nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
A_Wanderer said:I do support a secular state with freedom of religion and a common law that does not derive justification from an eternal and unyielding lie.
That's a far cry from "we can't say," isn't it?
A_Wanderer said:I do support a secular state with freedom of religion and a common law that does not derive justification from an eternal and unyielding lie.
A_Wanderer said:
Secularism guarantees that the state is not going to be burning down a church or locking up believers carte blanche and that everybody can get equal treatment under a law that they mutually agree upon for the most part without any divine justification.
INDY500 said:And you'd be rightly troubled if it was the ideology seeking to monopolize theories in textbooks and classrooms regarding the origin of life and the universe?
INDY500 said:This is important for it is for this reason that many otherwise intelligent Americans do not fully embrace evolution. The anti-religious tone. The fear, not without foundation, that Darwinism the science has become a Trojan horse loaded up with philosophies and ideologies which seek to totally secularize society and undermine religion and religion based morality.
INDY500 said:
Then you cannot say "The cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be."
The universe is either a closed materialistic system with a naturalistic cause for it's creation or it's not.
I disagree, I would say that science deals with most accurate approximation rather than absolute truth. Because there is always room for doubt in principle there can never be absolute truth about anything.melon said:
Religion is all about "absolute truth," right? And, by definition, "absolute truth" is right, no matter if the "majority" voted against it, right?
Science deals in absolute truth, not ideology. As such, your talk about "monopolizing theories" is relativistic nonsense.
A_Wanderer said:I disagree, I would say that science deals with most accurate approximation rather than absolute truth. Because there is always room for doubt in principle there can never be absolute truth about anything.
A_Wanderer said:God isn't an answer for the origin of the universe, as I stated before it could literally be any mechanism but in the absence of evidence supposing God is flawed. Scientists are not all leaping on board any explanation for that very reason; we simply don't know because we cannot know at this point in time. But this current limit of knowledge does not mean that God creeps in as a valid explanation.
Your problem with secularism of public society highlights a major issue that I have with many believers, the rejection of the secular state. The religious freedoms that are guaranteed are overlooked because they don't get special treatment or it allows things that are at odds to their subjective morality.
Having no line of distinction between man and animal is the core of why Darwinism may get pilloried. But natural explanations function a lot better than religious ones to model peoples behaviour. Attempts to separate us from our decent are doomed because of what our ancestors left us.
A_Wanderer said:
Your problem with secularism of public society highlights a major issue that I have with many believers, the rejection of the secular state.
Guaranteed by what? If you want a secular state then you must turnover your guarantees or rights and freedoms to the whims of that state? What is your court of appeal if that state is unrestricted by any higher law?The religious freedoms that are guaranteed...
Having no line of distinction between man and animal is the core of why Darwinism may get pilloried. But natural explanations function a lot better than religious ones to model peoples behaviour. Attempts to separate us from our decent are doomed because of what our ancestors left us.
A_Wanderer said:No, we can't say that the universe is definitely a closed system and we can't say definitely if it had a beginning (however with the rate of cosmic expansion it seems like the end is doomed to be infinite space).
Are you calling me a communist? I don't think that a better man is possible given our biology, the study in this thread was identifying a correlation between an innate biological characteristic and the nature of the individuals belief. Human nature does not change at the desire of any state and I do not think that everybody is predisposed to be agnostic. Some people are going to believe in something no matter what indoctrination they get. Laying the crimes of Mao and Stalin at the foot of atheism overlooks the much more pertinent issue of their cults of personality and collectivism, two things which I as an individualistic atheist abhor.INDY500 said:(Time expired before I could edit. Here is my post.)
Secular state? Is that what you meant to say? Didn't we see enough during the last century to realize that the quest for an atheist utopia quickly turns into a license for mass murder. All, of coarse, in the name of reason, science and the state and towards a new and better man.
You live in a democracy, I think that the desire for an anti-secular populace can be a means of enforcing a religious agenda by stealth. That is why it is important for a portion of any population to be activists in the cause of freedom from religiousity, upholding the principles of secular governance by complaining about things such as prayer in school and religion based law is important.Now secular society and a secular government are two entirely different topics. I do want secular law, but I do not wish a secular populace.
