Belief is not a choice

Last week I shared in the Skepticule Facebook group an article from Unbelievable? about an atheist woman who had become a theist (specifically a Christian, since Unbelievable? is a branch of Premier, which is a Christian organisation). My objection to the article was mainly that it was entirely based on the erroneous idea that belief is a choice. There followed this exchange (my comments in black, DWM's in blue):

David Ward Miller
Belief is not a choice?
Disbelief is not a choice?
Atheists who belief and Christians who disbelieve are not making a choice?
Is this a reference to no free will?
Please clarify, thx.
• 3 d
Paul S Jenkins
Author
Admin
David Ward Miller Can you choose to believe that two plus two equals five? Can you choose to believe the Moon is made of cream cheese? If you claim to believe something is true, or to believe that some specific thing exists, you are basing your belief on your experience related to that thing. I cannot look at a red tomato and choose to believe that it is, in fact, a purple pineapple.
 
Free will — or its lack — doesn't come into this. As an atheist I don't have a choice whether I believe in any deity. My disbelief in God is based on my epistemology — on how I can know things are true or not true. I don't claim that there are no gods, only that I have so far found no reason to believe that there are any. If I came across a reason that was sufficiently convincing, I would have no choice but to believe.
 
Some people may have a 'gut feeling' that something is true — others may be justifiably skeptical of the gut's reliability. When describing what and how they believe, some people resort to extensive use of metaphor (the article linked in the OP is an example of this). Metaphors are fine, until those using them mistake the metaphors for reality. The map is not the territory.
• 2 d
David Ward Miller
Paul S Jenkins
That was a lot of words to say you made the choice to believe there is no evidence for God. The highly intelligent atheist (at least equal to your intelligence) took a deep dive in the evidence and came to be a theist.
• 2 d
Paul S Jenkins
Author
Admin
David Ward Miller May I suggest you re-read my comment?
 
I did not make a choice to believe there is no evidence for God. I haven't stated there's no evidence for God. What I stated was: "I don't claim that there are no gods, only that I have so far found no reason to believe that there are any." I didn't choose to find no reason to believe. Indeed I stated that if I found convincing evidence I would have no choice but to believe. The fact that this former atheist (in the article) apparently found some evidence to believe is of very little use to me, since that evidence either wasn't presented, or wasn't evidence.
 
Clearly you think that belief is a choice. I don't, and as requested I've attempted to clarify why.
• 2 d
David Ward Miller
Paul S Jenkins
Thx for responding.
//Indeed I stated that if I found convincing evidence I would have no choice but to believe. The fact that this former atheist (in the article) apparently found some evidence to believe is of very little use to me, since that evidence either wasn't presented, or wasn't evidence.//
 
I think you make my point. You would make a choice if the evidence was compelling to you. It is not. For her it is compelling so she choose to believe. You have “chosen” to reject that evidence as is not compelling to you. You made a choice to not accept that evidence while she did. 
 
—You believe the evidence supports naturalism world view without any deity. A choice. 

—She believes the evidence supports a theistic world view, changing her mind from atheism. A choice. 
—Other Christian’s look at the evidence and deconstruct believe there is insufficient reason to believe in any deity so believe the universe has no Creator or Designer deity. A choice.
 
Beliefs are a choice.
• 2 d
Paul S Jenkins
Author
Admin
David Ward Miller
I think we are differing on our understanding of the word 'belief', and it may only be a matter of degree. My understanding is that a belief is the acceptance or acknowledgement that a statement is true, i.e. that it aligns with reality, with how things actually are, rather than aligning solely with, for example, speculation or hypothesis. Incidentally such a belief might be true, but if it's a belief not based on evidence it is therefore not justified, and therefore cannot be counted as knowledge.
 
One can choose one's standards of evidence, in the sense of deciding that certain criteria have to be satisfied in order to accept that something is true or is likely to be true, but that's a choice of standards, not a choice of belief. Belief comes automatically once those criteria are satisfied. If they are not satisfied, then for me no amount of 'choosing' will result in belief. This is why I say that I don't believe in the existence of any gods. Not because I actively believe that there are no gods, but because my criteria have yet to be satisfied.
• 1 d
David Ward Miller
Paul S Jenkins
Perhaps it’s a difference in semantics. 
 
