Separation of Church and State?

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Hinduism holds that Bramha is the source from which all things spring, so one could impute a "Creator God" from that. Some schools of Buddhism hold that there is a permanent, eternal underlying reality from which all else is a reflection. This is similar to the Noumena/Phenomena posited by Immanuel Kant.

The problem associated with assuming the existence of some permanent and eternal wellspring of creation, be it God or Bramha or the alaya vijnyana, is that such a thing is unavailable to human experience. We rationally deduce their existence, but those deductions have no objective or empirical evidence to support them. Thus the conclusions reached provide us with no genuinely useful information.

So, any system positing the existence of a permanent, eternal creator or reality are, at best, speculation. At their worst, they grow into religions which constantly bicker over things of which we can have no knowledge. My answer to your question then is, "Neither are correct."

I'm not arguing whether God is knowable or not - though it is a question I've answered and haven't heard back from you on. What I'm arguing is that the basic tenants of each religion either are or are not true. To say that religion is purely subjective would be to deny that they are all equally false.

EDIT: Sorry. The last sentence should say "To say that religion is purely subjective would be to admit that they are all equally false.

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

Good thread guys. Bully, I've read a number of your other posts; you very effectively substantiate your claims, and your clear reasoning is a breath of fresh air. Jeff and Newguy are good as well. I dig it.

 

[NewGuy]

Thanks! ....I think.

 

[_dmp_]

I like NewGuy...a lot

to ya!

 

[NewGuy]

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
I'm not arguing whether God is knowable or not - though it is a question I've answered and haven't heard back from you on. What I'm arguing is that the basic tenants of each religion either are or are not true. To say that religion is purely subjective would be to deny that they are all equally false.

EDIT: Sorry. The last sentence should say "To say that religion is purely subjective would be to admit that they are all equally false.

Uh yeah...Strip away the metaphysics from religion and you'll find workable philosphical systems. Its the metaphysical crap that's grown up around the various religions over the centuries that are problematic.

The subjective quality of religious experience does not mean that it is false. It is true <i><b>for the individual experiencing it</b></i>, but no one else can share that experience, or have one exactly identical to it. It is not possible. There may be a general consensus as to what constitutes religious experience, but it can be no more than that. The specifics of religious experience are particular to the individual having the experience. Thus while valid for the individual, these experiences cannot be extrapolated to the population as a whole.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Uh yeah...Strip away the metaphysics from religion and you'll find workable philosphical systems. Its the metaphysical crap that's grown up around the various religions over the centuries that are problematic.

The subjective quality of religious experience does not mean that it is false. It is true <i><b>for the individual experiencing it</b></i>, but no one else can share that experience, or have one exactly identical to it. It is not possible. There may be a general consensus as to what constitutes religious experience, but it can be no more than that. The specifics of religious experience are particular to the individual having the experience. Thus while valid for the individual, these experiences cannot be extrapolated to the population as a whole.

So if you strip away the metaphysics, you end up with ethical codes... which has nothing to do with religion. So if the religion part of religion is expendable, then why bother with religion? Why not just proclaim yourself an atheist and read Immanuel Kant?

And while religious experiences - or any experiences, for that matter - are individual, that doesn't negate the existence of absolute truth, which you keep ducking. Our experience of this message board, for example, is different, depending on our internet speed, our PC, where we log on, etc. etc., but the basics of the board remain the same for all of us.

 

[archaic]

We have inalienable rights given to us by the creator right? The seperation of church and state doesnt abolish the recognition of our Christian God rather it abolishes any favourtism or allegaince with anyone particular sect so as not to have protestant or catholic skirmishes as to who lays down the law and who enforces it. The values of christianity was meant to apply, although they have never found place at all in government for people read this one passage but not the constitution as a whole. Needless to say as well our founding fathers hadn't a clue what christianity was about regardless. It's about time we evolved isn't it?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
So if you strip away the metaphysics, you end up with ethical codes... which has nothing to do with religion. So if the religion part of religion is expendable, then why bother with religion? Why not just proclaim yourself an atheist and read Immanuel Kant?

And while religious experiences - or any experiences, for that matter - are individual, <i><b>that doesn't negate the existence of absolute truth</b></i>, which you keep ducking. Our experience of this message board, for example, is different, depending on our internet speed, our PC, where we log on, etc. etc., but the basics of the board remain the same for all of us.

But it <i><b>does</b></i> militate against the existence of absolute truth. The subjective elements of human experience lend an uncertain quality to both the true and the false.

It is the failure to recognize this element of uncertainty that has left us with the age old dichotomy of true and false. But just as there are many shades of gray between black and white, so are there many shades of truth between true and false. The world is more complex than we know, and this two valued system is inadequate to describe it.

The resolution of the true/false dichotomy lies with a non-absolutist , non-substantialist epistemology. This view has, as its base, non-substantiality (<i>having no permanent or eternal existence</i>) and dependent arising (<i>All events and phenomena are the results of a variety of causes and conditions</i>). It also relies on perception and conception while respecting their limitations.

