Under your Veiws under your avatar you entered "Believes in God without religion".
That to me is simple superstition lite. Half the tribalism with all the great taste of fantasy.
What you are attempting to do is say "I am not like the others". Maybe in the sense that you don't like being judgmental of people with different positions, and that seems nice.
Here is the problem, when we are talking about human disputes as to "what is" the problem, even with your "cant we all just get along" attitude, should not be the issue. Yes humans should get along.
My point would be that the issue is not about one's right to make a claim, but the ability to demonstrate the credibility of a claim to the point that it goes beyond personal bias
The biggest problem our species has, even some athiests, is that they confuse themselves as being the claim itself and humans are not claims. Claims are positions people hold, but claims are not people.
So if you want to argue this generic god who doesn't subscribe to conformity, you are not the first. Jefferson rejected lots of Christian claims and even tons of the fantastic claims in the bible. So what? I liked his ideas about common law and government neutrality on the issue of religion. But I cant even agree with the concept of a "no clubs, everyone welcome" god concept.
Why? Because no matter how inclusive someone might claim their god is, it still sets them up to feel superior(LOOK AT ME I AM NOT JUDGMENTAL) not to mention, regardless of religon or label, no human in history, in antiquity or today, has any lick of evidence that a non material invisible thinking being is even a possibility.
That to me is simple superstition lite. Half the tribalism with all the great taste of fantasy.
What you are attempting to do is say "I am not like the others". Maybe in the sense that you don't like being judgmental of people with different positions, and that seems nice.
Here is the problem, when we are talking about human disputes as to "what is" the problem, even with your "cant we all just get along" attitude, should not be the issue. Yes humans should get along.
My point would be that the issue is not about one's right to make a claim, but the ability to demonstrate the credibility of a claim to the point that it goes beyond personal bias
The biggest problem our species has, even some athiests, is that they confuse themselves as being the claim itself and humans are not claims. Claims are positions people hold, but claims are not people.
So if you want to argue this generic god who doesn't subscribe to conformity, you are not the first. Jefferson rejected lots of Christian claims and even tons of the fantastic claims in the bible. So what? I liked his ideas about common law and government neutrality on the issue of religion. But I cant even agree with the concept of a "no clubs, everyone welcome" god concept.
Why? Because no matter how inclusive someone might claim their god is, it still sets them up to feel superior(LOOK AT ME I AM NOT JUDGMENTAL) not to mention, regardless of religon or label, no human in history, in antiquity or today, has any lick of evidence that a non material invisible thinking being is even a possibility.
