The Banned said:

---

The fact that Jesus existed means we can actually attempt to look at the claims made about Him. We may arrive at different conclusion, but we can wrestle with actual facts and data, which I know is important to you.

Mohammed also existed and left behind teachings we can examine to see if they are true. The Islamic Dilemma is a great example of this.

The FSM offers none of this and is a poor comparison for that reason.

---

Right, which is why my post above explains why historicity of the FSM is not relevant to what its purpose is / was.

AGC said:

---

How does this foot with secularism? How is it humble to impose arbitrary morality via power? If you don't know what the 'best' is, and 'fair' is subjective, what basis is there for this form of government that equates with humility?

---

With any form of government, laws and rules are unavoidable. This is why I was pushing on the 'degrees of neutrality' argument earlier. Banned below, I think, generally acknowledges that position. If anarchy is the 'neutral', then sets of laws can be evaluated or compared in how oppressive they are or how close/far they are from anarchy.

My position is not to give government zero power on this issue. My position is to limit government's power as much as possible rather than permit it to be as oppressive as possible. I don't think this is necessarily in conflict with any practical practice of secularism.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

How does this foot with secularism? How is it humble to impose arbitrary morality via power? If you don't know what the 'best' is, and 'fair' is subjective, what basis is there for this form of government that equates with humility?

---

With any form of government, laws and rules are unavoidable. This is why I was pushing on the 'degrees of neutrality' argument earlier. Banned below, I think, generally acknowledges that position. If anarchy is the 'neutral', then sets of laws can be evaluated or compared in how oppressive they are or how close/far they are from anarchy.

My position is not to give government zero power on this issue. My position is to limit government's power as much as possible rather than permit it to be as oppressive as possible. I don't think this is necessarily in conflict with any practical practice of secularism.

---

But you don't know what's true. And you won't define any terms that you're using to evaluate systems. So what makes this humble rather than egotistical, since it's blindly restraining practices with no rhyme or reason, and benefits you primarily?

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

How does this foot with secularism? How is it humble to impose arbitrary morality via power? If you don't know what the 'best' is, and 'fair' is subjective, what basis is there for this form of government that equates with humility?

---

With any form of government, laws and rules are unavoidable. This is why I was pushing on the 'degrees of neutrality' argument earlier. Banned below, I think, generally acknowledges that position. If anarchy is the 'neutral', then sets of laws can be evaluated or compared in how oppressive they are or how close/far they are from anarchy.

My position is not to give government zero power on this issue. My position is to limit government's power as much as possible rather than permit it to be as oppressive as possible. I don't think this is necessarily in conflict with any practical practice of secularism.

---

But you don't know what's true. And you won't define any terms that you're using to evaluate systems. So what makes this humble rather than egotistical, since it's blindly restraining practices with no rhyme or reason, and benefits you primarily?

---

To be fair, he does have rhyme and reason... they're just subjective and tend to benefit his worldview

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

How does this foot with secularism? How is it humble to impose arbitrary morality via power? If you don't know what the 'best' is, and 'fair' is subjective, what basis is there for this form of government that equates with humility?

---

With any form of government, laws and rules are unavoidable. This is why I was pushing on the 'degrees of neutrality' argument earlier. Banned below, I think, generally acknowledges that position. If anarchy is the 'neutral', then sets of laws can be evaluated or compared in how oppressive they are or how close/far they are from anarchy.

My position is not to give government zero power on this issue. My position is to limit government's power as much as possible rather than permit it to be as oppressive as possible. I don't think this is necessarily in conflict with any practical practice of secularism.

---

But you don't know what's true. And you won't define any terms that you're using to evaluate systems. So what makes this humble rather than egotistical, since it's blindly restraining practices with no rhyme or reason, and benefits you primarily?

---

To be fair, he does have rhyme and reason... they're just subjective and tend to benefit his worldview

---

That's squaring a circle. One has to have a base of knowledge to do so, meaning being able to find truth and define ideas. If one intends to govern by them, they must be established outside of oneself, necessarily.

Why? Because one cannot define an idea of 'oppression' to govern society without supposing 'oppression' exists outside of one's self (anyone can suffer it). Unless of course, being oppressed is the only ill in society, and no one else matters. Either way, this isn't humility. One must claim to know what's 'best' for all to support secularism, or that there's something maximized or minimized by it that is preferable to other alternatives.

