Zone1 Separation of Church and State?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Science does not challenge anything.

That's ALL science does. And what is left, after eliminating ideas, is a set of ideas that remain possibly or confidently true.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's ALL science does. And what is left, after eliminating ideas, is a set of ideas that remain possibly or confidently true.

Maybe you need to rethink what science is and you would look less brainwashed and/or uneducated?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Maybe you need to rethink what science is and you would look less brainwashed?

This low IQ, reflexive convulsion won't help you.

You state an idea.

You try to falsify it.

Rinse, repeat.

That's science.

 

[ding]

That's my purpose.

You misspelled subversion.

 

[Foxfyre]

No honest science class would even mention Intelligent design, any more than it should mention Astrology or Wicca.

My science teachers did mention astrology and witchcraft and what in those things can and cannot be applied to science. But then I got a real education and not one intended to indoctrinate and control the minds of people.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

My science teachers did mention astrology and witchcraft and what in those things can and cannot be applied to science.

Then your teachers were terrible. Not one aspect of either of those things can be applied to science.

But you're lying anyway. No science teacher talks about parts of Astrology being applicable to science. Only that it has no factual basis whatsoever.

 

[Meriweather]

What could you possibly have in mind that wouldn't be common to atheists too, having to offer the state?

You and I will simply be talking past each other unless you gain the understanding religion is not science, or a matter for science. Religion is a philosophy. Atheist philosophy about the purpose of human existence differs from religious philosophy regarding the purpose of human existence.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You and I will simply be talking past each other unless you gain the understanding religion is not science, or a matter for science. Religion is a philosophy. Atheist philosophy about the purpose of human existence differs from religious philosophy regarding the purpose of human existence.

In that it comes with a mountain of evidence, as opposed to zero evidence.

Very different indeed.

 

[Donald H]

You and I will simply be talking past each other unless you gain the understanding religion is not science, or a matter for science.

I've never suggested that religion is science. But I do appreciate that you meant to say something else that would be valid and related to our difficulty understanding each other. Such as: Religion and science don't contradict each other?

So I'll ask the question again:

But yes, people of faith have something to contribute to the state as long as it's not Christian beliefs that are contradictory to the truths of modern science. (and so)
What could you possibly have in mind that wouldn't be common to atheists too, having to offer the state?

Religion is a philosophy. Atheist philosophy about the purpose of human existence differs from religious philosophy regarding the purpose of human existence.

I think I can agree on that, even without an explanation. It's a question of a purpose actually served but I'm unable to imagine any purpose served by Christians that isn't being served by atheists. Apparently you do!

I can readily think of evil purposes served by both.

Hitler indeed claimed to be a Christian. That does imply that he practiced Christianity and it doesn't mean he had to be an atheist either. But I think it's safe to say that he was doing good.

The carpet bombers of Cambodia didn't feel any need to claim they were doing good. That was just accepted.

 

[Meriweather]

So I'll ask the question again:

Same response. Atheist philosophy has no belief in God or the next life. People of faith hold the philosophy of salvation, redemption, and a continuation of life.

 

[Donald H]

Same response. Atheist philosophy has no belief in God or the next life. People of faith hold the philosophy of salvation, redemption, and a continuation of life.

I'm aware of all that and I've never argued against it! But Ill ask the question again, of you or any other Christian? Our Ding likes a challenge so maybe he can come up with something. If he can then I would have a reason to answer his attempts to get my attention. Ijust don't think that the ability to offer good to the state, requires religious beliefs.

What could you possibly have in mind that wouldn't be common to atheists too, having to offer the state?

 

[Meriweather]

What could you possibly have in mind that wouldn't be common to atheists too, having to offer the state?

Are atheists focused on what is best for people in this life only?

 

[Donald H]

Are atheists focused on what is best for people in this life only?

You already understand that atheists don't believe that there is a life after this life. That should suffice as an answer.

But I understand that you are probably suggesting that atheists aren't focused on what is best for people.

And so the same question applies.

How would Christians be more focused on what is best for people than an atheist.

I can offer an example on how Christians aren't focused on doing good for children who are learning about evolution vs. creation.

We've at least established that creation as taught in Genesis is not intended to be accepted as the literal truths.

So why do children's bible classes still maintain that Noah's ark is a true story?

I didn't really want to push it to providing examples, but you refused examples and that caused me to just resort to the short strokes.

 

[Meriweather]

But I understand that you are probably suggesting that atheists aren't focused on what is best for people.

Wrong. I am not probably suggesting anything. I am outright stating that atheists are more likely to focus on what is best for people in their present life on earth, and are not focused on what may be best for their eternal life. Monetary and physical riches here on earth cannot be taken with one into eternity.

 

[Meriweather]

I can offer an example on how Christians aren't focused on doing good for children who are learning about evolution vs. creation.

We've at least established that creation as taught in Genesis is not intended to be accepted as the literal truths.

So why do children's bible classes still maintain that Noah's ark is a true story?

Still stuck in this quagmire I see. Best to leave you to it. It's already been explained to you ad nauseam and frankly I'm sick of it.

 

[ding]

But I understand that you are probably suggesting that atheists aren't focused on what is best for people.

Why would they? Are you suggesting that there's some universal code of common decency that everyone knows and accepts? Don't you guys usually argue that there's not?

 

[ding]

What could you possibly have in mind that wouldn't be common to atheists too, having to offer the state?

Natural Law; Natural Rights.

 

[BreezeWood]

What could you possibly have in mind that wouldn't be common to atheists too, having to offer the state?

Natural Law; Natural Rights.

Throughout the period immediately preceding and overlapping the Revolution the dissentient religious bodies were vigorously claiming their natural right to be free from the established church ...

not sure why the above would not be applicable for all citizens, natural laws / rights and curiously doubts from within a religious community.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Are atheists focused on what is best for people in this life only?

As opposed to.... also the afterlife?

That depends on the atheist. Some atheists believe in afterlife. And in lots of different versions of what "afterlife" is.

 

[ding]

not sure why the above would not be applicable for all citizens, natural laws / rights and curiously doubts from within a religious community.

Maybe read what Natural Rights are and where they come from. Then maybe you will understand why.