You now say your standards for compelling evidence are better than hers—no god(s).

She says her standards are better than yours—God. 

Both choices.
 
By your definition of belief you attempt to avoid it and those who disagree with you do believe. 
 
It seems you do actively believe there is no deity. You even passionately fight for that belief. I respect that too. But you made a choice in your “belief” there is no deity. 
 
What you believe in—your world view—excludes any deity. That belief of what you deem as true is a personal choice in my opinion. Her world view includes God and is a choice as she changed her opinion. 
 
Choice is the issue here.
• 1 d
Paul S Jenkins
Author
Admin
David Ward Miller
"You now say your standards for compelling evidence are better than hers—no god(s)."
 
I haven't said this. Nor do I know what her standards are — the article doesn't state them.
 
"It seems you do actively believe there is no deity."
 
This is the exact opposite of what I thought I stated — to be clear, I do not actively believe there are no gods. I am merely reserving belief until my evidential criteria are satisfied.
 
As for "passionately fighting" for my belief, I merely stated that belief is not a choice, and in response to your first comment I explained why. And my worldview doesn't actively exclude anything — it's open to anything that meets my standards of evidence for its existence. It's true that I've chosen those standards based on my understanding of their validity, but my belief in the truth-value of anything that is tested against them is dependent on the result of that test, independent of choice.
• 1 d
David Ward Miller
Paul S Jenkins
So the standards of evidence for what we believe is a choice, not the belief that results from those standards? 
 
What do you believe based upon whatever? 
Are those beliefs not then a choice? 
What does she believe based upon whatever? 
Are those beliefs not then a choice?
• 1 d
Paul S Jenkins
Author
Admin
David Ward Miller
"So the standards of evidence for what we believe is a choice, not the belief that results from those standards?"
 
That's how I see it. If a belief is the result of something else (in this case 'standards of evidence') that same belief can't also be a direct result of choice. Therefore belief itself is not a choice. Which is why I can't choose to believe what the Moon is made of. I can, however, choose to accept certain standards of evidence, and if evidence meeting those standards convincingly suggests that the Moon is not made of cream cheese I have no choice but to believe it.
 
If you're extending the idea of 'choice' to cover absolutely everything we do, then I suppose you could legitimately maintain that belief is a choice, because everything in that scenario is a choice, by definition. But then choice becomes a meaningless concept because it fails to distinguish anything from anything else.
• 1 d
David Ward Miller
Paul S Jenkins
So what belief is based on is the choice. That clarifies what you think. 
 
Is is fair to say you believe your standards of evidence are valid and believe her standards are not valid or insufficient. I’m not addressing the specific standards, just the comparison. 
 
So you both can look at the same evidence and interpret it differently based upon your interpretation which is based upon “standards”?
• 1 d
Paul S Jenkins
Author
Admin
David Ward Miller
"So you both can look at the same evidence and interpret it differently based upon your interpretation which is based upon “standards”?"
 
Standards of evidence, yes. But belief itself is not an act of will. I don't choose to believe one way or the other — what I believe is the result of what evidence I accept as valid.
• 23 h
David Ward Miller
Paul S Jenkins
Interesting.
//Belief is not an act of the will//
 
I’m on the road… will ponder this.
• 23 h

Unbelievably vague mystery

The latest Unbelievable? radio show is a discussion between Mike McHargue (who describes himself as a non-theist Christian) and Ben Watts (an atheist).

What, exactly, is a non-theist Christian? Perhaps it's an atheist who follows the teachings of Christ. Except, presumably, those teachings about God. Definitions aside, you might reasonably ask how someone becomes a non-theist Christian. In the case of Mike McHargue, you'll wait in vain for an explanation — or at least one that make sense. This non-theist Christian has a book to promote, and it would be ill-advised for him to make his position so abundantly clear that reading his book becomes redundant. Both Ben Watts and host Justin Brierley acknowledge that the book is well written, which is good, but I suspect that's as far as it goes. Based on what he did say in response to Ben's and Justin's questions, the book seems likely to be full of woolly mysticism. Mike claims to have found God in the waves on a beach. He agrees that his personal experience isn't evidence that anyone else is likely to accept, but then appears to claim that reason and logic are mired in the “enlightenment view”, and that his personal relationship with God (how does that work for a non-theist?) is “pre-enlightenment” and therefore more … what? … more real?