Quote:

---

That has been engaged with. Your claim that it is unverifiable is equally unverifiable. We're just pulling at the threads of reality itself if we go this way. Nothing can be definitively proven because there is no test to prove "definitively proven" is a thing. We all have a faith leap to make, but you seem to believe only one of us does.

---

Yes, but as I said before, giving credit to all claims on the basis that they cannot be disproven leads to epistemological chaos as there is no way to disprove any supernatural claim from any system of beliefs. You would have to treat all religions as equally plausible. I feel strongly that a better epistemological approach relies on positive evidence and falsifiability, not just the absence of disproof.

Your statement saying we all have a leap of faith is one that I agree with. And I think both of us believe this. This point is perhaps the biggest reason why I am pushing for as little government control as possible when it comes to government advocacy of one faith over another. Every value system requires something like unverifiable belief or unverifiable assumptions. I don't' see a compelling reason why we ought to give any more control to government to police which unverifiable beliefs and assumptions people make than is absolutely necessary. My goal minimizing government control.

Quote:

---

We have an actual, documented, historical lineage. I'm not just pulling this crap out of my butt. Jesus (if He is God) left his apostles who left their successors for this very reason. I get that from your formerly protestant lens it all looks like we're making it up as we go along, because that's exactly what many protestant denoms and non-denoms do. The historical Church's claim is that God gave His power to the Church, as is spelled out in the bible. Again, I know this won't move the needle for you, but your mischaracterizing our position when you say things like this.

---

Formerly Catholic lens (for what its worth)

I have very few doubts that there is a connection between the start of Christianity and a real life person. But, history and archeology and documentation, and lineages cannot prove that God gave His power to the Church. And it cannot prove that Jesus was God or the purpose of the apostles. The problem I have is that the important claims about Christianity cannot be verified. Life I said before, Christianity is not simply the belief that Jesus existed. If it were, you could call me a Christian.

Quote:

---

I don't think I glossed over this. Objective morality is spelled out. Applications can change based on the realities of the world at that time. You didn't like that answer, but it's true. Imagine trying to detail what a moral amount of work hours is or a moral wage 1000 years ago when the concept of money, industrial revolution and so much more has changed the concept of work so drastically. I gave the example of the death penalty and the incapacity for permanent incarceration back in the day. There is a moral constant, but it must wrestle with the material facts of the day. Morality itself is not subjective. Application is. In application both sides are the same. In standard we are not.

---

I don't quite agree and I think that this is partial moral relativism. Its been explained to me that for a believer, the beliefs and the practice are inseparable. So, if the death penalty is morally wrong, its morally wrong in all cases, right? God said 'Thou shall not kill", not "Thou shall not kill, unless its an inconvenience.".

But I do think I see common ground. If the applications of what is and is not a moral way to deal with work hours, wages, or the death penalty is all subjective, then we have reason to justify our own self doubt and to justify humility regarding whether or not our preferred application of a moral objective is the best application. This, I feel, should all be reason to limit government control on these types of questions, no?

Quote:

---

I'll agree that there are degrees of separation from neutrality in your worldview, but it is only based on number of people affected. When less people are affected, it feels more neutral, but that's only a feeling if we don't have a standard by which to judge it. You have a standard, which I acknowledge. But others have opposite standards and you just sort of waive those away as if they have less standing. That's why it can feel more neutral

---

If we define neutrality, in this case, as something like zero government control - something like anarchy, then we have a standard by which we can compare different legal systems against.

I agree that the number of people affects the degree of separation from neutrality. I also want to argue that there is something to be said about 'severity of those affects'. One hypothetical law says that Muslims cannot own land. Another says that Muslims cannot own land or a business. The two laws affect the same number of people, but one law is more restrictive than the other. The more restrictive one is further from neutral. Yes?

Quote:

---

I certainly recognize the difference in goals. I would obviously agree more with B than A. So together you and I will work together to suppress the desires of A because we have the numbers. But not because A is objectively wrong, if we're using your view.

---

Correct. This isn't radically dissimilar from how our entire legal and political system work today. Who should be president? Well, lets vote on it and the most number of votes wins. This works because the purpose of voting is not to employ the person objectively best for the job. It is to employee the person who best reflects the will of the people.

