shirgall

In a free society, the Sierra Club would buy a park instead of lobbying. I'm sure there's plenty of people that might be interested in operating, or at least visiting, a museum.

I might settle with retiring the Abrahamic ones... as a first step. They seem pretty bloodthirsty.

The only way I'd consider accepting a BIG is if it was universally given out to everyone, equally, if it replaced social security, food stamps, medicaid, medicare, and welfare, if all subsidies were ended, if it was based on a single sales tax on all items at food services and retail with no exceptions, if the tax rate was set by popular vote (which directly determines the payout), and if all other personal taxation was permanently ended (personal income taxes, any sales taxes, and property taxes). So, look at November 2015 at a total adjusted food and retail sales of $448B or ~$1445 per person in the USA. Set the BIG at 20% (darned huge) and you get $289 per person for that month. I'm assuming people would tolerate a 20% sales tax if you get rid of income tax, socsec, and medicare. Since the only form of income to pay for the rest of government remaining would be corporate taxes and tariffs, the only way to grow government is to grow businesses, so maybe that's the right incentive, eh?

I think you mean this one:

There are definitely Christian private schools who require religious classes for graduation.

I'm still waiting to hear the feedback I'm going to get from last night. Carolers in my neighborhood came by (I recognized my next-door neighbors) and caught the family playing D&D in Star Trek pajamas on Christmas Eve.

It's been a while, and I read it in a book probably twenty years ago. I'll have to go find it.

You just recounted the Death of Socrates. People apparently need to re-learn this lesson for thousands of years, ever since Yahweh was changed from merely being the God of Mount Sinai (the 'Adonai' were the gods of the other mountains) to the one and only God, therefore give priests gold and eggs.

Except that the media has been discredited since, well, the Tet Offensive. And that's just in my memory. I think the media has consumed the entire galaxy's supply of teflon and still manages to scamper off scot free.

The call to power is very strong. I suspect some of the intervening story needs to be told. The Republic was not instantly reinstated when the Emperor was killed. Perhaps live with Han and Leia wasn't great, with her being a General and all, and him being a smuggler and probably very useful for moving things messages, people, and supplies around in secret. Probably pretty absent from any child's life. Abandonment with crazy Uncle Luke probably wasn't hot either, as you point out. Before the movie came out people were speculating that Luke had gone to the dark side. Now that the movie is out, I wonder if it was him that put the stories of Grandfather Anakin's greatness into the Solo babies... Yes, both of them. The only explanation for Rey's facile adoption of mastery is the calling of the Dark Side.

...Lex Luthor is found to be wearing a bad wig.

If they want to convince anyone else to share their belief, there sure is a burden of proof. If they want to use their belief to justify actions that affect others, there sure is a burden of proof. If they wish to infect their children and set them loose in the world to interact with others, there sure is a burden of proof. Believe what you want in isolation. When you start affecting others, you will need to garner some decorum and rigor. The NAP is a great start, but it's not the only principle of social interaction.

People can make extraordinary claims, but they have to justify them. For example, when one makes a claim of self-defense, one is making the claim, "Yes, I harmed that person, but I was right to do so." The burden of proof shifts to you. When one has to prove a negative, "gods do not exist" they take on the burden of proof. Now, some things are easy, like when theists have a series of claims that when taken together are contradictory and therefore impossible, but other things are harder. The so-called "strong" atheists claim there can be no gods, but that basically assumes that every definition of "gods" is self-contradictory. Proving that is a lot of groundwork with no tangible reward.

There is a distinct difference between making a claim that gods exist and not making a claim that god's exist. You don't pick a side, you have to be persuaded out of the baseline position of not accepting an extraordinary claim. The Trivium includes formal logic. You had the tool but I don't think it is being properly applied.

Is there any other attribute that unifies atheists than that they do not make the claim that gods exist?

I always like responding, "Where can I get a refund? Mine's broken."

You are assuming self-ownership when you ascribe an opinion to yourself or that you want to state it to someone else. By doing so, you embrace the concept that you have value... value that you must build and protect and extend.

We've given a definition in this thread already. "A theist is one who makes the extraordinary claim that a god or gods exist. Atheists do not make such a claim."

Fair enough, what are the tools you use to evaluate the truth of what you experience?

There's a huge difference between claiming a candidate is fun to watch and endorsing him. One can definitely enjoy Trump rope-a-doping the media without liking either Trump or the media. Even so, the primary is when I might vote for someone, and the general is is when I usually vote against someone... and I haven't voted at all in a while.

Homicides, US per 100,000 population: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/12/a-historical-perspective-on-homicide.php

You have just described something specific known as a "credible threat". This is a different animal than the hotheaded claim to violence with no activity to back it up. When he takes steps to get the gun, that's the difference. If you really want to learn more about this, try Mas Ayoob's In the Gravest Extreme and if you really want to get ahead of threats, consider Left of Bang.

Just because the person being lied to acknowledges the possibility that they are being lied to doesn't make the person lying not responsible for the lie itself. No one else should be responsible who didn't utter the lie either. I think that's where we are stuck. The lie is wrong because it hides a higher chance of damage to their property than the person being lied to expects.

I tried to use a different construction of the same arrangement without the extra baggage of "marriage". Feel free to tell me my analogies don't work.