Here's the relevant blurb from the Unbelievable? website:

Mike McHargue – known as ‘Science Mike’ - was a Christian who lost his faith then found it again through science. He tells his story of coming back to faith through an experience on a beach and how he now puts science and Christian faith together.

Ben Watts is an atheist who grew up with a Christian Faith but lost it after going to university to study science. He engages with Mike on this week’s show.

A civil but unsatisfactory discussion, with many examples of “playing the mystery card”.

Mike's official book-trailer playlist on YouTube is professionally produced but mostly sound-bites — don't expect much insight into his actual position or beliefs. There are, however, words — and some slo-mo striding:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL0-bbd9v3UEiYmYYlBpvhL5QurRxtOiVG&v=KSnnjQTuFYU

Multiple multi-faith failure — ongoing

This is the continuation of a previous post, "Multiple multi-faith failure — on Facebook".

• 
  
• 
• David Ward Miller Paul,
  
  I just heard today of a four-time pro bowl NFL running back going public about his atheism, after being raised in a Muslim home. The article said in part:
  
  "To promote acceptance of atheism worldwide, he recently joined the group Openly Secular as a spokesperson. Adrian Foster hopes to use his celebrity platform to dispel what he calls 'a lot of ignorance about nonbelief.'"
  
  Of interest to me is the obvious connection and blending of secularism with atheism and "nonbelief." As it's my conviction the secular drive is an anti-theistic front for humanistic-agnostic-atheistic proselytizing and control of the public political and educational sectors. I've heard your adamant stance against my view of secularism, but I see a much different reality than the PR statements.

  8 August at 02:43 · Edited · Like
• 
• Paul S Jenkins "Openly Secular" is a campaign of the Richard Dawkins Foundation (which is an atheistic organisation), not the National Secular Society (which isn't). We secular humanists have no control over what celebrities do or say. As has been pointed out many times (including by theists) it's not necessary to be an atheist in order to be a secularist.
  
  Whatever anyone may think about a so-called secularist-atheist-humanist agenda, this has no bearing on the truth or otherwise of theistic claims. The supernatural claims of religion are untrue.

  8 August at 07:22 · Like
• 
• David Ward Miller Paul,
  We've covered this "secular is not anti-religion" before, so it will likely be redundantly fruitless. However, your final words, "The supernatural claims of religion are untrue" represent well the secular world view that secularists wish to make nonbelief-agnosticism-atheism the only view in the public square in civil government and public government schools. Your supernatural-claims-are-all-untrue opinion is only that, your opinion, not the final word on truth and not worthy of being the official government-supported world view. My opinion, and the opinion of a far greater number, differs as to what is true. Secularists demand only their opinion to be allowed and promoted in the public government arena. Secularism is a harsh silencing intolerance under the cloak of fair benevolent tolerance. Secularism is in reality opposed to tolerant pluralism, insisting upon a monopoly on what world view is allowed. I counter your statement with, "the tolerant claims of secularism are untrue" because secularism is at best marginalizing, at worse outlawing, any belief other than their humanistic-atheistic world view. Only the naive or deceived fail to see behind the lovely facade of secular tolerance to the ugly inside edifice of religious intolerance and anything that is faith based. The end goal of secularists is to turn up the volume on secular humanism-atheism and silence all classical humanism-theism.*
  Each religion is considered like a poisonous sugar soda and secularism is convinced only sugar free sweetened no-calorie sodas are healthy. Activist secularists don't outlaw soda, just the evil sugar. They are reasonable and tolerant! But religionists know over time the artificial sweeteners are carcinogenic. Secularists deny any long term harm by artificial sweeteners and only see the abuses of sugar and they are right, many overweight and diabetic religionists abuse sugar. Secularists have a motto of "separation of sugar soda and state." So public school students and public officials can only buy and drink sugar free refreshment on government property. The real goal of the secularists (including the liberal "religious secularists", yes an oxymoron, who are practical atheists) is the eventual removal of all sugar by indoctrination and prohibition.
  
