This is what atheist believe? Atheist believe that nothing created everything

[ding]

Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence?
Not even close.
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close.
Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough.
Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough.
Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough.
Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even in the ballpark.
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on. (The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions, by David Berlinski, cover)

As stated before, neither existence or nonexistence of God can be proven or disproven. The meaning of God being infinite and eternal, beyond the limits of finite human perception and language, all this we refer to remains faith based.

We either agree with each other, based on our faith, that we are talking about the same concepts or manifestations of God

Or we fail to resolve our differences.

Either way, a more practical application of faith in Christ that CAN be proven to have direct benefits and effects measurable by science: we can focus on proving how spiritual healing works to restore health minds, bodies and relations. Since this spiritual healing is based on forgiving conflicts from the past, it also heals relationships between people. We could study this natural healing process. And use that to demonstrate how prayers in Christ work. Understanding the nature of the spiritual process takes the same steps as understanding God and Christ.

JohnDB this is one thread where I am trying to find a different angle.

The problem you have in trying to investigate the benefits of Christianty to society is that scientist would also have to look at the disadvantages of Christianity. How many people have been and are disavowed by their family because of Christianity for instance?

Seems pretty obvious if one compares Western Civilization to the atheistic nations of the 20th century.

Western Civilizations ARE atheistic. Separation of state and church remember? As far as I can tell, throughout history, religion has almost always been a hindrance to progress.

A people without a heritage are easily persuaded. ~Karl Marx

 

[forkup]

Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence?
Not even close.
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close.
Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough.
Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough.
Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough.
Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even in the ballpark.
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on. (The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions, by David Berlinski, cover)

As stated before, neither existence or nonexistence of God can be proven or disproven. The meaning of God being infinite and eternal, beyond the limits of finite human perception and language, all this we refer to remains faith based.

We either agree with each other, based on our faith, that we are talking about the same concepts or manifestations of God

Or we fail to resolve our differences.

Either way, a more practical application of faith in Christ that CAN be proven to have direct benefits and effects measurable by science: we can focus on proving how spiritual healing works to restore health minds, bodies and relations. Since this spiritual healing is based on forgiving conflicts from the past, it also heals relationships between people. We could study this natural healing process. And use that to demonstrate how prayers in Christ work. Understanding the nature of the spiritual process takes the same steps as understanding God and Christ.

JohnDB this is one thread where I am trying to find a different angle.

The problem you have in trying to investigate the benefits of Christianty to society is that scientist would also have to look at the disadvantages of Christianity. How many people have been and are disavowed by their family because of Christianity for instance?

Seems pretty obvious if one compares Western Civilization to the atheistic nations of the 20th century.

Western Civilizations ARE atheistic. Separation of state and church remember? As far as I can tell, throughout history, religion has almost always been a hindrance to progress.

Maybe secular or nontheist forkup
Tolerating and including atheism is not atheist but universal or secular.

Plenty of Christians both left and right still support separating govt from church.

Sure, but doesn't that lead to the conclusion that Christianity has no influence on the success of a society? By the way, atheism is simply a statement that the existence of God is not accepted as true until evidence is provided that he does exist.

 

[forkup]

Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence?
Not even close.
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close.
Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough.
Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough.
Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough.
Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even in the ballpark.
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on. (The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions, by David Berlinski, cover)

As stated before, neither existence or nonexistence of God can be proven or disproven. The meaning of God being infinite and eternal, beyond the limits of finite human perception and language, all this we refer to remains faith based.

We either agree with each other, based on our faith, that we are talking about the same concepts or manifestations of God

Or we fail to resolve our differences.

Either way, a more practical application of faith in Christ that CAN be proven to have direct benefits and effects measurable by science: we can focus on proving how spiritual healing works to restore health minds, bodies and relations. Since this spiritual healing is based on forgiving conflicts from the past, it also heals relationships between people. We could study this natural healing process. And use that to demonstrate how prayers in Christ work. Understanding the nature of the spiritual process takes the same steps as understanding God and Christ.

JohnDB this is one thread where I am trying to find a different angle.

The problem you have in trying to investigate the benefits of Christianty to society is that scientist would also have to look at the disadvantages of Christianity. How many people have been and are disavowed by their family because of Christianity for instance?

Seems pretty obvious if one compares Western Civilization to the atheistic nations of the 20th century.

Western Civilizations ARE atheistic. Separation of state and church remember? As far as I can tell, throughout history, religion has almost always been a hindrance to progress.

A people without a heritage are easily persuaded. ~Karl Marx

Can you provide an argument instead of a quote without actual context?

 

[ding]

Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence?
Not even close.
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close.
Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough.
Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough.
Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough.
Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even in the ballpark.
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on. (The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions, by David Berlinski, cover)

As stated before, neither existence or nonexistence of God can be proven or disproven. The meaning of God being infinite and eternal, beyond the limits of finite human perception and language, all this we refer to remains faith based.

