between religion and science.

There is no chasm between religion and science any more than there is a chasm between math and English. Religion is a philosophy and studying science does not mean what has to give up pursuing philosophy as well. I manage it quite well, and if I can do it, so can anyone.

I’m not so sure about that. Empirical trust in a process (science) that will assiduously test and challenge, vs, “faith”, well, there’s a HUGE difference. Theistic principles are undemonstrated whereas materialist ones are testable, falsifiable, and empirically constant.

My environment (reason and rationality), is non-sentient and it is discoverable as to the mechanism. Your environment has to account for an eternal sentient being (which you will never be able to fully account for), and you have to come up with reasons as to why he wouldn't tell you the truth about how it all began in his communications with you.

That's a tall order, especially when it's admitted the only ways of proving things is not available to that environment.

People (perhaps you, perhaps not), are determined to interpret what god is at every level. Personally, I see inconsistency in the god model, but I'm playing devil's advocate here (how ironic). But people further the inconsistency themselves when they do somersaults to push god into a mode that gives them a comfort zone with such admonitions as a loving and merciful god who has a plan for us. This is also the same god that commanded Joshua into the cities of his enemies and to kill every man woman and child inside the walls (exceptin' them virgins).