  *The “humanism” that movement humanism hawks is a duck blind for the so-called new atheism. It isn’t (as a CFI operative recently alleged) that religion is the opposite of humanism, any more than your grandpa is the opposite of you. But in its premises, approach, and substance, secular humanism is now the opposite of humanism.
  - THE OPPOSITE OF RELIGION?
  Posted by rjosephhoffman Sept '13

  8 August at 15:50 · Edited · Like
• 
• There Isnogod Getoverit As I pointed out, above, I am not inclined to wear a bucket over my head. If someone wants to call themselves a cat lover, by which they mean they despise cats, it has no bearing on what I mean when I say I love cats. As I also pointed out, above, this is likely to pass by someone who really cares what their *own* guru/leader says or wants, because the appreciation of our own disinterest in what others *claim* is their motivation, or expectation, or definition, cannot be fully grasped. The gulf of understanding is unlikely to be crossable. Its as if David cannot be white, for he does not say what Andrew Rogers says. (A white person you will not know, from my childhood). That's the depth of the irrelevance, to me.

  8 August at 17:26 · Like
• 
• There Isnogod Getoverit By the way, I see religion as basically a bad thing. But that is not me being secularist, it has nothing to do with my secularism. Just as one can be a baptist and a christian and a vegan. I happen to be a secularist who ALSO thinks religion is a bag thing. Just as a baptist is a christian who ALSO happens to be a baptist. The parallels between faiths and lack-of-faiths is clumsy. But in this instance, one can waft people who claim secularist views all day, and it speaks nowt to my secularism. And my belief that religion is bad speaks nowt to other people's (and my own) secularism. If I ceased to believe religion was a bad thing, I would be no more, and no less, in favour of secular government, non-astrological policing, non-homoeopathic medicine, and non-mythical biology. Why would I want any of these things influenced by what I see as made-up?

  8 August at 18:17 · Like
• 
• There Isnogod Getoverit By the way David, "secularists demand...", like "christians say "god hates fags"". I don't know how to get through to you. You are telling me what I demand. Its tedious. Its bigoted. And as stupid as the latter quote would be, if the writer believed he had christians nailed. And by insulting your reader you poison everything you have to say. Getoverit.

  8 August at 18:29 · Edited · Like
• 
• David Ward Miller TIG,
  You see religion (all groups lumped together) "basically a bad thing," I see secularism (all groups lumped together) as basically a bad thing--a front for atheism and anti-theism.
  Not all secularists are bad people, their militant activist atheist leaders in the intolerant movement with a "rude rules" MO and "religion is evil and harmful to humanity" mantra, well that's a different story.

  8 August at 19:08 · Like
• 
• There Isnogod Getoverit "I see secularism (all groups lumped together) as basically a bad thing". Good, we are on the same wavelength. That opens a discussion. As a front for Atheism. I disagree, and could argue about that. This is a far less insulting and tedious mode of operating. If I start a conversation with a christian by telling them, as a fact, that they believe god hates fags, then the christian is taken off a discussion of whatever it is that is of interest, to the boring requirement to inform the speaker that they are a bigot.
  
  It would be nice, though, if we did not have to go through this again, with you informing us of what we thought, loved, believed...etc. The black man should not have to repeatedly say he does not like rap, nor eat watermelon, when that suggestion introduces a topic on, say, "black cultures" (yet again).
  
  As for the idea of leaders, there is no need for me to repeat myself. You know where I stand on that, and you merely choose to ignore it - I believe you are not open to the idea that we are unled.
  [shrug]. Meh.

  8 August at 19:16 · Like
• 
• Paul S Jenkins David, when I wrote, “The supernatural claims of religion are untrue,” I was indeed expressing my opinion. It was intended to refer back to the video in Bruce’s OP. Different religions make different, incompatible supernatural claims. The only fair way all these incompatible claims can be accommodated is with secularism. Otherwise a government will have to declare a state religion — that one particular set of supernatural claims is true, and all the others are false.
  