We either agree with each other, based on our faith, that we are talking about the same concepts or manifestations of God

Or we fail to resolve our differences.

Either way, a more practical application of faith in Christ that CAN be proven to have direct benefits and effects measurable by science: we can focus on proving how spiritual healing works to restore health minds, bodies and relations. Since this spiritual healing is based on forgiving conflicts from the past, it also heals relationships between people. We could study this natural healing process. And use that to demonstrate how prayers in Christ work. Understanding the nature of the spiritual process takes the same steps as understanding God and Christ.

JohnDB this is one thread where I am trying to find a different angle.

The problem you have in trying to investigate the benefits of Christianty to society is that scientist would also have to look at the disadvantages of Christianity. How many people have been and are disavowed by their family because of Christianity for instance?

Seems pretty obvious if one compares Western Civilization to the atheistic nations of the 20th century.

Western Civilizations ARE atheistic. Separation of state and church remember? As far as I can tell, throughout history, religion has almost always been a hindrance to progress.

A people without a heritage are easily persuaded. ~Karl Marx

Can you provide an argument instead of a quote without actual context?

That was the argument but if you need anymore there's a church on every corner and Americans are known for their bibles and their guns. You know... as in we like to clutch them.

 

[forkup]

Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence?
Not even close.
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close.
Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough.
Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough.
Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough.
Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even in the ballpark.
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on. (The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions, by David Berlinski, cover)

As stated before, neither existence or nonexistence of God can be proven or disproven. The meaning of God being infinite and eternal, beyond the limits of finite human perception and language, all this we refer to remains faith based.

We either agree with each other, based on our faith, that we are talking about the same concepts or manifestations of God

Or we fail to resolve our differences.

Either way, a more practical application of faith in Christ that CAN be proven to have direct benefits and effects measurable by science: we can focus on proving how spiritual healing works to restore health minds, bodies and relations. Since this spiritual healing is based on forgiving conflicts from the past, it also heals relationships between people. We could study this natural healing process. And use that to demonstrate how prayers in Christ work. Understanding the nature of the spiritual process takes the same steps as understanding God and Christ.

JohnDB this is one thread where I am trying to find a different angle.

The problem you have in trying to investigate the benefits of Christianty to society is that scientist would also have to look at the disadvantages of Christianity. How many people have been and are disavowed by their family because of Christianity for instance?

Seems pretty obvious if one compares Western Civilization to the atheistic nations of the 20th century.

Western Civilizations ARE atheistic. Separation of state and church remember? As far as I can tell, throughout history, religion has almost always been a hindrance to progress.

A people without a heritage are easily persuaded. ~Karl Marx

Can you provide an argument instead of a quote without actual context?

That was the argument but if you need anymore there's a church on every corner and Americans are known for their bibles and their guns. You know... as in we like to clutch them.

That's not an argument, that's a statement. Arguments are what you use to support a statement.

I'll help you out.

You are arguing that the US is a highly successful society. Their heritage is Christianity despite them taking pains to separate religion from how to run the state. Therefore the success of society has to be down to Christianity.

Am I getting it right?

I'll give you the counterargument.

Since there are plenty of Western countries that are highly successful and in which religion (or guns) play no or a very small role in society tying Christianity to the success of any particular society seems unproven.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence?
Not even close.
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close.
Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough.
Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough.
Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough.
Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even in the ballpark.
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on. (The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions, by David Berlinski, cover)

As stated before, neither existence or nonexistence of God can be proven or disproven. The meaning of God being infinite and eternal, beyond the limits of finite human perception and language, all this we refer to remains faith based.

We either agree with each other, based on our faith, that we are talking about the same concepts or manifestations of God

Or we fail to resolve our differences.

Either way, a more practical application of faith in Christ that CAN be proven to have direct benefits and effects measurable by science: we can focus on proving how spiritual healing works to restore health minds, bodies and relations. Since this spiritual healing is based on forgiving conflicts from the past, it also heals relationships between people. We could study this natural healing process. And use that to demonstrate how prayers in Christ work. Understanding the nature of the spiritual process takes the same steps as understanding God and Christ.

JohnDB this is one thread where I am trying to find a different angle.

The problem you have in trying to investigate the benefits of Christianty to society is that scientist would also have to look at the disadvantages of Christianity. How many people have been and are disavowed by their family because of Christianity for instance?

Seems pretty obvious if one compares Western Civilization to the atheistic nations of the 20th century.

Western Civilizations ARE atheistic. Separation of state and church remember? As far as I can tell, throughout history, religion has almost always been a hindrance to progress.

Maybe secular or nontheist forkup
Tolerating and including atheism is not atheist but universal or secular.

Plenty of Christians both left and right still support separating govt from church.

The First Amendment goes both ways:
With NO LAWS respecting either Establishment of Religion OR Prohibiting the Free Exercise thereof.