I am much more partial to Jefferson, to whom the establishment clause owes a good deal of origin. I do not see any contradiction between a pro-liberty position and atheism, that I justify liberty on the basis of a claim to ownership over my own mind and body and a willingness to consensually engage with society. I am not endowed with freedom from a creator and that argument is a lie, the exceptions around the world attest to that. That freedom can only exist in a state where individuals have choice is the defining issue, it does not demand a claim of absolute authority to justify it, merely consensual engagement by sentient organisms."Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty but it is religion and morality alone that can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand."
--John Adams, 1775
True, liberties are enshrined in documents such as the American bill of rights which the state cannot infringe upon. That there are avenues of appeal against unjust laws through a judicial system is critical to that. You really seem to be under the false impression that if the law claims God as justification then either it cannot do wrong or that it is restricted from truly infringing liberties, to that end I call bullshit; as religious law is inherently anti-liberty; it is predicated upon the belief in and subjugation to God, in the absence of that belief (or a belief in a different interpretation) one is open to persecution. A state should only be justified by it's populace, that they see fit to pay taxes and engage with it because it represents their interests as sentient organisms, a secular state is good because it may do so fairly without discriminating by whatever fairy tale the different individuals believe in.Guaranteed by what? If you want a secular state then you must turnover your guarantees or rights and freedoms to the whims of that state? What is your court of appeal if that state is unrestricted by any higher law?
An owners manual for man? One could derive better morality from different types of man made literature than the bible, Shakespeare comes to mind instantly. That believers may subsidise others belief, hang out with each other and fuck their women more (without birth control) says nothing of the texts validity merely that the lifestyle is condusive to spreading (and as a cultural meme religion has been very effective and one would expect that).Is that really true? We've been talking about the first page of the Bible but mine has some 2500 more. It is an owners manual for man. There are of coarse other religions but there seems to be no doubt that religious believers on whole are happier, more charitable, less lonely, better able to cope with suffering and death and they reproduce at a greater rate.
The emancipation of women has a very large factor in a declining birth rate, that Europe is below replacement level rates is not strictly related to the decline in faith but even if it was it doesn't reflect well upon religion. That in a post-Christian society women are free to pursue education and career (at the expense of settling down to being housewives and pumping out Christian soldiers) is not a bad thing.Maybe that is the biological predisposition to faith. Secular societies don't seem able to sustain themselves biologically.
There is in fact very real evidence of that today. The native populations of Europe, Russia and Japan are all shrinking.
Would a higher dimension imply God? No.INDY500 said:
Ever wonder what the universe is expanding into?
INDY500 said:
Ever wonder what the universe is expanding into?
Irvine511 said:
you propose an alternative to science in a science classroom? are you worried about the monopoly the Theory of Gravity or Plate Tectonics has on the minds of our children? or is it because certain facts don't sit comfortably and reality isn't so easy to reconcile with a 2,000 year old book?
melon said:
Religion is all about "absolute truth," right? And, by definition, "absolute truth" is right, no matter if the "majority" voted against it, right?
Science deals in absolute truth, not ideology. As such, your talk about "monopolizing theories" is relativistic nonsense.
INDY500 said:
The native populations of Europe, Russia and Japan are all shrinking.
INDY500 said:
Secular state? Is that what you meant to say? Didn't we see enough during the last century to realize that the quest for an atheist utopia quickly turns into a license for mass murder. All, of coarse, in the name of reason, science and the state and towards a new and better man.
INDY500 said:
Oh please.
If we can talk about Nature's God and the Creator when discussing the birth of our nation I don't think it terribly out of order that discussions dealing with the birth of the universe and the dawning of man shouldn't also at least make mention of them.
The theory of Design is speculation on facts, but then so are those famous ape to man lineups adorning the walls of classrooms.
acrobatique said:Barring all that, you're going to live, and then you're going to die. And that is the end of you. Afterlife is realized through children. You have children, you live on. Otherwise, your line ceases to exist.
Irvine511 said:
seems a bit uncharitable to the infertile.
acrobatique said:Weak, sorry.