Quote:

---

I've never once argued that we're oppressed and don't have the ability to practice my faith here in America, but it happens quite frequently in Canada and Europe. Praying silently in front of an abortion clinic is now a crime. Saying homosexuality is a sin is now a crime. Forgive me, but I'd rather not wait for that to happen here before speaking up. Maybe you'd come to my defense then, but it's clear the secular population in these other countries are perfectly fine watching it happen.

---

Apologies if I misunderstood. In my mind, this back and forth was mostly about the US. I don't have the full story on the criminality of the things you mentioned, but I'm fine taking your word for it. There are plenty of places where Christians are oppressed - no argument here. There are also places where atheists are oppressed. If that happens here, will you come to my defense?

Quote:

---

I don't mean to come across as cocky, and I try to stay as humble as I can. I know for a fact I have many flaws and failures. I have no belief that I alone am able to come up with all these answers. I submit myself to Jesus Christ and the Church He established to guide us through the moral issues of the day. I only have to answer two questions: Was Jesus God? Did He leave a Church? Maybe I've answered them incorrectly, but I don't think assuming I've answered two whole questions correctly makes me God.

I think if we were in person, we'd get along quite well. I apologize if any of this came across with a harsh tone. Just trying to get out of the office and back home, so didn't take much time to edit for tone.

---

Its not cocky or arrogant to have strong opinions or strong beliefs. I have strong opinions and beliefs as well. i also have a high degree of respect for you and your autonomy and right to have your own opinions and beliefs. This is why I want a system of laws that exerts as minimal amount of control as possible. Government controls, laws, oppression, non-neutrality are all inevitable. The best we can do, in my opinion, is try to share equally in that control.

My interpretation when someone pushes for a system of laws that advantages their beliefs over mine is that they do not value my autonomy and right to have my own opinion and beliefs. This is my objection against someone who is pushing for the minimalization of control over only one group of people while increasing the level of control against others. Thats where I see the arrogance - its the idea that some people are more deserving of their opinions and beliefs than others.

Someone said something like this before in the thread - but, if God gave us free will, who are any of us to try to impose belief on anyone else. And if government is necessary and inherently an imposition of value, should we not try to minimalize those impositions? That all sounds very libertarian of me. . . . Maybe more than actually reflects my views .

Yeah, I'm sure we'd get along fine. I come across as confrontational in these threads, but I get along with everyone.

AGC said:

---

But you don't know what's true. And you won't define any terms that you're using to evaluate systems.

---

I don't claim to know what is true, but that doesn't mean I don't have an opinion. If there are terms you need me to define, let me know. I defined good and bad a few posts ago. I'm happy to define others as long as its useful and not just an exercise in trying to use semantics to undermine my position.

Quote:

---

So what makes this humble rather than egotistical, since it's blindly restraining practices with no rhyme or reason, and benefits you primarily?

---

I accept the same level of restraining as you. It is my goal for both of us to have the same level of oppression as it relates to our ability to practice our beliefs and participate in society and culture.

I am just as opposed to having a bust of Christopher Hitchens in front of a courthouse as I am of having the 10 Commandments. And I'm just as opposed to having a public school teacher read the tenants of secular humanism over the loud speaker as I am to having a prayer read. I would rather have nothing in front of the courthouse than advantage one group over another. And I would rather have nothing read at a school event than advantage one group over another.

I want us all to be equally restrained and equally benefitted - as much as that is possible.

If I wanted a system that benefitted me primarily, I could call for the dissolving of religious rights and remove protections against religions. I'm not doing that, am I?

The Banned said:

---

To be fair, he does have rhyme and reason... they're just subjective and tend to benefit his worldview

---

Here is the way I look at the benefit my worldview thing.

Lets say I was voting on a new law that would let people with blue eyes pay no taxes. This would benefit me, but I would say this is a bad law and should not be passed. If you have brown eyes, we should be subject to the same tax laws. Both of us equally subjected to same oppression of taxes.

My worldview is not about maximizing my own advantage, me personally, or one group of people over another.