Neither can Govt Establish Nor Prohibit.

True separation means neutral.

It does not mean imposing either Atheism or Theism, but using agreed secular "nontheistic" terms that accomodate both.

Terms like Equal Justice Under Law accommodate those who believe in Social Justice, Equal Justice, Restoratie Justice, Jesus as Justice, Retributive Justice, Peace and Justice, Justice with Mercy, etc.

Justice is still a faith based term never seen or proven to exist.

But we agree to use this secular term.

It is neither atheist Christian or theist.

I would call it nontheist but it still allows Christians and Deists to tie it to God or Jesus as the Authority of Justice by those beliefs.

So the govt and Constitutional laws can still be interpreted as consistent with Christianity and Deist beliefs equally as Atheists or Nontheists can interpret it as nonreligious.

Not remotely true.

1. "In God We Trust" is our national motto. Look on your coins, please.
2. Every session of the Supreme Court is opened with a prayer: "God bless this honorable court."
3. "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

I could go on at very great length and have a book with hundreds of pages documenting our Christian heritage. There is no atheist heritage whatsoever, only in the communist countries.

"Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is unfit for any other." - President John Adams, a Founding Father

 

[forkup]

Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence?
Not even close.
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close.
Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough.
Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough.
Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough.
Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even in the ballpark.
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on. (The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions, by David Berlinski, cover)

As stated before, neither existence or nonexistence of God can be proven or disproven. The meaning of God being infinite and eternal, beyond the limits of finite human perception and language, all this we refer to remains faith based.

We either agree with each other, based on our faith, that we are talking about the same concepts or manifestations of God

Or we fail to resolve our differences.

Either way, a more practical application of faith in Christ that CAN be proven to have direct benefits and effects measurable by science: we can focus on proving how spiritual healing works to restore health minds, bodies and relations. Since this spiritual healing is based on forgiving conflicts from the past, it also heals relationships between people. We could study this natural healing process. And use that to demonstrate how prayers in Christ work. Understanding the nature of the spiritual process takes the same steps as understanding God and Christ.

JohnDB this is one thread where I am trying to find a different angle.

The problem you have in trying to investigate the benefits of Christianty to society is that scientist would also have to look at the disadvantages of Christianity. How many people have been and are disavowed by their family because of Christianity for instance?

Seems pretty obvious if one compares Western Civilization to the atheistic nations of the 20th century.

Western Civilizations ARE atheistic. Separation of state and church remember? As far as I can tell, throughout history, religion has almost always been a hindrance to progress.

Maybe secular or nontheist forkup
Tolerating and including atheism is not atheist but universal or secular.

Plenty of Christians both left and right still support separating govt from church.

The First Amendment goes both ways:
With NO LAWS respecting either Establishment of Religion OR Prohibiting the Free Exercise thereof.

Neither can Govt Establish Nor Prohibit.

True separation means neutral.

It does not mean imposing either Atheism or Theism, but using agreed secular "nontheistic" terms that accomodate both.

Terms like Equal Justice Under Law accommodate those who believe in Social Justice, Equal Justice, Restoratie Justice, Jesus as Justice, Retributive Justice, Peace and Justice, Justice with Mercy, etc.

Justice is still a faith based term never seen or proven to exist.

But we agree to use this secular term.

It is neither atheist Christian or theist.

I would call it nontheist but it still allows Christians and Deists to tie it to God or Jesus as the Authority of Justice by those beliefs.

So the govt and Constitutional laws can still be interpreted as consistent with Christianity and Deist beliefs equally as Atheists or Nontheists can interpret it as nonreligious.

Not remotely true.

1. "In God We Trust" is our national motto. Look on your coins, please.
2. Every session of the Supreme Court is opened with a prayer: "God bless this honorable court."
3. "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

I could go on at very great length and have a book with hundreds of pages documenting our Christian heritage. There is no atheist heritage whatsoever, only in the communist countries.

"Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is unfit for any other." - President John Adams, a Founding Father

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ Jefferson

 

[ding]

Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence?
Not even close.
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close.
Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough.
Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough.
Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough.
Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even in the ballpark.
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on. (The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions, by David Berlinski, cover)

As stated before, neither existence or nonexistence of God can be proven or disproven. The meaning of God being infinite and eternal, beyond the limits of finite human perception and language, all this we refer to remains faith based.

We either agree with each other, based on our faith, that we are talking about the same concepts or manifestations of God

Or we fail to resolve our differences.

Either way, a more practical application of faith in Christ that CAN be proven to have direct benefits and effects measurable by science: we can focus on proving how spiritual healing works to restore health minds, bodies and relations. Since this spiritual healing is based on forgiving conflicts from the past, it also heals relationships between people. We could study this natural healing process. And use that to demonstrate how prayers in Christ work. Understanding the nature of the spiritual process takes the same steps as understanding God and Christ.

