Any thoughts on Salixes?

Any thoughts on this forum he did? Should We Ban Religion? (debateart.com)

Willows in their various guises, was an entertaining radical.

Though in terms of social control, "banning" religion would be a futile experiment....Banning just evokes a counter movement.

Nowadays  more subtle ways of changing peoples minds are evolving.

What do you think?

I think religion won't be banned, to be honest. Although I wish I could point out Czechia while being atheistic, hasn't banned religion (I'm talking about today's Czechia, not Czechoslovakia).

State and religion should be separate.

I regard religions as spare time amusements/hobbies..... Like cycling.....Fun on a Sunday.....There to be enjoyed......But one shouldn't be compelled to wear lycra  when one goes to the supermarket.

A review of Salixes' profile demonstrates anything needed to be known of motivation to ban religion. Atheism is Salixes' creed. And....?

Perhaps, but a strict read of the 1A does not conclude that. Further investigation reveals that Tom Jefferson may have been a proponent, and he referenced Roger Williams in 1644 as the advocate of the idea. However, while Madison was writing the Bill of Rights, Jefferson was separate from Church and State as Minister to France, so he had no input to Madison other than Madison maybe being aware of Jefferson's thoughts. They were, by then, in a mentor/novitiate relationship. Madison's own thinking on the subject is quite clear, however. In a later letter written to a Rev. Jasper Adams in 1832, Madison argued for intersections, not a separation between church and state. Where they both work for the common of of the citizens, they should cooperate, which was essentially a salient point in Brown v. Board of Education [1954] wherein SCOTUS found no issue with school buses taking children to both public and religious schools.

Yep.

Things have changed a tad since then though. Particularly in regard to the importance and variety of Church. Nonetheless if all individuals and organisations  worked for the common good of each other, then we would surely exist in a utopia.....But sadly that's not how things have ever panned out.

"Church" in the broader sense has always been divisive, even Christianity within Christianity was and still is divisive....What we are as ever reliant upon, is still the sensibilities of the individual in respect of humanity rather than in respect of a particular church.

Not so much. Father Madison also told us that if men were angels, we would not need government. Sadly, that has not changed, because we still are not, and are very likely further down the road of non-angelic than 200 years ago.

True.

I think, that fundamental human nature as changed much since we came down from the trees.

Were we human, in the trees? At them, picking fruit, yes, but not in them as residence. Mind you, I don't buy the entire Darwinian descent from apes argument. I do buy that we have the closest DNA match to our ape friends compared to other animals, but I think that is just a design feature of the structure of DNA. Where visible features are similar, so goes the DNA, and not that this is evidence of familial relationship by genetic transfer. We must recognize, after all, that our DNA is 97% similar to every other animal and plant life form on earth, and I don't hear anyone saying we are genetically related to those trees from which some claim we physically descended as apes. That those trees use the same basic design elements of four consistently used amino acids, fine, but it makes much more sense to me that it is all the design of an incredibly sentient being on whom we have hung the moniker, "God." He chooses to call himself "I AM." perfectly appropriate. So are we.  So we will become.

.

FAUXLAW, the runaway from biblical axioms, and now the #1 Bible fool upon this forum, and the #1 record holder of running away from godly posts, and who has called Jesus a LIAR many times at the expense of committing the Unpardonable Sin,

YOUR ONCE AGAIN SAD QUOTE PERTAINING TO THE BIBLE IN POST #10:    "I do buy that we have the closest DNA match to our ape friends compared to other animals, ........"

  I completely understand that Jesus created fossils to test our faith, but if we are going to accept them, then the APES have been around for approximately 6 millions years, understood?  The direct problem is that Satanic  science  goes against Jesus' scriptures within the Bible because the creation of man and ALL animals was only approximately 6-8 thousand years ago, DO YOU UNDERSTAND BIBLE FOOL?

Now, do you accept Jesus stating that man and animals are 6-8 thousand years old as stated within His scriptures, or Satanic science in saying that ape animals are millions of years old which directly contradicts the Bible?  You have already called Jesus a LIAR many times, in ensuring you committing the Unpardonable Sin and the ramifications thereof, so which is it at your expense once again? LOL

Do you want to discuss in another thread your Bible STUPIDITY once again relative to Jesus' JEWISH Creation only being upon earth for approximately 6000 years, or if not, it will be your 49TH RUNAWAY from the Bible and getting you closer to that memorable 50 BIBLE RUNAWAYS with me alone within this forum!  Priceless!

Awaiting a somewhat cogent response this time, okay?

.

Darwin? White colonial? Darwin was pure British, not colonial. Careful how you throw your bias around. And either you disagree with Darwin, or you don't. Sounds like you're willing to climb the first few branches of the tree.

Discuss? You do not want to discuss; you want to dictate. 

