-->
@RoderickSpode
Just so I'm clear, are you using "atheist militancy" as interchangeable with "advocate for the separation of church and state"?
Religion or Science?
Posts
Total:
152
-->
@ludofl3x
Just so I'm clear, are you using "atheist militancy" as interchangeable with "advocate for the separation of church and state"?
No. I'm not.
-->
@RoderickSpode
So then you do not think 'militancy' = 'removal of ten commandments from land owned by the state'?
-->
@RoderickSpode
Actually, what is detested are the levels of dishonesty from Christians using that term because they can no more support or demonstrate the claim than they can argue for the existence of their God.I've encountered the atheist who detests atheist militancy.
-->
@RoderickSpode
Maybe if you write it in blood they will get it.
-->
@ludofl3x
So then you do not think 'militancy' = 'removal of ten commandments from land owned by the state'?
I would say that depends. If it were just that, no. I think there's been a mutual agreement to have them removed amongst various parties. But it isn't just about the removal of the Ten Commandments.
I think requesting the removal of the statue of Jesus on a ski resort in Montana is most definitely an example of atheist militancy.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I'd like to think so. Although a couple of them I'm not so sure that would even do it.
-->
@RoderickSpode
The ski resort isn't state property, is it? If so I'm not sure why anyone cares about it. I'd just ski someplace else. But if it's state property supported by taxpayer funds, then it's subject to separation of church and state.
-->
@ludofl3x
The point is, The Freedom From Religion Foundation took it to court (and lost). So I'm wondering if you would consider that atheist militancy?
-->
@RoderickSpode
No, I would consider that litigiousness. I'm not sure what the particulars of the case are, but on its face, as you present it, If it's on private property (or I suppose on private property subsidized in some way by tax dollars, so maybe you could make the case that the ski resort is getting some sort of tax break because of this statue), it's private business. If it's on state land, it shouldn't be there. Pretty clear to me.
-->
@ludofl3x
May as well make it easy.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday ruled that a 12-foot statue of Jesus at Whitefish Mountain Resort “did not sprout from the minds of (government) officials and was not funded from (the government’s) coffers.”
The Ninth Circuit upheld a 2013 decision by U.S. District Court Judge Dana Christensen, who dismissed a lawsuit by the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation objecting to the statue.
“Big Mountain Jesus” is located on public land that the U.S. Forest Service leases to a private organization.
-->
@ludofl3x
@RoderickSpode
1. Abolishing private property is a stated goal of communism/socialism.
2. Communist/socialist ideology is overtly atheistic.
When these 2 facts are taken into account, does it reveal anything about the atheist's particular argument of "separation of church and state"?
When an atheist confesses to being a socialist, is it not clear that the end goal is really the eradication of any religion that isn't the "scientific atheism" and state secularism?
Sure enough, the Soviet Union killed dozens of millions of Orthodox Christians. Disregard for human life is a hallmark of communist governments who do not believe that man was made in God's image. It is this belief that secures human rights and dignity in a way that no atheistic system can dublicate.
-->
@RoderickSpode
No, that would be the normal response to arrogant Christian dumbasses who want their freedoms at the expense of others.I think requesting the removal of the statue of Jesus on a ski resort in Montana is most definitely an example of atheist militancy.
-->
@RoderickSpode
No Rod, society does not tell us what to do, that is childishly ignorant.Society tells us what to do (and not to do) because it's necessary.
There's a very good reason your parents and teachers at times dictated to you what you should and should't do.
That would make sense as to why you're so dumb. My parents and teachers taught me things, they never dictated. Seems your parents are assholes.
You see, I thought you were providing examples of types of charitable groups. That many more really threw me off. So the Minnesota Atheists are not one of those many?
Only a moron would make that obvious mistake. Or, are you just lying again?
What are the charities on your (exhaustive?) list doing that churches don't do?
It's the other way round, it's what the charities are not doing, they are not trying to convert people into Christian dumbasses.
Yes.....they most certainly do want people of religion to conform to their view. It's right there in that quote I provided from their manifesto. Did you read it?
That shows either your dishonest bias or your lack of reading comprehension skills.
You seem to forget that Christianity has been forcing people through violence for many centuries to conform to their view. But, now that we have laws, Christians can no longer resort to violence.
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Creationism has the same evidence, we just interpret it differently and both use the scientific method, although it doesn't always take science to interpret evidence, whether it be evolutionary or creationism.
I cannot imagine anyone pretending to believe anything, what would be gained? Personally, i firmly believe the universe is 10,000 years old maximum and see nothing contrary to that, even after studying both of the different viewpoints.
-->
@ronjs
Then, you have studied nothing of the scientific evidence or you simply don't understand it. Mesopotamia is one of the first known civilizations to emerge, 12,000 years ago, which shows your beliefs of the universe to be obviously wrong.i firmly believe the universe is 10,000 years old maximum and see nothing contrary to that, even after studying both of the different viewpoints.