JohnDB this is one thread where I am trying to find a different angle.

The problem you have in trying to investigate the benefits of Christianty to society is that scientist would also have to look at the disadvantages of Christianity. How many people have been and are disavowed by their family because of Christianity for instance?

Seems pretty obvious if one compares Western Civilization to the atheistic nations of the 20th century.

Western Civilizations ARE atheistic. Separation of state and church remember? As far as I can tell, throughout history, religion has almost always been a hindrance to progress.

A people without a heritage are easily persuaded. ~Karl Marx

Can you provide an argument instead of a quote without actual context?

That was the argument but if you need anymore there's a church on every corner and Americans are known for their bibles and their guns. You know... as in we like to clutch them.

That's not an argument, that's a statement. Arguments are what you use to support a statement.

I'll help you out.

You are arguing that the US is a highly successful society. Their heritage is Christianity despite them taking pains to separate religion from how to run the state. Therefore the success of society has to be down to Christianity.

Am I getting it right?

I'll give you the counterargument.

Since there are plenty of Western countries that are highly successful and in which religion (or guns) play no or a very small role in society tying Christianity to the success of any particular society seems unproven.

Sure it is. You want to erase America's Christian heritage from history which literally proves America's Christian heritage. You can't erase what isn't there.

The church on every corner is all the proof I need.

 

[BreezeWood]

"Proof" is a highly controversial term. What one person considers to be "proof," another rejects with utter contempt and prideful arrogance, as if they were the Universal Arbiter of All Things.

Courts the world over now accept the "proof" of DNA analysis which is purely statistical.
The same statistics may be applied to any number of scientific studies from the Anthropic Principle to the Insuperable Impossibility of Naturalistic Polypeptide Synthesis.

Titin, a protein in your muscles, is 33,450 amino acid residues in length. Each link in this enormous chain was chosen from a possible 20 different amino acids. So what is 1/20 to the 33,450th power? It is effectively zero, and that is just ONE human protein. Just one of 10,000.
Do the math and have a nice day.

.

Titin, a protein in your muscles, is 33,450 amino acid residues in length. Each link in this enormous chain was chosen from a possible 20 different amino acids.

.
metaphysical affinities from the periodic table to all matter in existence are cohesion's with underlying mathematical similarities that when studied resolve the answer for the existence of any compound - as proven by the protein in your post, not by chance.

 

[BreezeWood]

Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence?
Not even close.
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close.
Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough.
Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough.
Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough.
Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even in the ballpark.
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on. (The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions, by David Berlinski, cover)

As stated before, neither existence or nonexistence of God can be proven or disproven. The meaning of God being infinite and eternal, beyond the limits of finite human perception and language, all this we refer to remains faith based.

We either agree with each other, based on our faith, that we are talking about the same concepts or manifestations of God

Or we fail to resolve our differences.

Either way, a more practical application of faith in Christ that CAN be proven to have direct benefits and effects measurable by science: we can focus on proving how spiritual healing works to restore health minds, bodies and relations. Since this spiritual healing is based on forgiving conflicts from the past, it also heals relationships between people. We could study this natural healing process. And use that to demonstrate how prayers in Christ work. Understanding the nature of the spiritual process takes the same steps as understanding God and Christ.

JohnDB this is one thread where I am trying to find a different angle.

The problem you have in trying to investigate the benefits of Christianty to society is that scientist would also have to look at the disadvantages of Christianity. How many people have been and are disavowed by their family because of Christianity for instance?

Seems pretty obvious if one compares Western Civilization to the atheistic nations of the 20th century.

Western Civilizations ARE atheistic. Separation of state and church remember? As far as I can tell, throughout history, religion has almost always been a hindrance to progress.

Maybe secular or nontheist forkup
Tolerating and including atheism is not atheist but universal or secular.

Plenty of Christians both left and right still support separating govt from church.

The First Amendment goes both ways:
With NO LAWS respecting either Establishment of Religion OR Prohibiting the Free Exercise thereof.

Neither can Govt Establish Nor Prohibit.

True separation means neutral.

It does not mean imposing either Atheism or Theism, but using agreed secular "nontheistic" terms that accomodate both.

Terms like Equal Justice Under Law accommodate those who believe in Social Justice, Equal Justice, Restoratie Justice, Jesus as Justice, Retributive Justice, Peace and Justice, Justice with Mercy, etc.

Justice is still a faith based term never seen or proven to exist.

But we agree to use this secular term.

It is neither atheist Christian or theist.

I would call it nontheist but it still allows Christians and Deists to tie it to God or Jesus as the Authority of Justice by those beliefs.

So the govt and Constitutional laws can still be interpreted as consistent with Christianity and Deist beliefs equally as Atheists or Nontheists can interpret it as nonreligious.

.