  But the supernatural claims of religion are incapable of objective substantiation, so which religion should a government endorse? How should it decide? Any decision would either be random or, more probably, based on the majority religion of its citizens. Unfortunately that would involve treating some of its citizens unequally. And what if the tenets of the majority religion involved a mandate to kill all those who didn’t share the majority belief?
  
  No, secularism is the way forward, and the fact that you continue to wilfully misrepresent it demonstrates that we still have a way to go. So once again…
  
  “Secularism is a principle that involves two basic propositions. The first is the strict separation of the state from religious institutions. The second is that people of different religions and beliefs are equal before the law.” — National Secular Society.
  
  Secularism does not entail atheism. Secularism does not entail humanism. Your objection to secularism’s so-called “intolerance” only emphasises your special pleading for a set of beliefs that cannot be shown to be any more true than a whole lot of other incompatible beliefs. One way out of this quandary would be for a government to outlaw all religions, but that isn’t secularism. The secularist stance is that government should not interfere with religion, other than to ensure that everyone, religious or not, is treated equally before the law.

  9 August at 12:27 · Like · 2
• 
• Sam Mulvey HOW IS BABBY FRMED

  9 August at 13:07 · Like
• 
• David Ward Miller Paul,
  As I said at the outset, we have covered this issue before. You honestly believe secularism is not a front for atheism to suppress what you believe is nonsense and harmful--all religion.
  
  I strongly disagree, and find your benevolent definitions of secularism as accurate as the wonderful self-portrayal of secular-atheists-communism by their past leaders as they killed and imprisoned clergy, closed places of worship and indoctrinated students of the stupidity and evils of religion. Secular humanism is a belief system that practically speaking would enjoy full support of a secularized state in all state institutions with forced tax support of the people, most who are religious.
  
  We all have blind spots, including you, and others in the 6.9 agnostic-atheist camp that dominate the secular state movement. The obvious condescending attitude towards all religions, and constantly pitting science against religion and reason, points to a certain repeating of history of atheism being the state "religion" as it shouts we have no state religion, with the inevitable goal of state controlled indoctrinating of all the youth against theism as (1) equal to belief in Santa Claus and ghosts, (2) the basic cause of all the world's problems and (3) parents who teach children religion are abusing them (Dawkins) and so they should have their children removed (logical outcome). The announced tolerance of religion will move from a begrudging toleration to ridicule and finally aggressive removal.
  
  Paul, your beliefs and passionate convictions are clearly not just atheistic, but anti-theistic and are beliefs and convictions you are evangelistic about, seeking converts.
  
  You, especially TIG, and most of the new "angry atheist" (not so with Bruce, the most objective civil non-theist thinker I've ever encountered--who posted the cartoon) find ultimate refuge in ridicule while claiming you have the corner on reason. As one writer put it:
  "What once was proudly called free-thought is fast becoming the slavish repetition of slogans and one-liners. Did you hear the one about the talking snake? If God is so smart, why did he put the prostate next to a man’s urinary tract?"
  
  My religious ignorance, you say, spills over to my ignorance of your pure benevolent tolerant utopian secularism. But your vastly superior intellectual prowess assures you see clearly that your secular state will not suppress what you "know" is gross ignorance and dangerous to society--all religion.
  
  You are an intelligent well-spoken man. But your blind spot is massive. Allow one more lengthy quote from the same writer above:
  "[Naytheism] blames the oppression of the masses on the religious institutions that have been progressive in all of these areas [of education, health care, the rights of minorities, underprivileged classes, or women]. Naytheism does this in the simplest of ways, by delimiting “religion” to the worst examples of its complex parts and hoping an unsuspecting newcomer won’t notice. It claims that conscience can only operate freely without dogma, ignoring the extent to which much of dogma is the cultural residue of social conscience: no conscience, no law, neither humane ones nor cruel ones. It scans the Bible for examples of sixth century BC horrors and ignores the Sermon on the Mount and the prophets’ call for social justice. It pans for dirt, puts the gold to one side, and calls the result “religion.” It is not selective or “eclectic”; it is manipulative and deceitful."
  (THE OPPOSITE OF RELIGION?
  Posted by rjosephhoffman Sept '13)
  
  So we still agree to disagree!
  
  I'm off to ignorantly worship my non-existent Creator and continue to feed my delusion, ha!
  
