feddit.org

1 point

3 days ago

I have no idea what you are shooting at with this latest goal post move.

I simply stated your analogy was a poor strawman you used to attack the original point

Does that mean every effort at understanding the world around us is pointless? Or does it mean the task of building a working model of the universe is more difficult than any single lifetime - or civilization’s worth of lifetimes - can hope to accomplish?

Where the hell did I even come close to suggest the contrary?

Which seems like it would add some degree of value to our overarching understanding of our human condition.

Absolutely. Get some proof and we’ll talk. But that’s not what you want, you want to define your own version and expect the world around you to follow suit

Something worth studying and learning from, rather than casually dismissing as wrong for being incomplete.

Study it all you want. Just don’t make civil law based on it

report

UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world

[ - ]

1 point

3 days ago

Get some proof and we’ll talk.

Proof of lived experience and philosophical conjecture?

report

[ - ]

1 point

3 days ago

Proof of lived experience and philosophical conjecture?

Neither… get proof that religion is right/accurate. That is what we are talking about and what I replied with “get proof”. No need to move the goal post.

report

UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world

[ - ]

1 point

3 days ago

get proof that religion is right

How do you prove a moral philosophy is correct?

report

[ - ]

1 point

3 days ago

That’s precisely the point bud.

You cannot and therefore we should not use religion (in this instance) to write laws… it would be like banning musical genres based on my taste

I do not agree with the original quote from Hitchen that every religion must be wrong (although I do not think any are right since they are all just made up stories) but I do believe that should be left to people’s personal choice and not a centimeter more.

report

UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world

[ - ]

1 point

3 days ago

You cannot and therefore we should not use religion (in this instance) to write laws…

Strictly speaking, we don’t. Legislation has to be in line with the constitutional authority of the acting branch.

But when you talk about rationales for that action, there’s no filter that exists to screen an individual’s religiously informed ideology from their legislative, judicial, or executive behavior.

Hell, given the nature of popular democracy, there can’t be. What are you going to do? Establish a religious exclusion test for candidates? For voters? Who would support that in a country with enormously influential and active religious organizations?

I do believe that should be left to people’s personal choice

When large numbers of people engage in the same personal choices, they create an implicit policy. When state officials campaign, they appeal to the local customs and taboos. And those customs/taboos become laws, on the ground that they service some useful social function.

What prevents this snowball from forming? Are you going to forbid a plurality of people from propagating their views?

report

[ - ]

1 point

3 days ago

Strictly speaking, we don’t. Legislation has to be in line with the constitutional authority of the acting branch.

Well, that is not where the USA is going if they continue down the MAGA rabbit hole. They are now even quoting the Bible as a reference for law writing.

What are you going to do? Establish a religious exclusion test for candidates? For voters?

No but you are taking it too far. All I want are laws that are not based on religious beliefs. If they coincide with some religious belief I have no issues, I just do not want religion doctrine to be the driving force.

When large numbers of people engage in the same personal choices, they create an implicit policy.

Which can objectively be avoided or mitigated.

When state officials campaign, they appeal to the local customs and taboos. And those customs/taboos become laws

Why should they? this is exactly what I am talking should not happen and something you just claimed “strictly speaking” does not happen.

What prevents this snowball from forming? Are you going to forbid a plurality of people from propagating their views?

Now you are just pearl clutching for effect

report