So the govt and Constitutional laws can still be interpreted as consistent with Christianity and Deist beliefs equally as Atheists or Nontheists can interpret it as nonreligious.

.
there would be no need for the 1st amendment if that were true.

 

[Hollie]

Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence?
Not even close.
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close.
Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough.
Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough.
Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough.
Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even in the ballpark.
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on. (The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions, by David Berlinski, cover)

As stated before, neither existence or nonexistence of God can be proven or disproven. The meaning of God being infinite and eternal, beyond the limits of finite human perception and language, all this we refer to remains faith based.

We either agree with each other, based on our faith, that we are talking about the same concepts or manifestations of God

Or we fail to resolve our differences.

Either way, a more practical application of faith in Christ that CAN be proven to have direct benefits and effects measurable by science: we can focus on proving how spiritual healing works to restore health minds, bodies and relations. Since this spiritual healing is based on forgiving conflicts from the past, it also heals relationships between people. We could study this natural healing process. And use that to demonstrate how prayers in Christ work. Understanding the nature of the spiritual process takes the same steps as understanding God and Christ.

JohnDB this is one thread where I am trying to find a different angle.

The problem you have in trying to investigate the benefits of Christianty to society is that scientist would also have to look at the disadvantages of Christianity. How many people have been and are disavowed by their family because of Christianity for instance?

Seems pretty obvious if one compares Western Civilization to the atheistic nations of the 20th century.

Western Civilizations ARE atheistic. Separation of state and church remember? As far as I can tell, throughout history, religion has almost always been a hindrance to progress.

Maybe secular or nontheist forkup
Tolerating and including atheism is not atheist but universal or secular.

Plenty of Christians both left and right still support separating govt from church.

The First Amendment goes both ways:
With NO LAWS respecting either Establishment of Religion OR Prohibiting the Free Exercise thereof.

Neither can Govt Establish Nor Prohibit.

True separation means neutral.

It does not mean imposing either Atheism or Theism, but using agreed secular "nontheistic" terms that accomodate both.

Terms like Equal Justice Under Law accommodate those who believe in Social Justice, Equal Justice, Restoratie Justice, Jesus as Justice, Retributive Justice, Peace and Justice, Justice with Mercy, etc.

Justice is still a faith based term never seen or proven to exist.

But we agree to use this secular term.

It is neither atheist Christian or theist.

I would call it nontheist but it still allows Christians and Deists to tie it to God or Jesus as the Authority of Justice by those beliefs.

So the govt and Constitutional laws can still be interpreted as consistent with Christianity and Deist beliefs equally as Atheists or Nontheists can interpret it as nonreligious.

Not remotely true.

1. "In God We Trust" is our national motto. Look on your coins, please.
2. Every session of the Supreme Court is opened with a prayer: "God bless this honorable court."
3. "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

I could go on at very great length and have a book with hundreds of pages documenting our Christian heritage. There is no atheist heritage whatsoever, only in the communist countries.

"Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is unfit for any other." - President John Adams, a Founding Father

Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence?
Not even close.
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close.
Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough.
Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough.
Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough.
Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even in the ballpark.
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on. (The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions, by David Berlinski, cover)

As stated before, neither existence or nonexistence of God can be proven or disproven. The meaning of God being infinite and eternal, beyond the limits of finite human perception and language, all this we refer to remains faith based.

We either agree with each other, based on our faith, that we are talking about the same concepts or manifestations of God

Or we fail to resolve our differences.

Either way, a more practical application of faith in Christ that CAN be proven to have direct benefits and effects measurable by science: we can focus on proving how spiritual healing works to restore health minds, bodies and relations. Since this spiritual healing is based on forgiving conflicts from the past, it also heals relationships between people. We could study this natural healing process. And use that to demonstrate how prayers in Christ work. Understanding the nature of the spiritual process takes the same steps as understanding God and Christ.

JohnDB this is one thread where I am trying to find a different angle.

The problem you have in trying to investigate the benefits of Christianty to society is that scientist would also have to look at the disadvantages of Christianity. How many people have been and are disavowed by their family because of Christianity for instance?

Seems pretty obvious if one compares Western Civilization to the atheistic nations of the 20th century.

Western Civilizations ARE atheistic. Separation of state and church remember? As far as I can tell, throughout history, religion has almost always been a hindrance to progress.

Maybe secular or nontheist forkup
Tolerating and including atheism is not atheist but universal or secular.

Plenty of Christians both left and right still support separating govt from church.

The First Amendment goes both ways:
With NO LAWS respecting either Establishment of Religion OR Prohibiting the Free Exercise thereof.

Neither can Govt Establish Nor Prohibit.

True separation means neutral.

It does not mean imposing either Atheism or Theism, but using agreed secular "nontheistic" terms that accomodate both.

Terms like Equal Justice Under Law accommodate those who believe in Social Justice, Equal Justice, Restoratie Justice, Jesus as Justice, Retributive Justice, Peace and Justice, Justice with Mercy, etc.