  Have a great day.

  9 August at 17:02 · Edited · Like
• 
• Paul S Jenkins There you go David, telling us what we believe again. It’s not necessary — we know what we believe. Your telling us only serves to point up your misapprehension. Stop putting words into our mouths.
  
  Regardless of what you think secularism is, could you tell us how you propose that different religions, with different and incompatible beliefs, can live in harmony in a state where one religion has official sanction and others don’t. Your demonisation of a so-called atheist/humanist/secularist agenda (whether that’s to do with science vs. religion, rationality vs. irrationality, or whatever) is irrelevant to the issue of how people who have different but incompatible beliefs can live in harmony.
  
  Nowhere in this thread have I espoused the idea that religion is the root of all evil. My concern is about whether what people believe is actually true, and how incompatible beliefs can be reconciled within a diverse community in the absence of the separation of church and state.

  9 August at 23:09 · Edited · Like
• 
• There Isnogod Getoverit Maybe we could ask the Muslims* not to dictate what images we show, and ask the Hindus not to stop us eating meat*. If only there was a word for such an approach. How about non-religiondicatingism. Any other suggestions? Anyway, sounds a lot better than nasty old secularism [shudder].
  
  *any generalisations here, are beside the point.

  9 August at 23:07 · Like
• 
• There Isnogod Getoverit PS, I saw the specific mention of me in David's tract. I do not recollect saying any of the things attributed to me there. They do not strike me as convincing arguments I would express. The exposition does suggest to me an image of a frustrated "lashing out", by someone without a point, but just an angry failure (or refusal) to understand. I am glad to be the named recipient. The lack of understanding means that you are only spitting on a poorly constructed straw effigy. I am way over yonder, nowhere near where the sputum is spattering, saying something completely different.

  9 August at 23:22 · Like
• 
• David Ward Miller Paul,
  
  I could say, there you go again telling me what I believe -- that I want a state religion-- but I will refrain, ha!
  
  I really do hear you. Disagreement is not necessarily ignorance or misrepresentation.
  
  Your question gets at the heart of the matter and may clarify my position.
  
  While you insist it is not so I am convinced atheist-agnostic-secular-humanism is a belief system as much as Xianity, both filled with much internal diversity. Atheistic secularism, the bulk of secularism, is a belief that there is no God, or at least so highly unlikely that the whole idea makes as much sense as belief in fairies.
  
  Secularists in America want all references to God removed. No "In God we trust" on money. No "one nation under God" No political candidate saying "God bless America." No being lead by "Nature's God". No emphasizing a divine foundational basis of a people's rights, that people "are endowed by their Creator" with these rights. No "appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world" as the basis for just independence. No announcing a "firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence" in times of impending or actual war. Why? Because there are a very few (5% I being very generous) who completely reject the theist concept. But such general references establish no single "state religion" promoted, just a theistic backdrop.
  
  As already explained, I do not accept the slick tolerant-looking dog and pony show on the secular stage, when there is a hungry 900 pound intolerant atheist gorilla behind the curtain ready to silence anyone who mentions God with ridicule and laws.
  
  Wikipedia offers this interesting "alternative view" of a "state church"
  "Alternative view - A state church is a governing body which adheres to the human secular religion, and thus cleverly positions that body with the circular concept of acting out that secularism is not a religion but instead the fairness policy to guard against any religious concepts except that of secularism."
  
  Evidently others see through the separation of church and state as a clever ploy to remove all the other belief systems except secularism (I consider dominated by anti-theist atheists like yourself).
  
  We were told over and over that we did not understand the goodness, fairness and moral superiority of atheistic states like the former USSR. Ah, but many did see through the false PR. Were the leaders sincere or liars, deceived or deceivers? In the end that matters little. What matters is people not being duped and losing their religious freedom.
  
  So secularism stands as one of the conflicting beliefs vying for a place at the table of competing values that a free people will vote upon, that cannot please everyone, but will (should) try to be fair to most. Without a dictatorship of majority values nor a dictatorship of minority values. Not an easy task!
  