Quote:

---

This point is perhaps the biggest reason why I am pushing for as little government control as possible when it comes to government advocacy of one faith over another. Every value system requires something like unverifiable belief or unverifiable assumptions. I don't' see a compelling reason why we ought to give any more control to government to police which unverifiable beliefs and assumptions people make than is absolutely necessary

---

But this is exactly what happened. Local schools in their particular regions chose to have religious content in their schools. It was the federal government who stepped in and made them stop. You've given the federal government control over all religion rather than keeping the government out of it. Now if school taxes weren't mandatory, or in the areas where school vouchers allow people to take their tax money and apply it to a religious school, then you'd have some ground to stand on. But right now we are forced to pay for a government service that explicitly forbids religion, even if the local population wants it. And by the way, you're required to educate your children, so if you choose not to do the public school, you have to pay extra to follow the law. How much more control could you give them?

Quote:

---

The problem I have is that the important claims about Christianity cannot be verified. Life I said before, Christianity is not simply the belief that Jesus existed. If it were, you could call me a Christian.

---

It may not be verifiable in the way that you'd like, but it's not a completely subjective, personal belief. There is a middle ground there that is a far cry from the FSM. You believe that reducing harm is a reasonable stance because it seems to be correct. The Christian is at least meeting that standard.

Quote:

---

I don't quite agree and I think that this is partial moral relativism. Its been explained to me that for a believer, the beliefs and the practice are inseparable. So, if the death penalty is morally wrong, its morally wrong in all cases, right? God said 'Thou shall not kill", not "Thou shall not kill, unless its an inconvenience.".

---

Analogy: speeding endangers the public and is against the law. Great! We have an objective law based on a value we hold. Now how do we determine what the speed limit should be in one area versus another? Do we say it's 30 mph everywhere? No. We look at the particulars of that road and area, and apply a legal limit to that stretch of road. The law itself is still objective, but the application of the law varies depending on the circumstances in which it needs to be applied.

What about first responders? The value that we hold there is that what they do protects the public and speeding is no longer a danger in this situation (provided they are following the specific guidelines for these situations). You could say "you're just saying speeding is ok some times", but what I'm actually saying is that responding to emergencies is good and speeding is a part of that. I can say that because we all like the speeding when their lights are blaring, and we all hope everyone is ok. But when we see a cop speeding for the hell of it, it pisses us off because they're abusing a good thing.

Objective morality is the law in this situation. How it applies after the invention of the car may look at little different, but the law hasn't changed. The law goes hand in hand with the belief that there is an objective, natural purpose to human life. Materialism rejects this, so any attempt to show you how we can have objective morality while having some degree of subjective application is just going to look like moral relativism to you. If that's what you need to call it to find common ground, then I guess that's the best approach to take. But we will continuously disagree with the idea of moral relativism because we have certain underlying principles that can't change.

Quote:

---

I agree that the number of people affects the degree of separation from neutrality. I also want to argue that there is something to be said about 'severity of those affects'. One hypothetical law says that Muslims cannot own land. Another says that Muslims cannot own land or a business. The two laws affect the same number of people, but one law is more restrictive than the other. The more restrictive one is further from neutral. Yes?

---

I'll agree with this

Quote:

---

Correct. This isn't radically dissimilar from how our entire legal and political system work today. Who should be president? Well, lets vote on it and the most number of votes wins. This works because the purpose of voting is not to employ the person objectively best for the job. It is to employee the person who best reflects the will of the people.

---

But why a president? Why not a king? Because our forefathers 250 years ago said so? Who are they to tell me what to do? If Donald Trump crowns himself like all the left loonies fear, the only thing he's done "wrong" is not follow instructions we've been following for 250 years. And if enough loonies on the right agree with him, and he is successful, then we have no grounded basis with which we can disagree outside of our feelings.

Quote:

---

There are also places where atheists are oppressed. If that happens here, will you come to my defense?

---

Yes I would, although I'm equally unaware of what that atheist oppression looks like.


To the end of your post, I largely agree with the wording, but in practice we'll disagree. For example, you see forbidding gay marriage as a way of disadvantaging a particular people group. We would see gay marriage as completely redefining the term and forcing us to agree with the redefinition. You see government "staying out of the bedroom" and we see the government forcing the bedroom into the public domain. Nothing happens in a bubble when it's enacted on a federal level. So when we push back, we are attempting to protect our autonomy, but you see it as an attack on another's. And all of that happens despite the majority not wanting it, but they still get publicly framed as "the bad guys"