Justice is still a faith based term never seen or proven to exist.

But we agree to use this secular term.

It is neither atheist Christian or theist.

I would call it nontheist but it still allows Christians and Deists to tie it to God or Jesus as the Authority of Justice by those beliefs.

So the govt and Constitutional laws can still be interpreted as consistent with Christianity and Deist beliefs equally as Atheists or Nontheists can interpret it as nonreligious.

Not remotely true.

1. "In God We Trust" is our national motto. Look on your coins, please.
2. Every session of the Supreme Court is opened with a prayer: "God bless this honorable court."
3. "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

I could go on at very great length and have a book with hundreds of pages documenting our Christian heritage. There is no atheist heritage whatsoever, only in the communist countries.

"Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is unfit for any other." - President John Adams, a Founding Father

On the other hand, here is what John Adams actually wrote. Not exactly a Pom Pom flailer for Christianity.


"The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?"
-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 20, 1815

Regarding Government Meddling With Religion

"We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions ... shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power ... we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society."
-- John Adams, letter to Dr. Price, April 8, 1785

"I shall have liberty to think for myself without molesting others or being molested myself".
-- John Adams, letter to his brother-in-law, Richard Cranch, August 29, 1756


Regarding Religion Meddling with Government

"We think ourselves possessed, or, at least, we boast that we are so, of liberty of conscience on all subjects, and of the right of free inquiry and private judgment in all cases, and yet how far are we from these exalted privileges in fact! There exists, I believe, throughout the whole Christian world, a law which makes it blasphemy to deny or doubt the divine inspiration of all the books of the Old and New Testaments, from Genesis to Revelations. In most countries of Europe it is punished by fire at the stake, or the rack, or the wheel. In England itself it is punished by boring through the tongue with a red-hot poker. In America it is not better; even in our own Massachusetts, which I believe, upon the whole, is as temperate and moderate in religious zeal as most of the States, a law was made in the latter end of the last century, repealing the cruel punishments of the former laws, but substituting fine and imprisonment upon all those blasphemers upon any book of the Old Testament or New. Now, what free inquiry, when a writer must surely encounter the risk of fine or imprisonment for adducing any argument for investigating into the divine authority of those books? Who would run the risk of translating Dupuis? But I cannot enlarge upon this subject, though I have it much at heart. I think such laws a great embarrassment, great obstructions to the improvement of the human mind. Books that cannot bear examination, certainly ought not to be established as divine inspiration by penal laws. It is true, few persons appear desirous to put such laws in execution, and it is also true that some few persons are hardy enough to venture to depart from them. But as long as they continue in force as laws, the human mind must make an awkward and clumsy progress in its investigations. I wish they were repealed. The substance and essence of Christianity, as I understand it, is eternal and unchangeable, and will bear examination forever, but it has been mixed with extraneous ingredients, which I think will not bear examination, and they ought to be separated. Adieu."
-- John Adams, one of his last letters to Thomas Jefferson, January 23, 1825. Adams was 90, Jefferson 81 at the time; both died on July 4th of the following year, on the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

"Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretense of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."
-- John Adams, "A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America"

Prophetic Statements Based on History

"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes."
-- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814

 

[emilynghiem]

Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence?
Not even close.
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close.
Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough.
Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough.
Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough.
Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even in the ballpark.
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on. (The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions, by David Berlinski, cover)

As stated before, neither existence or nonexistence of God can be proven or disproven. The meaning of God being infinite and eternal, beyond the limits of finite human perception and language, all this we refer to remains faith based.

We either agree with each other, based on our faith, that we are talking about the same concepts or manifestations of God

Or we fail to resolve our differences.

Either way, a more practical application of faith in Christ that CAN be proven to have direct benefits and effects measurable by science: we can focus on proving how spiritual healing works to restore health minds, bodies and relations. Since this spiritual healing is based on forgiving conflicts from the past, it also heals relationships between people. We could study this natural healing process. And use that to demonstrate how prayers in Christ work. Understanding the nature of the spiritual process takes the same steps as understanding God and Christ.

JohnDB this is one thread where I am trying to find a different angle.

The problem you have in trying to investigate the benefits of Christianty to society is that scientist would also have to look at the disadvantages of Christianity. How many people have been and are disavowed by their family because of Christianity for instance?

Seems pretty obvious if one compares Western Civilization to the atheistic nations of the 20th century.

Western Civilizations ARE atheistic. Separation of state and church remember? As far as I can tell, throughout history, religion has almost always been a hindrance to progress.

Maybe secular or nontheist forkup
Tolerating and including atheism is not atheist but universal or secular.

Plenty of Christians both left and right still support separating govt from church.

The First Amendment goes both ways:
With NO LAWS respecting either Establishment of Religion OR Prohibiting the Free Exercise thereof.