  Nations with Judeo-Christian roots presently offer the most freedom, although certainly not perfectly so. Nations with Islamic state government's offer some of the least freedom to differing beliefs and values, including atheism. China & N Korea are secular atheistic governments with oppressive intolerance of religion and other freedoms, such as a free press. Whether it be atheists, any religion, gays, women or Jews, Christianized nations generally offer the most freedom, albeit imperfectly. Values clashes are inevitable as a search for a just freedom goes on.
  
  I'm not for any theocracy nor a "secular-ocracy", but a democratic republic with as even a playing field as reasonably possible for all. My personal political libertarian views are not my personal spiritual biblical views and values.
  
  I'll close with this quote:
  "In democratic societies Christianity has as much right to a voice in the public square as secularism, radical secularism or atheism. The attempts of the radical secularists to silence every Christian sound is evidence of the fact that radical secularists don’t understand democracy and are striving to replace it with a radical secular-ocracy. Organizations like the ‘Freedom From Religion Foundation’ are, consequently, undemocratic bodies wishing to overturn Democracy in America. Democracy cannot survive in America if radical secularism ‘wins the day’. For the ‘day’ of radical secularism is the night of democracy and the death of human rights." On Democracy: An Observation, Zwinglius Redivivus

  Yesterday at 03:46 · Like
• 
• Paul S Jenkins David,
  
  "I could say, there you go again telling me what I believe -- that I want a state religion-- but I will refrain, ha!"
  
  You are wise to refrain, because I did not do that. And you didn't answer my question.

  Yesterday at 07:27 · Like
• 
• There Isnogod Getoverit David does not understand. What I (or Paul) believe or want (etc) is not a matter of debate. David is not entitled to an opinion. We can state what we believe or want, and he is only entitled to call us a liar, in what can only be seen as a quite mad conspiratorial paranoia.
  
  Simply, David tells Paul what he believes, Paul corrects him, then David says "no, I disagree, let have a debate". He has no conception of how insulting it is, how ridiculous it sounds, nor how insane his persistence is becoming.
  
  I don't think David is insane for believing a set of fairy stories, we all have certain beliefs that others may think are odd. No, I think he is insane because after months and months of being told he cannot announce to the world what we believe/love/want, he is still unable to be corrected by the very people he thinks he has described. And he thinks we will be impressed by quotations and references to others who say what we are/believe/love (etc). I am the expert in me, Paul is the expert in Paul - the inability to grasp that is breathtaking.

  Yesterday at 09:12 · Like
• 
• There Isnogod Getoverit Here is a handy helpful tool, for the use of an quantifiers, to avoid confusion:
  
  Christians say "god hates fags" - untrue, the lack of limiting quantifier implies one - "all"
  
  All christians say "god hates fags" - untrue, according to the evidence.
  
  Most christians say "god hates fags" - unsubstantiated assertion - requires evidence.
  
  Many christians say "god hates fags" - inaccurate - vague and confusing, would require definition of the quantifier.
  
  Some christians say "god hated fags" - undeniable, according to the evidence. However also suffers from lack of definition of the quantifier.
  
  These are the sorts of ways you get to have a debate with someone who is a member of the group being described, and also a way of not coming across as an insane dick.

  Yesterday at 09:23 · Like
• 
• David Ward Miller Paul,
  
  Evidently I was unclear. I attempted to answered your question, but I will repeat and augment a bit.
  
  Question: "Regardless of what you think secularism is, could you tell us how you propose that different religions, with different and incompatible beliefs, can live in harmony in a state where one religion has official sanction and others don’t...how people who have different but incompatible beliefs can live in harmony."
  
  Past Answer: "While you insist it is not so, I am convinced atheist-agnostic-secular-humanism is a belief system as much as Xianity, both filled with much internal diversity."
  
  SECULARISM (A FRONT FOR ATHEISTIC HUMANISM) IS ONE OF THE "INCOMPATIBLE BELIEFS" THAT MUST LEARN TO "LIVE IN HARMONY" WITH OTHERS, NOT BY BEING THE ONLY OFFICIALLY SANCTIONED TAX-SUPPORTED "STATE RELIGION" (ATHEISTIC & ANTI-THEIST BELIEF SYSTEM) THAT GETS FORCED EXTERNAL HARMONY OF DIFFERING BELIEFS BY SILENCING ALL THEISM IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE.
  
