Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are very seriously misinformed concerning the nature of your government and its permitted modes of operation. Neither the religious nor the non-religious may use the agency of the state to advance or limit religion. All rights of the people enumerated within the Bill of Rights and many more not enumerated but implict within the 9th Amendment are beyond the reach of any mere democratic majority. The founders well understood the often destructive nature of popular moods and passions.
There is a situation referred to in our legal history called "the tyranny of the majority" which is precisely what you refer to with your excellent posting. There was a time in our nation's history, not all that long ago, when "the majority" thought segregation was the "right" thing to do, along with all the other racist nonsense like poll taxes, literacy tests, jim crow laws, the whole mess. The fact that a "majority" of Americans may have agreed with these racist artifacts did NOT make it correct, nor did it mean that it could stay the law of the land. These particular cases of the tyranny of the majority bit the dust in several landmark decisions and court cases.
...I guess you see all non-secularists as nothing more than lower life forms that should have no right to take part in any debate taking place in the public square...
While this post wasn't directed at me, I'm a bit confused about your take on what is "secularism". Would you care to explain what you mean by "non-secularists"?
If you check out my thread in "religion and Philosophy" you will see that I have demonstrated the following:
All world views require faith and also contain many of the tenets of the BASIC definition of religion. Therefore, it can be reasonably asserted that we are all, to a degree, religious in our various world views.
Next question:
If we are all religious, how is it possible to have a separation of church and state?
I would love to have seperation of science and state as well as church and state.
While this post wasn't directed at me, I'm a bit confused about your take on what is "secularism". Would you care to explain what you mean by "non-secularists"?
OP doesn't grasp the difference between a secular state and a militant atheist pressure group, as he made clear during our exchanges.
I would love to have seperation of science and state as well as church and state.
This is VERY interesting.
Would you want the Constitution amended to strike out Article 1, § 8, clause 8?
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
I currently have a patent on what the Germans have preached for the past thirty years was impossible.
"You do not have an honest premise. You are merely putting lipstick on a pig."
I'm still waiting for you to explain the dishonesty of my premise.
"Nonsense. You presume that some neutral middle ground exists and that theists march off 100 yards from it in one direction while atheists march off 100 yards in the other. There is no such middle ground. The only sensible default position is that the supernatural fails to exist. It is entirely up to those who propose that it does to demonstrate the case -- which they spectacularly fail to do. Fantastic claims require extraordinary evidence. Supernaturalists have no evidence at all. None."
No, this is not nonsense. You cannot prove that the supernatural does not exist - so it doesn't matter who has a burden of proof for or against. Some take it on faith that there is no supernatural realm and some take it on faith that there is. We've been over this. You cannot LOGICALLY prove a negative assertion.
"A dishonest premise is not improved by repeating it. In the absence of evidence -- and to the keen observer, none of that is anywhere apparent -- no special methodology at all is involved in disregarding claims of the supernatural. It is your claim. It is your responsibility to establish it as true. You can't. Therefore reasonable people everywhere are fully justified in believing that your claim is not true."
I'm not here to prove anything concerning existence/non-existence of the supernatural. I'm asserting that both those believing in the existence of the supernatural and those believing in the non-existence of the supernatural do so on faith - nothing more.
If you check out my thread in "religion and Philosophy" you will see that I have demonstrated the following:
All world views require faith and also contain many of the tenets of the BASIC definition of religion. Therefore, it can be reasonably asserted that we are all, to a degree, religious in our various world views.
Check again, in that message thread in the Religion forum.
Last edited by ParkTwain; 02-23-2009 at 08:02 PM..
I'm not here to prove anything concerning existence/non-existence of the supernatural. I'm asserting that both those believing in the existence of the supernatural and those believing in the non-existence of the supernatural do so on faith - nothing more.
I think you've confused yourself with your own words.
'Faith' as you have used the word describes a relationship (in the logical sense) between a person and an object. It is a semantic mistake to ascribe 'faith' to a person with regard to the object 'God' when that person has no belief in that object. There is no 'faith' relationship that is the case for that subject-object combination.
To state that a person does not "have faith" in "X" is not equivalent to stating that the person "has faith" in "not X".
That is, the proposition NOT(A .has faith in. B) is not equivalent to the proposition A .has faith in. NOT(B).
Last edited by ParkTwain; 02-23-2009 at 08:21 PM..
No, this is not nonsense. You cannot prove that the supernatural does not exist - so it doesn't matter who has a burden of proof for or against. Some take it on faith that there is no supernatural realm and some take it on faith that there is. We've been over this. You cannot LOGICALLY prove a negative assertion.
So you have no objection to being governed by the adherents of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as long as they get their way democratically? Well sorry, I guess most of us don't fetishize democracy as much as you do.
I would love to have seperation of science and state as well as church and state.
Do you go to the doctor or dentist when you are ill?
Do you have surgery when you need it?
Do you take medicines, as prescribed?
So, it's only selective science that you're against?
Go on back to the dark ages and the plague, that's what you're calling for, isn't it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I currently have a patent on what the Germans have preached for the past thirty years was impossible.
Dark Ages, Science only when you want it?