Neither can Govt Establish Nor Prohibit.

True separation means neutral.

It does not mean imposing either Atheism or Theism, but using agreed secular "nontheistic" terms that accomodate both.

Terms like Equal Justice Under Law accommodate those who believe in Social Justice, Equal Justice, Restoratie Justice, Jesus as Justice, Retributive Justice, Peace and Justice, Justice with Mercy, etc.

Justice is still a faith based term never seen or proven to exist.

But we agree to use this secular term.

It is neither atheist Christian or theist.

I would call it nontheist but it still allows Christians and Deists to tie it to God or Jesus as the Authority of Justice by those beliefs.

So the govt and Constitutional laws can still be interpreted as consistent with Christianity and Deist beliefs equally as Atheists or Nontheists can interpret it as nonreligious.

.

So the govt and Constitutional laws can still be interpreted as consistent with Christianity and Deist beliefs equally as Atheists or Nontheists can interpret it as nonreligious.

.
there would be no need for the 1st amendment if that were true.

Yes, the way I see interpret and apply the First Amendment is as self existent natural laws on self govt that don't depend on govt for these laws.

We naturally have the ability to exercise all the principles in the 1A. So if we follow these natural laws by universal authority of Justice or Jesus, then that covers everything else.

We don't even need the 1A to establish these laws that naturally exist and operate.

We just use the written terms and language in the 1A to communicate and agree on principles.

Similar to not depending on the Bible but living by God's word and laws that are represented and taught using it as a tool.

The natural laws are self existent and operate and govern humanity. With or without the 1A Bill of Rights or rest of the Constitution used as tools to check govt against abuse of political or collective imfluence and authority.

 

[BreezeWood]

Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence?
Not even close.
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close.
Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough.
Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough.
Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough.
Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even in the ballpark.
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on. (The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions, by David Berlinski, cover)

As stated before, neither existence or nonexistence of God can be proven or disproven. The meaning of God being infinite and eternal, beyond the limits of finite human perception and language, all this we refer to remains faith based.

We either agree with each other, based on our faith, that we are talking about the same concepts or manifestations of God

Or we fail to resolve our differences.

Either way, a more practical application of faith in Christ that CAN be proven to have direct benefits and effects measurable by science: we can focus on proving how spiritual healing works to restore health minds, bodies and relations. Since this spiritual healing is based on forgiving conflicts from the past, it also heals relationships between people. We could study this natural healing process. And use that to demonstrate how prayers in Christ work. Understanding the nature of the spiritual process takes the same steps as understanding God and Christ.

JohnDB this is one thread where I am trying to find a different angle.

The problem you have in trying to investigate the benefits of Christianty to society is that scientist would also have to look at the disadvantages of Christianity. How many people have been and are disavowed by their family because of Christianity for instance?

Seems pretty obvious if one compares Western Civilization to the atheistic nations of the 20th century.

Western Civilizations ARE atheistic. Separation of state and church remember? As far as I can tell, throughout history, religion has almost always been a hindrance to progress.

Maybe secular or nontheist forkup
Tolerating and including atheism is not atheist but universal or secular.

Plenty of Christians both left and right still support separating govt from church.

The First Amendment goes both ways:
With NO LAWS respecting either Establishment of Religion OR Prohibiting the Free Exercise thereof.

Neither can Govt Establish Nor Prohibit.

True separation means neutral.

It does not mean imposing either Atheism or Theism, but using agreed secular "nontheistic" terms that accomodate both.

Terms like Equal Justice Under Law accommodate those who believe in Social Justice, Equal Justice, Restoratie Justice, Jesus as Justice, Retributive Justice, Peace and Justice, Justice with Mercy, etc.

Justice is still a faith based term never seen or proven to exist.

But we agree to use this secular term.

It is neither atheist Christian or theist.

I would call it nontheist but it still allows Christians and Deists to tie it to God or Jesus as the Authority of Justice by those beliefs.

So the govt and Constitutional laws can still be interpreted as consistent with Christianity and Deist beliefs equally as Atheists or Nontheists can interpret it as nonreligious.

.

So the govt and Constitutional laws can still be interpreted as consistent with Christianity and Deist beliefs equally as Atheists or Nontheists can interpret it as nonreligious.

.
there would be no need for the 1st amendment if that were true.

Yes, the way I see interpret and apply the First Amendment is as self existent natural laws on self govt that don't depend on govt for these laws.

We naturally have the ability to exercise all the principles in the 1A. So if we follow these natural laws by universal authority of Justice or Jesus, then that covers everything else.

We don't even need the 1A to establish these laws that naturally exist and operate.

We just use the written terms and language in the 1A to communicate and agree on principles.

Similar to not depending on the Bible but living by God's word and laws that are represented and taught using it as a tool.

