The Gospel of Unbelief

[LOki]

How is it that science can feel so superior to spirituality when it proves itself to be wrong about reality over and over and over?

Apparently it has the distinct advantage over spirituality in that it manages to prove something.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Interesting how it fails to resolve the problem when individual rights clash.

it's peacenik crap. They've taken over the libertarians it seems. We live in a world where nations compete militarily for global control. You just have to choose a side, you can't opt out.

They think they're sly by stressing individual rights and responsibilities and making it seem all right wing friendly. But when it comes down to supporting the american military to secure our future security, they take precisely the enemy position. Too bad.

 

[MissileMan]

Yes.

By what definition are you claiming that atheism is a religion?

 

[LOki]

By what definition are you claiming that atheism is a religion?

On the basis that Athiesm--that there is no deity--is a statement of faith.

 

[dilloduck]

Apparently it has the distinct advantage over spirituality in that it manages to prove something.

Christian writings also assert that man will never know it all---so what?

 

[dilloduck]

On the basis that Athiesm--that there is no deity--is a statement of faith.

Saying that you believe a statement is a religion?

 

[MissileMan]

On the basis that Athiesm--that there is no deity--is a statement of faith.

I don't believe that the moon is made of cheese...is that a religion also?

 

[LOki]

Saying that you believe a statement is a religion?

I don't believe that the moon is made of cheese...is that a religion also?

I hope you're both being retarded for a purpose...

A personal set of formalized attitudes, beliefs, and practices based on a statement of faith.

 

[dilloduck]

I hope you're both being retarded for a purpose...

A personal set of formalized attitudes, beliefs, and practices based on a statement of faith.

That can mean anything----------I believe apples are good--I buy them--I slice them--I eat them--I enjoy the taste--I tell others how good they are--etc.

 

[MissileMan]

I hope you're both being retarded for a purpose...

A personal set of formalized attitudes, beliefs, and practices based on a statement of faith.

Is that the primary definition of religion in your dictionary? If you're going to try to equate something don't you think the logical thing to do would be use the same definition?

Religion is a belief in the super-natural. Atheism is the dis-belief in the super-natural. You're trying to equate them is like saying that -1 = 1.

 

[LOki]

That can mean anything----------I believe apples are good--I buy them--I slice them--I eat them--I enjoy the taste--I tell others how good they are--etc.

DING! Fries are done!

 

[Said1]

DING! Fries are done!

Socratic dialogues.

Sometimes questioning is headache provoking.

 

[LOki]

Atheism is the dis-belief in the super-natural.

Petitio principii.

To be logically and intellectually consistent you can't presume the existence of the supernatural to not believe in it, nor can you presume the non-existence of the supernatural to believe in, and then not call those presumptions faith.

 

[dilloduck]

Petitio principii.

To be logically and intellectually consistent you can't presume the existence of the supernatural to not believe in it, nor can you presume the non-existence of the supernatural to believe in, and then not call those presumptions faith.

Does a person of religion in the presidency conflict with the establishment clause?

 

[MissileMan]

Petitio principii.

To be logically and intellectually consistent you can't presume the existence of the supernatural to not believe in it, nor can you presume the non-existence of the supernatural to believe in, and then not call those presumptions faith.

But you do have to use something other than the primary definition in order to equate Christianity to atheism. So you are equating apples and oranges because they are both fruit. Sorry, but atheism is NOT a religion.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No so much so that secular mean atheist as you so vehemently continue to assert.

Your point was not the varying usage of secular--your point was secularism is a denial of the existence of God, which is in fact atheism. You went as far to avoid what your own resource had to say which was:<blockquote>"Holyoake held that secularism should take no interest at all in religious questions (as they were irrelevant), and was thus to be distinguished from militant freethought and atheism. In this he disagreed with Charles Bradlaugh, and the disagreement split the secularist movement between those who argued that anti-religious propaganda and activism was not necessary or desirable and those who argued that it was."</blockquote>My guess is that the reason you are so desperate to make an equivalent association between secularism and atheism is that atheism, like Christianity is faith based, rather than reason based, and on those grounds your faith based rationalizations are just as effective as any other faith based rationalizations they are put up against.

