Am I religious if I say there isn't a marble at the table? Or a walnut? I don't see one, I have no reason to believe one is there, based on how the world works elsewhere there isn't anything there.
But you're telling me I need to faith to avoid these beliefs in small generally round objects. I say it is you who is using faith to assume the existence of one particular type of thing there and you're claiming I am the person operating without any evidence.
It's ridiculous.
What you wrote doesn't even pass the mildest smell test: there is ample evidence that forming babies hear and react to stimuli from outside the womb, for just one example.
But even if there were no evidence of a world outside the womb, I wouldn't expect a baby to think one existed. Nor would I threaten that baby with damnation were they not to believe me without evidence.
Atheism isn't faith-based. If you show me reproducible evidence for the existence of a god, I'll change my tune no problem.
You are not clear on what faith is if you believe atheism to be faith-based. Atheism wouldn't even exist if religion did not. Because religion and unfounded beliefs are so common, there is an actual name for not believing in a god. There aren't a lot of specific terms for a lack of belief in other things without evidence.
Here, let me rephrase what's written above:
Because an invisible pink sky elephant cannot be disproved or proved with any non-supernatural intervention, you must grapple with the imaginary to address the issue.
...
That's not how the world works. We don't spend any time grappling with things for which there is no evidence.
Both sides are all just humans being the worst we have to offer as a species.
Egged on by ridiculous stories about men in the sky, they fight for no reason when we could all just treat each other as human.
Same. Thought maybe some local woodworker produced a beautiful lectern.
No, turns out it's from amazon with some spray paint and Arkansas is just being Arkansas.
Not going to agree with the commenter above, but I want to point out that this happens a lot:
A person who holds views that are detrimental to others comes to a community of those people and cries "why, when I am not quite like other people who hold these views, but agree with them on the detrimental stuff about you, do you not accept me?"
The people in the community try repeatedly to explain why holding views that harm others is harmful and that the person asking may need to revaluate their own views.
The person then says they're being attacked. Everything they predicted about this community is coming true! They feel like they're being kicked out!
And they are! Because when they came to engage then didn't change, let alone evaluate, any of their own views, the community rightly showed them back to the door until they are ready to actually listen and put themselves in someone else's shoes.
I am sure you feel like you have been badly treated at this point. What you do with that now is up to you. I'll say this: I have no hate for you, I would like nothing more than to give you some feedback that might help change how you view some things. I hope there is enough food for thought here for everyone.
I find it positive to think about these writers, inspired to try to create something scientific and exciting but lacking the education themselves to do it justice, but then inspiring generations to learn and explore, who then return having learned enough to spot the problems.
I hope Star Trek can use science, and the generations of fans now inspired, to keep pushing these stories further because it feels like our collective need for Star Trek's vision is as deep as ever.
I understand, that's why I was trying to translate their statement into reality-based words. I thought you were defending their position based on your response.
But .. they don't mail the pills randomly. A person in the state where it is outlawed is requesting something from a state where it is not.
I don't see how the CA doctors are in any way colonizing anything.
Did you skip the second sentence of my comment?