No, thanks, but you pontificate to your heart's content. I'm sure there's some pounding therein, as well. Have at it. You're the only one counting pounds.

British history is deeply colonial. Please fact check more carefully. 

I am aware of that. I do have a History PhD. But, Darwin, himself, was not a colonial. He traveled the world, but always return to Great Britain. He died at Down House, in Kent, his British home; not in some colony. Let's have some respect [academically] for what a colonist is. Fact check, anyone? Words mean things.

I did not say colonists I said colonial. As in someone who believes in colonialism as an institution for good or at the very least a correct and or necessary institution. 

In that sense any education white British gentleman of that era with enough money and means to travel as Darwin did is a colonial. 

You realize this is off subject. The current theory that humans are apes is more correct than Darwin's original hypothesis. 

I invite you to read just the introductory paragraph of this paper: http://blogs.bu.edu/guidedhistory/moderneurope/evan-r/

It absolves Darwin of British imperialism [colonialism]. Seems his education, and mine, differed from yours. But, think what you like. It's your thinking.

Only in the sense that you seem to agree that religion should be banned along with man's sense of being more than man, let alone an ape. I much prefer the claim by the prophet, Yoda: "Luminous beings are we; not this crude matter." Said another way, but effectively the same thing, by Jesus of Nazareth: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your father in heaven is perfect." He was not talking to apes. Let us recall the "Planet of the Apes" was a fiction. Yes, so was Yoda, but the thinking, though fiction, can sometimes offer suspension of disbelief. Some of us know the difference.

I have not made any argument for banning religion although I am unconvinced that it has more utility than drawbacks.

Is there some reason apes cannot be luminous beings and not the crude matter they appear? If that is I very generously entertain your unfalsifiable hypothesis.

Fun fact one difference between Yoda and Jesus is that we agree someone made up Yoda's lines.

  

.

FAUXLAW, the runaway from biblical axioms, and now the #1 Bible fool upon this forum, and the #1 record holder of running away from godly posts, and who has called Jesus a LIAR many times at the expense of committing the Unpardonable Sin,

YOUR ONCE AGAIN TOTALLY PATHETIC QUOTE #14 TO RUN AWAY FROM BIBLICAL DISCUSSION: "Discuss? You do not want to discuss; you want to dictate.  No, thanks, but you pontificate to your heart's content. I'm sure there's some pounding therein, as well. Have at it. You're the only one counting pounds."

YES, I am counting "pounds" that represent you embarrassingly running away from biblical axiomatic discussion with me because your assumed intelligence can't do it in the first place, therefore all of your alleged education is all for naught!   Listen, I knew because of your past embarrassments of not being able to discuss biblical axioms that you would come up with yet another lame child like excuse to run away again, and this time, from your outright stupidity of not knowing that humans and animals have only been upon earth for approximately 6000 years so saith the Bible! and Jesus!  ROFLOL!  

See, Science Reveals You Will Not Find God in Our DNA by Charles Mudede

In this article he states, The implications of this research are stunning. To begin with, it shows that the DNA of life is not singular and likely accidental. It's what happened to evolve on Earth. This discovery has exactly the same consequences as those made by the German chemist Frederich Wohler in the 1820s. He synthesized urea in a lab and, as a result, revealed that biological materials are no different from non-biological ones. The line between the living and the dead does not exist. Life is not a thing but a complex process that emerges from ordinary chemistry.

Yes, but I also believe that that person  was inspired by God. You see, I don't buy the idea that God stopped talking to man at any time. Revelation is continuous. He has maintained a running dialog that continues to this day, and the articulation given to Yoda is a universal and eternal truth.

On this site, I may be unique in the belief that all animal life, except humans, and all plant life, are already living the full measure of their creation, and need not prove their worthiness to inherit heaven; that they will do so whether we join them there, or not. We are unique in being agents unto ourselves, able to choose to be obedient to God, or not, and therefore obligated to accept the consequences of our choices.

So, yes, apes, and worms, and trees and flowers will be luminous beings.

Won't Charlie be surprised to find that God's DNA is also uniquely human, but that it, as ours will be, is not half junk DNA, but a perfect helix of perfect coding of a perfect human.

Rather than the ongoing big test.

Why not just make perfect humans in the first place.

Sounds like GODDO  is just playing a big game to me.

Maybe that's it!

You have to demonstrate anything you want to propose as a possible cause of anything BEFORE you actually can propose it as a cause. Some god(s) must also follow this rule. If you cannot demonstrate some god(s) then you cannot claim some god(s) inspired anything... unless they inspire people the way that Harry Potter does. You know by being a part of fiction that someone finds inspiring?

If this were true it would not be beneficial to study rats navigate mazes or to do behavioral studies of apes. Also and just to remind you WE ARE APES. If we have agency then some apes have agency. Period.