Within this context, true and false are no longer contradictory but contrary. If, based upon empirical evidence, something is true, to assert that it is false is merely contrary with regards to the situation in situation in question. Contradiction is the result of setting a given statement against an absolute truth or an unqualified universal which allows no exceptions. For example, "<i>All birds fly.</i>" and "<i>Some birds do not fly</i>." are contradictory because the first statement is an unqualified universal. Such absolutist traps, however, can be avoided by limiting the definition of "<i>all</i>" and "<i>everything</i>" to that which has been experienced. Indeed, we cannot take into account everypossibility or their outcomes...We are not omnisicent.

As for Immanuel Kant, he fell into the same absolutist trap that those who advocate for religious absolutism have.

 

[NewGuy]

Uh yeah...Strip away the metaphysics from religion and you'll find workable philosphical systems. Its the metaphysical crap that's grown up around the various religions over the centuries that are problematic.

The subjective quality of religious experience does not mean that it is false. It is true for the individual experiencing it, but no one else can share that experience, or have one exactly identical to it. It is not possible. There may be a general consensus as to what constitutes religious experience, but it can be no more than that. The specifics of religious experience are particular to the individual having the experience. Thus while valid for the individual, these experiences cannot be extrapolated to the population as a whole.

Metaphysics stripped from religion.

Now you would appear to claim that Christianity is not only a religion, but also metaphysical. You claim this "metaphysical" part to be the problem with society. You claim that we need to get rid of any concept of KNOWING a God and replace that with a rulebook.

Newsflash:

1. You HAVE a rulebook. It is called the Bible.

2. Try a relationship with God instead of spewing "metaphysical religion" jargon and engaging in intense mental masturbation to the point of blindness.

You have said you weren't worried about having a relationship with God. Maybe you have issues with the fact that you should not set up a system of relational morality that remains variable and personal, so you choose to enforce that upon others by rejecting God entirely, including the concept of the relationship, and try to prove Christians and other people stupid by your philosophy talk for having this understanding simply because it is outside your ego.

Of course, I COULD be wrong.

At least if you want to appear to be able to apply psychobabel in a logical liniar way, make it believable. Contrary to what you may think, you are not bringing a gun to a knife fight.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Metaphysics stripped from religion.

Now you would appear to claim that Christianity is not only a religion, but also metaphysical. You claim this "metaphysical" part to be the problem with society. You claim that we need to get rid of any concept of KNOWING a God and replace that with a rulebook.

Newsflash:

1. You HAVE a rulebook. It is called the Bible.

2. Try a relationship with God instead of spewing "metaphysical religion" jargon and engaging in intense mental masturbation to the point of blindness.

You have said you weren't worried about having a relationship with God. Maybe you have issues with the fact that you should not set up a system of relational morality that remains variable and personal, so you choose to enforce that upon others by rejecting God entirely, including the concept of the relationship, and try to prove Christians and other people stupid by your philosophy talk for having this understanding simply because it is outside your ego.

Of course, I COULD be wrong.

At least if you want to appear to be able to apply psychobabel in a logical liniar way, make it believable. Contrary to what you may think, you are not bringing a gun to a knife fight.

Your "Rulebook" represents the accumulated wisdom, and foolishness, of men...not a god.

I've done perfectly well all of these years without a relationship with God or any other deity.

I have not once mentioned moral relativism., and you are doing rather a good job of proving your stupidity with absolutely no assistance from me.

And who needs a gun? You've come unarmed any ways.

 

[bulldogxxi]

Church and State is tecnically seperated.... when the state constitutions say "by almighty God"... they aren't saying which god.... and thats what the founding fathers were thinking about when they drafted these preambles. At the time, mostly everyone believed in SOMETHING.... the main arguement was "what" or "who". Religious beliefs are important to politics because they help set a moral code, so called "right and Wrong". the seperation of Church and state was to make sure that one set of religious values didn't take over and oppress anyone who believed in a different set.

 

[bulldogxxi]

also.... for people who straight up ethics aren'tvery strong..... metaphysics are an extra push to create a better society.... if someone truely believes that they will be damned to "hell" forever if they commit murder.... i'd sure feel a tiny bit safer standing next to them in a dark New York ally rather than next to someone that has no religious beliefs.... and the only thing stopping them from mugging me and killing me is the slim chance that they MIGHT get caught. I took courses in college that dealt with both of these issues, one was Criminology that studies why people commit crimes.... and religious beliefs is a major deterant for deviant behavior. If that makes the society I live in more safe for my children.... so be it.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Your "Rulebook" represents the accumulated wisdom, and foolishness, of men...not a god.

Sorry, I couldn't understand you very well. Your ignorance was too loud and the words got lost.

Biblical prophecy, knowledge of the Bible cover to cover....Two things you need to even make that statement. Since you have neither, you have just spoken out of your backside.

When a text hundreds of years in advance names a city, fortells of the way and time it is destroyed, among many other prophecies which appear by science to be founded in fact every day, calls its self the Word of God you cannot say what you said.

You can only say that either you accept it or you do NOT accept it. You have no realm of information or fact to base your statement.