  Past Answer: "Values clashes are inevitable as a search for a just freedom goes on. So secularism stands as one of the conflicting beliefs vying for a place at the table of competing values that a free people will vote upon, that cannot please everyone, but will (should) try to be fair to most. Without a dictatorship of majority values nor a dictatorship of minority values. Not an easy task!... I'm not for any theocracy nor a "secular-ocracy", but a democratic republic with as even a playing field as reasonably possible for all. My personal political libertarian views are not my personal spiritual biblical views and values."
  
  PRACTICALLY SPEAKING IT WILL MEAN A FREE NATION WILL ALWAYS LIVE IN VALUES DEBATE & VALUES TENSION --VALUES BORN OUT OF DIFFERING CORE BELIEFS. AND IF TRULY FREE EVERYONE WILL COMPROMISE.
  
  (I already covered my view that in general, nations with Judeo-Christian roots offer the most freedom and tolerance to varying belief systems, and in general, Islamic states & secular-ocracies much less. My final quote warned against the loss of democratic freedom in Christianized states that go secular)
  
  Paul, would you answer for me how a secularized state would harmonize differing beliefs without silencing all theism and, by intent or default, establish a secular-ocracy?

  Yesterday at 16:01 · Like
• 
• There Isnogod Getoverit "I already covered my view that in general, nations with Judeo-Christian roots offer the most freedom and tolerance to varying belief systems"
  
  Well that's that then, we're all in agreement. We have a Judeo-Christian society, because that's best for all. And I am sure all the other religions will agree, and none of them will point to the very good examples where theirs exhibited more tolerance. And nobody will point to the intra-christian history of violence.
  
  Nah, forget that, a christian has indicted that his religion offers the best for all. [shrug] what have we learned today. Nowt new.

  Yesterday at 17:06 · Like
• 
• Paul S Jenkins David, I note that despite my prefixing of my question with the phrase, “Regardless of what you think secularism is…” you nevertheless proceed to tell us (again) what you think it is, thus demonstrating that you’re still clinging steadfastly to the wrong end of the stick.
  
  “SECULARISM (A FRONT FOR ATHEISTIC HUMANISM) IS ONE OF THE "INCOMPATIBLE BELIEFS" THAT MUST LEARN TO "LIVE IN HARMONY" WITH OTHERS…”
  
  As has been pointed out in this thread more than once, secularism is not a front for atheistic humanism, nor is it a belief. Continuing to insist (in all caps, no less) that secularism is not what secularists themselves define it as only makes me think you’re possessed of some weird conspiracy theory.
  
  And what an amazing coincidence that when asked how incompatible beliefs should be reconciled, you suggest that they should all come under the aegis of your particular belief system. Tell that to the Muslims, or the Hindus, or the Scientologists, or the Raelians, or… (the list goes on, as well you know). Or maybe it’s not a coincidence — maybe it’s just that your beliefs are correct and all the others are wrong. Is that it?
  
  Sorry David, your suggestion won’t wash. Your religious beliefs are no more valid _under the law_ than any other religious beliefs, so you don’t get to be top dog. But then, neither do I, because my lack of religious belief is no more valid _under the law_ than your faith-based belief. But this means that insofar as your and my beliefs are incompatible, we don’t get to lord it over each other, because secularism.
  
  In answer to your question, a secularised state would harmonise incompatible beliefs by not allowing them a voice in government. This isn’t silencing them, it is saying that laws should not be based on religious precepts that are incompatible with the precepts of other faiths. Religious believers of all faiths are free to proclaim their beliefs in church, in the media, even on the street. But not in government, because that wouldn’t be fair on those who don’t share those beliefs.

  1 hr · Like · 1
• 
There Isnogod Getoverit If the facts were relevant (and they are not to David), he would in fact choose Jainism to be in charge.

Of course, the thing is, David is not honest, he just wants his side in charge. He is a liar. He insists on lying about what secularism is, and lying about what he wants.
1 hr · Like

I have a feeling this won't be the last continuation post...

The original Facebook thread is here:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/160924560640989/permalink/1015547928511977/