The natural laws are self existent and operate and govern humanity. With or without the 1A Bill of Rights or rest of the Constitution used as tools to check govt against abuse of political or collective imfluence and authority.

.

Yes, the way I see interpret and apply the First Amendment is as self existent natural laws on self govt that don't depend on govt for these laws.

.
oh, and what do they depend on - your church, christian.

you know perfectly well that is exactly what was the reason for the migration to this county to flee the churches of europe and their persecution and victimization of the innocent.

what natural laws do you find while reading your christian bible. one can only wonder.

 

[ding]

Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence?
Not even close.
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close.
Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough.
Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough.
Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough.
Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even in the ballpark.
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on. (The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions, by David Berlinski, cover)

As stated before, neither existence or nonexistence of God can be proven or disproven. The meaning of God being infinite and eternal, beyond the limits of finite human perception and language, all this we refer to remains faith based.

We either agree with each other, based on our faith, that we are talking about the same concepts or manifestations of God

Or we fail to resolve our differences.

Either way, a more practical application of faith in Christ that CAN be proven to have direct benefits and effects measurable by science: we can focus on proving how spiritual healing works to restore health minds, bodies and relations. Since this spiritual healing is based on forgiving conflicts from the past, it also heals relationships between people. We could study this natural healing process. And use that to demonstrate how prayers in Christ work. Understanding the nature of the spiritual process takes the same steps as understanding God and Christ.

JohnDB this is one thread where I am trying to find a different angle.

The problem you have in trying to investigate the benefits of Christianty to society is that scientist would also have to look at the disadvantages of Christianity. How many people have been and are disavowed by their family because of Christianity for instance?

Seems pretty obvious if one compares Western Civilization to the atheistic nations of the 20th century.

Western Civilizations ARE atheistic. Separation of state and church remember? As far as I can tell, throughout history, religion has almost always been a hindrance to progress.

Maybe secular or nontheist forkup
Tolerating and including atheism is not atheist but universal or secular.

Plenty of Christians both left and right still support separating govt from church.

The First Amendment goes both ways:
With NO LAWS respecting either Establishment of Religion OR Prohibiting the Free Exercise thereof.

Neither can Govt Establish Nor Prohibit.

True separation means neutral.

It does not mean imposing either Atheism or Theism, but using agreed secular "nontheistic" terms that accomodate both.

Terms like Equal Justice Under Law accommodate those who believe in Social Justice, Equal Justice, Restoratie Justice, Jesus as Justice, Retributive Justice, Peace and Justice, Justice with Mercy, etc.

Justice is still a faith based term never seen or proven to exist.

But we agree to use this secular term.

It is neither atheist Christian or theist.

I would call it nontheist but it still allows Christians and Deists to tie it to God or Jesus as the Authority of Justice by those beliefs.

So the govt and Constitutional laws can still be interpreted as consistent with Christianity and Deist beliefs equally as Atheists or Nontheists can interpret it as nonreligious.

.

So the govt and Constitutional laws can still be interpreted as consistent with Christianity and Deist beliefs equally as Atheists or Nontheists can interpret it as nonreligious.

.
there would be no need for the 1st amendment if that were true.

Sure there would be. It protects us from secular humanists like yourself, greatestiam and hobelim from getting laws written to persecute Christians.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Seriously, are you so insecure in your beliefs that you need to misstate the beliefs of others?

And steal your entire act? Nah, we will leave that to you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Plenty of Christians both left and right still support separating govt from church.

We need them to speak up, then.

 

[ding]

Seriously, are you so insecure in your beliefs that you need to misstate the beliefs of others?

And steal your entire act? Nah, we will leave that to you.

If you want to argue against polytheism your arguments are great but using arguments against polytheism against monotheism is just plan dishonest.

I don't believe you have it in you to make an honest argument.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Seriously, are you so insecure in your beliefs that you need to misstate the beliefs of others?

And steal your entire act? Nah, we will leave that to you.

If you want to argue against polytheism your arguments are great but using arguments against polytheism against monotheism is just plan dishonest.

I don't believe you have it in you to make an honest argument.

Irrelevant silliness. Typical ding shell game.

 

[ding]

Seriously, are you so insecure in your beliefs that you need to misstate the beliefs of others?

And steal your entire act? Nah, we will leave that to you.

If you want to argue against polytheism your arguments are great but using arguments against polytheism against monotheism is just plan dishonest.

I don't believe you have it in you to make an honest argument.

Irrelevant silliness. Typical ding shell game.

No. It's not. It's the truth.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Seriously, are you so insecure in your beliefs that you need to misstate the beliefs of others?

And steal your entire act? Nah, we will leave that to you.

If you want to argue against polytheism your arguments are great but using arguments against polytheism against monotheism is just plan dishonest.

I don't believe you have it in you to make an honest argument.

Irrelevant silliness. Typical ding shell game.

No. It's not. It's the truth.

Shaman Ding has spoken! Again!