But rational people ask questions, difficult questions, painful questions--and they are not neccessarily satisfied by what one person's Invisible White Father Who Lives In Sky says, much less His absolutely obedient, but none-the-less charming, volitionary says.

You are arguing much like this Cal Thomas whose article was the start of this thread. As I suggested earlier, his problem is having his beliefs, that are unsupported by fact or reason, questioned. It undermines his preferred authority system. What he ultimately enjoins you to do is, "Do as you're told by those who are in charge of the sacred book--and don't listen to those with "other" ideas." He enjoins you to not be critical of the foundation that his favored brand of authoritarianism is based upon.

Your Faith-Based Authoritarianism has no teeth without the coercive power of the government, your wish that it should gain that coercive power will never be granted as long as secularists keep your religion out of the government. As a result, all faiths--including atheists, including Christians--will be free to practice their faith, and better off for it.

No, I never said that Secularism equates to Atheism per se, however it is darn close. As per Holyoake, Secularism is a "code of duty" and secularism has certain "principles". If those things do not equate to and substantiate a belief of sorts, if not exactly a belief system, you're kidding yourself. Religion is based on belief. Secularism is also based on belief. Even your given definition of Secularism shows that there are parameters to be met in order to be Secularist in nature. I would guess that most Secularists are Atheists or at least Humanists.

Most people fall for the idea that a "Secular government" means that it is "fair and impartial". I disagree. I do not believe it was the intention of our founders to establish a "Secular" government but only to prevent any certain Belief (religion) to take over the government. Our laws all come from our individual beliefs and therefore religious beliefs as well as non-religious beliefs are duly represented in our laws. IMO Secularism is the big canard being pushed upon this country by the likes of the ACLU and others who wish to completely denude our government of anything religious in nature.

Our country is OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people. You can't separate people from their beliefs and you can't separate their beliefs from government within the Constitutional framework. How can you totally separate religion from government? I think Dilloduck's question nicely sums up this dilemma: " A state elects a man to the Senate because he is a fine upstanding Christian. Is it constutional for him to even take office?" Frankly, my guess is that the ACLU and its ilk would eventually like to see any Christian barred from office.

Secularism is a belief and is not necessarily the "neutral, fair approach" that you probably think it is. I personally do not want to see only Secularist ideals replace Christian ideals that currently exist (through the people's vote) within our government and its laws and which have been there from the very beginning of our country. Secularism and its backers has its own agenda. Coersion comes in many forms.

 

[LOki]

Does a person of religion in the presidency conflict with the establishment clause?

No.

But you do have to use something other than the primary definition in order to equate Christianity to atheism.

I'm not equating Christianity to atheism. Thanks for trying.

So you are equating apples and oranges because they are both fruit.

If apples are fruit, and oranges are fruit, it is logically and intellectually consistent to call them both fruit.

Sorry, but atheism is NOT a religion.

Atheism is certainly a religion consistent with the definition provided; you have not provided a better one, nor have you demonstrated that mine is flawed. Keep trying though.

No, I never said that Secularism equates to Atheism per se, however it is darn close. As per Holyoake, Secularism is a "code of duty" and secularism has certain "principles". If those things do not equate to and substantiate a belief of sorts, if not exactly a belief system, you're kidding yourself.

As I pointed out to you clearly, your resource also said:<blockquote>"Holyoake held that secularism should take no interest at all in religious questions (as they were irrelevant), and was thus to be distinguished from militant freethought and atheism."</blockquote>You seem bent on refusing to aknowledge that distiction. I think you refuse to aknowledge that distinction because doing so weakens your position.

Religion is based on belief.

Yes. Established.

Secularism is also based on belief. Even your given definition of Secularism shows that there are parameters to be met in order to be Secularist in nature.

No. Secular is descriptive. It is not descriptive of belief, but rather of a things relationship to religion. It means not religious; it is by definition not religious. Only to the extent that a person's activity is not overtly or specifically religious; not ecclesiastical or clerical; not bound by monastic vows or rules; specifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation, are they "secularist."

I would guess that most Secularists are Atheists or at least Humanists.

No. Atheist and Humanists may be secularist, but so can Christians, Muslims, Hundus, Pagans, Wiccans, and Zoroastrians--and they often are.

