Out of curiosity, what reasonable and possible compromise would you have me make with MAGA Republicans?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why doesn't everyone just be honest
- Thread starter We Never Know
- Start date
Cannon fodder isn’t shot at.
It’s what’s fed into the cannon.
This had to be said.
syo
Well-Known Member
These people create family-forums where they discuss among them. All of them. Look at this forum, it's full of christians, atheists, republicans and democrats. A family forum.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
You probably mean the parties as opposed to those who vote for them. Individual liberal and conservative voters don't need to agree with one another. The Republicans don't compromise. I think it's time to stop thinking about them as people that might work with the Democrats and just assume that they will always work against the well-being of ordinary Americans. Since the purpose of the government as outlined in the Preamble is the opposite, where would compromise come?
At the societal level, where the church has the support of the Republican party, the battle will be between humanist enlightenment values and Christian theocratic tendencies. There is also zero interest in compromising there from the church or the Republican party.
Compromise over abortion policy was already alluded to on this thread. I don't consider that compromise. As was noted, they miscalculated, and now are walking some of it back in the face of an upcoming election. The Republicans should be expected to be lying for tactical purposes. When anti-choice candidates soften their language between the primaries and the general election, they are lying. When we hear about them supporting state choice, they are lying. They will remove that with federal legislation banning abortion if they can. Compromise looks like the deal Joe brokered to stem the railroad strikes, or the way he got Manchin and Sinema on board for his recent legislative victory.
You didn't state that you were a Christian or Muslim, so I don't know exactly what evil it is you won't compromise with, but yours was a comment that either might make. Each would also have many adherents that would be expected to say that abortion and homosexuality, for example, are evil, and that therefore there should be no compromise in the crusade to eliminate these evils.
But I understand the sentiment. I just don't agree with you where the "evil" lies. I'd look more to the systems and institutions that teach intolerance like that. I'm just as intolerant as the church, but not of what it considers evil. I'm intolerant of irrational intolerance.
Why is this still an issue? I've never understood what motivates this discussion for the theist. Yes, atheists have beliefs, and I suppose one could say that they believe that an idea ought to enjoy sufficient evidentiary support before believing it, making them empiricists epistemologically. And they value critical thinking over faith. These are all the same belief restated.
But there is no belief derived from unbelief in gods. I am an atheist because I hold these beliefs, but I have no other beliefs that depend on that atheism apart from trivial ones that result from having no god belief, such as that if man doesn't do it, it won't get done, or that the Genesis creation story is mythology.
My guess why this meme keeps reappearing in apologetics is that when the creationists were trying to get creationism back into the public schools, the argument against them was that their theology wasn't equal to science and didn't deserve an equal place in the public school curriculum as science. There was then a two-pronged push to try to put the two on equal footing to weaken that argument - one to imply that religion is scientific, and one to imply that science is religion.
Hence, we had the ID program, which famously culminated in the Kitzmiller trial, in which Behe was cornered arguing that creationism can be considered a scientific theory by such a deformed understanding of what that a scientific theory is that Behe was forced to agree that his definition of scientific theory would also include astrology. Of course, this prong failed. Creationism was declared pseudoscience, not science as its creators and funders had hoped.
And the other half was the memes like, "science is your religion," "science is based in faith," and the beloved "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist." Your comment fits into that conception. Theism is just a belief, and so is atheism, a kind of false equivalence. Why else would anybody want to say that atheism is a belief enough to argue the point repeatedly? Perhaps it is the believers that these tropes are meant to appease, not school boards, believers who hear that science is fit for an academic curriculum, but religion is not. Maybe this effort is make them feel like their beliefs are just as well-founded as the science that contradicts their preachers.
Audie
Veteran Member
Audie
Veteran Member
No shades of grey from night to day huh.
Truth in love
Well-Known Member
Most people can accept differences until they are threatened with force.
The ability to force is addictive.
Audie
Veteran Member
And you would be a fool for expecting different.
Audie
Veteran Member
I don't think that is true, at all.
Not a god, but in the same category as imaginary characters. But your question is irrelevant.
You could ask if Zeus is as real a god as Yahweh, and that will be in the eye of the beholder. On a list of gods they are the same category: gods unknown as existing.
Irrelevant.
Irrelevant.
Try responding to what I posted.
A lot of science is based on forming theories without evidence and then looking for evidence through experiment which can take a long time to find as has been the case with string theory which finally might be testable Will String Theory Finally Be Put to the Experimental Test?
I live in one which is the most free and least oppressive in the entire nation in areas I care about: California.
False. Theories in science are ONLY attained after a hypothesis is developed. A hypothesis is develoed from observations of natural phenomenon, and a prediction being made based on facts and data. The hypothesis is tested and if it reaches the minimum statistical standard (99.95% for the physical science and 95% for the social sciences) will it be a theory. Theories are then peer reviewed.
I suspect what you are trying to say is "model" not theory. There are models in hypothetical physics that still use facts as a basis.
You need evidence to conduct tests. I suspect you mean looking for results.
But all this is irrelevant to my point. If there is an idea presented for consideration and there is no evidence to support it, there is no rational basis for a person to believe it's true. There are emotional reasons, but that is another issue. Such folks are tyically unaware of why they believe through emotional appeals.
Truth in love
Well-Known Member
So I must conclude that portion from murder and robbery are low on your list.
The right to life, freedom of religion, freedom of speech and property are all low on your list.
The health and well being of your fellow man also given the massive homelessness and drug problems.
so what are your priorities that put California up so high on freedom?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
No.
https://www.freedominthe50states.org/
California is listed at the bottom at 48. Pathetic in any free society.
New York is dead last in personal and economic freedoms.
All run by Democrats.
Right wing "freedom" tends to target others, and promote "freedoms" that pose threats to society as a whole, like unconditional gun access, more pollution that harms health and the environment, and tax cuts to the wealthy (because it's their money) that results in bigger deficits that will have to be paid for by the middle class eventually. So if California is 48th, wow, that is an excellent rating.
To be fair, you can say that about a lot of types of food, just more long term
(Particularly US based food as their food safety lags behind much of the rest of the world. Indeed many of their ingredients/drugs are largely banned in my country.)
Perhaps. Though the degree that is foisted upon the public might be slightly different between our two countries.
Like we have very very conservative folks, though I kind of doubt that someone like Trump, for example, would ever be voted into our office. Maybe it could happen, I just doubt it at the moment
Granted we don’t vote for leaders specifically, so political party leaders in general tend to be a bit more careful publicly. So that may be the underlying difference
True. But it passes the time, eh? Lol
Because we’re dumb apes
Perhaps.
At heart we’re a tribal rather spiteful species
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Sure there is.