-->
@Goldtop
And I could say that you have never studied creationists viewpoints or you never understood them. We generally see things according to our presuppositions and interpret the data accordingly. As for dating anything that we don't truly know the age of there are numerous examples of wrong ages assigned to things we know the age of.
-->
@ronjs
It's scientifically confirmed that the Australian Aboriginal has occupied the Australian continent for 65,000yrs, you are just willfully ignorant
-->
@disgusted
And you are willfully ignorant of the limitations of science even though the scientists themselves are tentative with most of their conclusions, a fact that most people and the media miss. Science can never yield absolute conclusions because they cannot be sure they have all the evidence.
-->
@ronjs
Godists can never yield absolute conclusions because they have absolutely NO evidence but they do anyway.
-->
@disgusted
Actually, we have the same evidence,rocks, fossils etc.
-->
@ronjs
OK provide the evidence for the existence of Adam and the GoE and all the animals being created as they are now including dinosaurs and megafauna and the inclusion of these creatures in your creation story . Should be fun .
-->
@disgusted
And you proving these outrageous statements should be fkn hilarious.OK provide the evidence for the existence of Adam........... Should be fun .
--> @disgusted "we have evolved by exactly the same process as every other animal that has ever existed on this planet"?
Prove it.
--> @disgusted "We all exist in the same reality"
Prove it.
--> @disgusted " the word god did not even exist before the middle ages"?
Prove it.
-->
@Stephen
All of your asinine questions have been answered, you're just digging yourself into a deeper hole of doo doo.
-->
@disgusted
All of your asinine questions have been answered,
And now your have turned to lying. But what else can you do. Cornered like the little vile and repugnant specimen bully that you are have now simply resorted to lying.
-->
@Stephen
Poor little unarmed thing.
-->
@disgusted
As i have said repeatedly, we all have the same evidence but interpret it differently since it never speaks for itself. Many see fossils as taking millions of years to form and others point out that it has to happen fairly quickly and dating methods have been shown to be not terribly reliable due to the life span of radiation, especially when it comes to deep time. It is generally thought that much of the physical evidence for the GOE was destroyed by the flood so that we have to rely on written records which is detective work, not science.
-->
@ronjs
As i have said repeatedly, we all have the same evidence but interpret it differently since it never speaks for itself. Many see fossils as taking millions of years to form and others point out that it has to happen fairly quickly and dating methods have been shown to be not terribly reliable due to the life span of radiation, especially when it comes to deep time. It is generally thought that much of the physical evidence for the GOE was destroyed by the flood so that we have to rely on written records which is detective work, not science.
Oh dear, oh deary me.
Show me the evidence that any gods exist.
Show me the evidence that any gods created anything
Show me the evidence that Adam ever existed
Show me the evidence that a worldwide flood deeper than Everest is high ever existed.
Show me the evidence that this non existent flood ever destroyed this non existent GoE
Show me the evidence that your god ever said anything
Science doesn't question the accuracy of dating methods because they have been thoroughly tested and proved accurate.
Show me the evidence that you use to question the accuracy of dating methods.
Show me the evidence where your holy book even acknowledging the existence of what you call deep time, an obvious misnomer.
Show me the evidence of you having any knowledge at all of the formation of fossils
Show me the evidence of the existence of dinosaurs and mega fauna mentioned in your book written by ignorant, primitive, superstitious savages.
-->
@Paul
In science there is consensus (unless the science is done by a religious person), in religion there is not a consensus. All branches of science agree and support one another’s conclusions. Science is not an educated guess. It is based on hard evidence with peer review to ensure the results are accurate. Science is about understanding the natural world and should not really impact religious beliefs. The problem is that many (Christians in particular) have beliefs about the natural world built into their religious teachings and that is why they are constantly at odds. In reality, science should deal exclusively with the natural world while religion deal exclusively in the metaphysical. If they are kept mutually exclusive they can work well together, but when they seek to explain something other than what they are intended to, it becomes messy. Many religious people including many Christians have found a way to make science work with their faith. If God created the natural world as most religions claim, it seems to me anyway that they should want to study the handy work of God.
-->
@croweupc
It goes back to the time when priests had a monopoly on 'truth' - they were the sole authority about this world and the next. it was ;ikre that for thousands of years, and its very recent - within the last 2-3 hundred years - that their monopoly became threatened. The priests lost their authority about the natural world - scientists, not priests, could tell you about thunder, what made crops to grow and the stars to move.
That loss of status was resisted - it's well known that Galilieo was arrested and forced to deny his discoveries; less well known is that Giorfdano Bruno was burned at the stake for similar offences. It was a 'turf-war' over who had authority to pronounce on the 'nature of nature'.
An uneasy truce was next threatened when science offered a non-religious alterative to the nature of mankind - that battle is ongoing today.