Most people fall for the idea that a "Secular government" means that it is "fair and impartial". I disagree.

So do I. Apparently "most people" are complete idiots who cannot grasp the definition of a word even if the dictionary is provided for them and the words are explained in detail. Secular certainly does not mean "fair and impartial," it means without religion; it means relating to the worldly or temporal; not overtly or specifically religious; not ecclesiastical or clerical; not bound by monastic vows or rules; specifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation. A secular government is arguably is "fair and impartial" in regard to religion, but it does not mean "fair and impartial" government.

I do not believe it was the intention of our founders to establish a "Secular" government but only to prevent any certain Belief (religion) to take over the government.

Well ScreamingEagle, you have a bit of a paradox for yourself there. Which religious, but not religious beliefs should be permitted to govern as law so our government can be both a religious, but not religious government? I'm dying to find out. If the beliefs are not religious, then isn't that the definition secular? And if the beliefs are religious, isn't that establishing that religious belief?

If you do not believe it was the intention of our founders to establish a Secular government, you really ought to read up on what they said about it. Some of them tried to introduce Jesus into constitution, but the vast majority voted that nonsense away. They did so for a reason. Religious liberty; freedom of religion protected by a secular government. A secular government was the goal to protect everybody's religion.

Our laws all come from our individual beliefs and therefore religious beliefs as well as non-religious beliefs are duly represented in our laws.

That's fine. The secularist just says that your (or his) religious beliefs cannot BE the law. Are you getting it?

IMO Secularism is the big canard being pushed upon this country by the likes of the ACLU and others who wish to completely denude our government of anything religious in nature.

Well ScreamingEagle, since in your opinion secular practially means atheist despite the clear refutation provided, I'm not at all surprised that you believe religion belongs in the government despite the 1st Amendment, and what the founders intended.

Our country is OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people. You can't separate people from their beliefs and you can't separate their beliefs from government within the Constitutional framework. How can you totally separate religion from government?

By forming a government not founded upon, reliant upon, contingent upon, bound by or partnered with religion--ANY RELIGION--by forming a secular government.

I think Dilloduck's question nicely sums up this dilemma: " A state elects a man to the Senate because he is a fine upstanding Christian. Is it constutional for him to even take office?" Frankly, my guess is that the ACLU and its ilk would eventually like to see any Christian barred from office.

Well you, dilloduck and the ACLU are totally fucked, because the constitution expressly bars religion, or religious belief from being a qualification for public office. Though I'm certain the ACLU is aware of this, your rabid theocracy hopefulness argues that you are not. You should read up on it some.

Secularism is a belief and is not necessarily the "neutral, fair approach" that you probably think it is.

It is by definition neutral in regard to religion--I don't have to "think so" I need only read and understand the definition, and not attempt to make it atheism.

I personally do not want to see only Secularist ideals replace Christian ideals that currently exist (through the people's vote) within our government and its laws and which have been there from the very beginning of our country.

You just refuse to know what you're talking about, don't you? These "ideals" of yours exist, and are ideal, independent of Christianity, thus they're secular as well, and don't need Jesus to validate them.

Secularism and its backers has its own agenda. Coersion comes in many forms.

Most notably via those religious ideals that are exclusive to religion ... like killing for God.

 

[Dr Grump]

Christian writings also assert that man will never know it all---so what?

It's called an "out" clause whenever Christians (or any faith for that matter) can't explain something.... :cof:

 

[MissileMan]

No.
I'm not equating Christianity to atheism. Thanks for trying.

You are calling them both religions...you are trying to equate them.

Atheism is certainly a religion consistent with the definition provided; you have not provided a better one, nor have you demonstrated that mine is flawed. Keep trying though.

And so is the disbelief of a moon made of cheese, which is why your definition of religion is useless.

How about Webster's definition: Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power accepted as the creator and governor of the universe.

 

[dilloduck]

It's called an "out" clause whenever Christians (or any faith for that matter) can't explain something.... :cof:

and science is gonna figure it all out for us soon? :rotflmao:

Will you ever figure out that logic, science, intellect, will never get you any closer to any 'truth' than a spiritual belief will?