Religions are interpreted to justify any political position, and as the basis of religious belief systems is irrational faith in revealed truth, nobody can reasonably claim one faction or another are the true believers.

From a practical perspective though, I'm ok with individuals pushing progressive ideals through whatever philosophy, physically true or not. Not ideal, but I want more of a buffer between myself and murderous destructive religious fanatics lol. Religious progressives at least give me a lot more room to be myself and talk about my own beliefs (or lack of). Amd they're generally noce people despite some really strong disagreements we have.

Fuzzy thinking is partly responsible for the mess we are in

When facing an exisential threat, being overly agressive with people who have 90% of the same goals is counterproductive.

Except if one is making a personal judgment. Faith is the willing suspension of disbelief. One believes, or one does not. If one person believes that there is a deity and another does not, neither belief is provable.

It is not grounded in logic or reason it is belief without evidence or proof.

Thus the use of the word "belief". Patriotism is a type of secular faith, as is any belief system.

It's irrational.

Is love irrational?

Is patriotism irrational?

Is atheism irrational?

and your attempts to distract from the fact grow tiresome.

Love is a chemical reaction.

Patriotism is about one's homeland, and understandable fi sometimes taken to extreme.

Atheism is not a belief, but a conclusion based on logic.

Patriotism is manipulation.

Atheism is not a conclusion based on logic because it is ultimately unprovable.

Love is not "emotional", it IS an emotion. Emotion is a neurochemical response to cognition. I see a tiger, my cognitive faculties identify the tiger as a threat, which stimulates a release of adrenaline that sends me running for the hills.

Patriotism is similar to love, with the object being conceptual rather than physical.

I'm not sure what "proof" has to do with logic. Scientists don't logic their way to their conclusions. They use the scientific method. Logic is about arriving at internally consistent conclusions by way of sound premises. Whether or not it is an empirical process is a matter of some debate within the philosophical community.

Sentient beings can analyze threats and tailor a response.

The rest of your argument is also flawed. You have decided on a conclusion that cannot be proven and given it a veneer of science.

Yes more complex animals can analyse and respond, but the recognition mechanism stated remains rock solid.

That the internal response to a situation can be overridden, doesn't change the initial response to fight/flight/freeze or fornicate the analogy stands and remains relevant.

"Lack of proof, therefore, has no bearing on whether or not atheism is a logical conclusion."

And as I have stated repeatedly, neither theism nor atheism is provable. Both are beliefs.

You keep using the word "belief" like it has only one meaning, but there are several definitions of the word "belief" depending upon the context in which the word is used. The statements "I believe vaccines work" and "I believe in the tooth fairy" are not equivalent in their implications despite using the same verb. The first is a statement expressing conviction of truth based on an examination of evidence, while the second statement expresses confidence placed in something.

Before you fire back with another distracted rejoinder, let me clarify: I said logic does not always hinge on empiricism. That doesn't mean atheism isn't a conclusion that can be reached by empirical means. Scientific conclusions are based on confidence that the evidence points to or excludes a particular explanation. I don't need to prove the non-existence of leprechauns to be reasonably confident leprechauns do not exist. No one in recorded history has presented evidence of their existence. Furthermore, scientific observation points to a Universe operating in a manner consistent with the non-existence of leprechauns. Few, I imagine, would argue that the belief that leprechauns exist and the belief that leprechauns do not exist are equally valid propositions, equally worthy of our time and consideration.

Congratulations are therefor extended.

Love is an emotion, emotions are chemical reactions in out brains.

Patriotism... That's interesting you should say that. Since you often equivocate it with religion, are you saying that religion is manipulation?

Atheism is based on logic. There is no proof in atheism, rather it sees the massive claims of theism and says "Where's the proof?" and, upon seeing none, discards the idea with all the other unprovable/disproved claims.

'Belief', yes I agree.

One nation, under God... Patriotism a secular faith? Very rarely I would suggest. For the most part religion is in their loud and proud.

I have been asked to prove my faith with logic here and my response is I can't.

I have no idea why some people here find this arguable.

Many believers cannot admit this fact to themselves, much less another.

to prove it...
I don't have to prove the absence of Gods. However I will point out the utter absence of any proof of any Gods existence to date.
To base social policy on something that doesn't exist seems not only irrational, but highly irresponsible, if not criminal.

You proclaim that there is no proof, and define proof for yourself.

All Christianity is edited and interpreted over nearly 2000 years to best suit the philosophy or agendas of many different groups and organizations.

Unfortunately, even though you can say this is the interpretation best for leading society in a positive direction, it's difficult to argue what is the true correct interpretation of the religion. The codex which is treated as holy scripture by the vast majority of Christians has very large amounts of material in its books that also support truly vile actions and ideas. With a holy book like that it's difficult to convince someone the loving portions carry more weight than everything else, and vice versa.

You get a stalemate because the faithful in each group are sincerely praying and believe they're getting guidance from God. The big difference with people who end up on the progressive side, in my opinion, simply have a more firm grasp on physical reality and/or have devloped (or inherited) a stronger sense of empathy. In general.

There can be some progress made with regressives/conservatives so I'm not poo pooing the idea of pushing your positive beliefs, just giving my honest thoughts on the subject. Some of these people are very empathetic and caring, but due to whatever teachings they received, they genuinely think people they care about will be sentanced to hell tearing them up inside. I find some of them are far more likely to be convinced.

Being unprincipled and rambling, it can be made to say/support ANYTHING one wants to.

Why would anyone be so scared of gays, unless they were hiding in the closet? Same question to Rick Santorum.

As there is no historical record and even the New Testament doesn't contain a whole lot of what Jesus might have said. It does however condemn homosexuality.

The Jesus talked about here is basically a character in a book that's mostly consistently portrayed in the various bibles out there. There's a chance there may not even be a "real" Jesus to argue over, it which case the bible is the sole (and original) source of Jesus's words. It's a useful tool in talking to people whose Religion centered around this character. If I didn't find many actions contradictory to Jesus's words in the bible, I probably never would have ended up an atheist.

gospels to justify their bigotry.

Christians spent about 250 years killing each other over who was the true believer starting with Luther, and that was just a revisiting of the sectarian slaughter from the end of the ancient era. Prior to the reformation they were content with slaughtering witches heretics and Muslims in the name of their god. During and after the reformation and right up to the modern era, colonial abominations were justified as the lords work.

They all thought they were doing exactly what Jesus wanted them to do, and could lecture you with chapter and verse to prove their case.

What does it mean to people like Farron and Santorum to be a Christian? To exercise judgement and bigotry on others, or to accept others?

I don't recall anything like that.

against her mother-in-law, a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'


Doesn't sound very progressive either.

Not supposed to use their book against them... Apparently it's against the RULES!

...that's the other reliable go-to...

He is very progressive,and his voting record is pro-gay-rights, unlike that of Theresa May in the past, not to mention her current alliance with the DUP (heirs to Ian Paisley in Northern Ireland). He didn't resign because he thinks gays are evil; but because he was hounded on the subject. He was politically weak, but nothing worse. For once, anti-Christian prejudice was used politically; but you can bet it wouldn't be against a right-winger.

The media will use anything against a non-Tory politician.