I've done perfectly well all of these years without a relationship with God or any other deity.

:

True scientific reasoning at its finest: "I didn't need it yet, therefore it must not exist."

What do you say about medical care? There is no such thing as a blood transfusion because I haven't had one?

Car care: There is no such thing as a spark plug socket 'cause I haven't needed one?

I have not once mentioned moral relativism., and you are doing rather a good job of proving your stupidity with absolutely no assistance from me.

Ok,

...Merely a Christian nation. It is a nation of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Jainas, Sikhs, and followers of about any other religion one would care to name as well as atheists. But who's right? They can't all be right...Can they? Yes, they can. The path one follows is the proper one them. It is an individual thing, and not meant to be forced on another.

But the religious right in America doesn't understand that. Their view is that their is but one true path, and all should follow that path. Poor deluded fools that they are. There are as many names for, and paths to, God as there are humans upon the face of the earth.

Your claims:
1. Man made God and religion
2. All religions are a moral guide book.
3. The guidebooks are flawed
4. The guide books are all correct- but only to each individual.

By your statements, simple logic dictates that the only true moral authority is your own, dictated by men for you and flawed, but perfect for you if you want it to be.

As such, it cannot be and is not correct for any other, because they choose their own morality based onTHEIR set of guidelines, which are flawed, and produced by men, and only apply to THEM individually.

As such, you quite simply have: MORAL RELATIVISM.

And who needs a gun? You've come unarmed any ways.

No, I just don't flash a shiney new .45 and sling it around without knowing how to shoot.

-And when I use the gun, you will know it. Apparently, actually, you may not.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by bulldogxxi
Church and State is tecnically seperated.... when the state constitutions say "by almighty God"... they aren't saying which god.... and thats what the founding fathers were thinking about when they drafted these preambles. At the time, mostly everyone believed in SOMETHING.... the main arguement was "what" or "who". Religious beliefs are important to politics because they help set a moral code, so called "right and Wrong". the seperation of Church and state was to make sure that one set of religious values didn't take over and oppress anyone who believed in a different set.

Do you realize that you just based an entire argument on a guess of intent with absolutely no logic or fact to back it up?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by bulldogxxi
also.... for people who straight up ethics aren'tvery strong..... metaphysics are an extra push to create a better society.... if someone truely believes that they will be damned to "hell" forever if they commit murder.... i'd sure feel a tiny bit safer standing next to them in a dark New York ally rather than next to someone that has no religious beliefs.... and the only thing stopping them from mugging me and killing me is the slim chance that they MIGHT get caught. I took courses in college that dealt with both of these issues, one was Criminology that studies why people commit crimes.... and religious beliefs is a major deterant for deviant behavior. If that makes the society I live in more safe for my children.... so be it.

Remember that when they pass you a chip so you can purchase your food. It will make you safer against terrorism because everyone is ID'd and tracked. You won't have to worry about cash or cards either.

The price to pay? Your afterlife. -Not my rules, read the book. It isn't about religion, it is about a living, speaking, and real 2 way relationship.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by bulldogxxi
Church and State is tecnically seperated.... when the state constitutions say "by almighty God"... they aren't saying which god.... and thats what the founding fathers were thinking about when they drafted these preambles. At the time, mostly everyone believed in SOMETHING.... the main arguement was "what" or "who". Religious beliefs are important to politics because they help set a moral code, so called "right and Wrong". the seperation of Church and state was to make sure that one set of religious values didn't take over and oppress anyone who believed in a different set.

Unfortunately, moral codes rooted in religious dogma have a serious drawback. Since the moral "pay-off" is rooted in some mythical, metaphysical afterlfe, any attrocity can be condoned so long as it is done in the name of one's favorite deity.

For our morals, and the values they are arise from, to have any real meaning, they must be rooted in their consequences to this human life, in this world. Where our morals and values are concerned, man must be "...the measure of all things..." When we take into account the consequences of our values to this life, in this world we arrive at truly human, and humane values.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Metaphysics stripped from religion.

Now you would appear to claim that Christianity is not only a religion, but also metaphysical. You claim this "metaphysical" part to be the problem with society. You claim that we need to get rid of any concept of KNOWING a God and replace that with a rulebook.

Newsflash:

1. You HAVE a rulebook. It is called the Bible.

2. Try a relationship with God instead of spewing "metaphysical religion" jargon and engaging in intense mental masturbation to the point of blindness.

You have said you weren't worried about having a relationship with God. Maybe you have issues with the fact that you should not set up a system of relational morality that remains variable and personal, so you choose to enforce that upon others by rejecting God entirely, including the concept of the relationship, and try to prove Christians and other people stupid by your philosophy talk for having this understanding simply because it is outside your ego.

Of course, I COULD be wrong.

At least if you want to appear to be able to apply psychobabel in a logical liniar way, make it believable. Contrary to what you may think, you are not bringing a gun to a knife fight.

NewGuy kicks ass!

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr


NewGuy kicks ass!

Only his own.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Only his own.

Good one. Not.

Sometimes it's better to let it die, my friend!