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.
Religion is like women. Since polygamy isn't socially acceptable, marriage can only be between two people. You're only married to one person at a time and if you marry the wrong one your life will be a living hell. Oh yeah, and divorce rate is 50%.
This is also a bad analogy since atheism and agnosticism doesn't exactly relate to being single.
But hey, just like the people that try to convert you, the parents always ask why haven't I got a girlfriend yet...
It's not possible for the state to be neutral with respect to sports teams. Why? Because sports fans make truth claims. To be neutral towards those claims is, in effect, to be against them.
It's not possible for the state to be neutral with respect to sports teams. Why? Because sports fans make truth claims. To be neutral towards those claims is, in effect, to be against them.
The claims of sports fans are trivial and irrelevant to governance.
The claims of religion are fundamental and essential to government. Example: When does human life begin? Religion answers that question, and the state must legislate on the basis of the answer.
The claims of sports fans are trivial and irrelevant to governance.
The claims of religion are fundamental and essential to government. Example: When does human life begin? Religion answers that question, and the state must legislate on the basis of the answer.
Religion answers that question as accurately as it answers the questions of the origin of the universe.
The claims of sports fans are trivial and irrelevant to governance.
As are the claims of religion.
Quote:
The claims of religion are fundamental and essential to government. Example: When does human life begin?
That is a good question, but I'd say that biology would work a tad better...
Quote:
Religion answers that question,
Religion claims to answer that question.
Quote:
and the state must legislate on the basis of the answer.
The state must do no such thing. It is perfectly possible to formulate a robust set of ethics without invoking a Supreme Being of any sort.
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.
