Faith-Healing Parents Get Probation

[Elrina]

Religion is set. There are guiding documents behind every major religion, some with supplementary material and some without, but their word is "law." Scholars can argue the meaning or the context of those words, but since they invention of the printing press they are set down and will never be changed. They might be able to be applied in some way to new situations, but they cannot become anything beyond what they already are. To suggest religion somehow helps along science or progress is basically trying to argue that religion exists to disprove itself.

I believe in my religion in that I believe in the existence of God and heaven, and I try to adhere to the rituals laid out for worshiping Him. What I don't believe is that any document which has existed for thousands of years and codifies beliefs for people in a snapshot in time can tell us anything new about the universe. We can look to religion for some guidelines on how to live a moral life, but it's not going to cure our diseases, feed the hungry, chart the stars, or anything else that expands the knowledge of humanity. Because religion isn't about knowledge - religion is about saying "This here, written in this book, is all true, now believe it and don't ask questions."

And the people who don't ask questions, well, they end up with dead kids.

I agree with you almost completely, just not that last part; the rest was phrased quite eloquently. Don't get me wrong, "don't ask questions about it's validity" is accurate, but without asking questions and studying theology you can't advance your understanding of the text in the book either. Scripture is information that grants knowledge about one's religion. It's extremists that insist that there should be no questioning, simply blind faith and obedience. But that's how those in charge of caretaking a religion (it's priests, pastors, heirarchy, etc.) maintain a level of control over the followers beyond simply being in a position of authority. It can be an informing study discovering the differences in those who claim to practice the exact same faith, by looking at churches who discourage and condemn questions and those that encourage them in order to gain greater insight.

And nobody is absolutely perfect, and in faith (at least christianity) nobody is even expected to be perfect, simply to do their best to live by the tenets of their scripture. Considering this, it's a great fool indeed who doesn't ask questions when they have a sick child dying in their bed. Even if their fellow extremists consider it a "sin", saving the child's life could hardly be an act that would condemn them. While I realize that isn't always the case, it would (or at least should) just go to display even further the fanatical extremity that was practiced if they were outcast as a result.

Regardless, as you said, religion isn't about furthering knowledge or science. It's about something completely different. That, however, doesn't mean it needs to be an impediment either, religion and science are not mutually exclusive. The problem with science from the perspective of religion is that it grants a greater understanding of the world and universe around us that wasn't simply given us in scripture, and so there are those that would claim it "wasn't for us to know", which is silly. The advancement of science is an achievement that required centuries of incremental progress to reach the level of acceleration we are currently experiencing. While I don't know if it may have come sooner if it were not for various religions holding it back, I will enjoy the discoveries that are made throughout my entire life, and regret only that I won't be around for what is discovered after my own death.

People like you depress me more than any fundamentalist. Its as if you're so close to being right, but you call it a day right before the finish line. How can you, without internal turmoil, profess the essentialness of critical thought, while adhering to a personal system of beliefs based on no thought at all? I accept that you're likely not referencing Yahweh when you say that you believe in God, which almost leads me to assume a more deistic school of thought, but paradise? I can level with agnosticism. Its the only rational approach to the (currently) unanswerable idea of a deity, but what line of critical thinking brought you to the idea of life after death?

And this can simply be argued with "We can't prove we're right, but you can't prove we're wrong, either", and ultimately, that's enough (for me, anyway). The essential concept here is faith. The point is faith, at least in my mind. With empirical evidence there could be no faith, as the focus of that "faith" would simply be known fact. I personally am able to live without inner turmoil, simply because I accept that I don't need to be able to see a physical manifestation of my faith in order to believe in it's validity. In all other things, I require and employ some degree of critical thought, and yet when it comes to the questions "Why am I here?" and "What is it all for?", I can simply accept the answer given me. Rather than feeling inner turmoil, it actually gives me a measure of peace to have something that I am able to simply accept on faith that is so profound, rather than dig and question it endlessly.

I leave it to a friend of mine to handle the voracious studying into deeper theological concepts and proofs, and he's the apologist, not me, so you've probably heard this before and are able to dismiss it readily. But it's my answer to your question, responded to since I feel the same as the person you quoted, and you seemed more focused on what was said rather than who said it.

And there is a simple logical step when going from "the existence of God" to "the existence of heaven and hell". If a person believes in the existence of a specific God, and believes that their scripture is true and accurate, then believing in the existence of an afterlife that is contained inside of said scripture is both normal and logical. I'm actually surprised you don't see the connection.

[foopy]

hate to break it to you elrina, you were brainwashed as a child, during the most impressionable period of your life.

if all this bible bullshit were presented to you after you reached adulthood, you'd laugh at it and walk away.

you are an atheist when it comes to the hundreds of other gods of other religions. you are so close.

[barber2006]

hate to break it to you elrina, you were brainwashed as a child, during the most impressionable period of your life.

if all this bible bullshit were presented to you after you reached adulthood, you'd laugh at it and walk away.

you are an atheist when it comes to the hundreds of other gods of other religions. you are so close.

While your result may be right, your premise is not. There are millions of people who developed a belief in God well after their formative years were over.

For many people the issue of faith boils down to the fact that there are two seemingly impossible realities. 1) The universe, matter, etc has existed forever or 2) It was created. Both are unfathomable. The human mind can no sooner comprehend a universe that has been going through a series of big bangs/crunches for an infinite time period as it can a creator. On our best day we can possibly comprehend an infinite future. But an infinite past? It boggles the mind.

Now just because we do not presently know the origins of the universe does not mean that it was created. But someone with faith would argue that when looking at these two seemingly incomprehensible possibilities that they believe because they have experienced the divine in their life. Could it be an illusion? Or mental illness? Sure it could. But as someone who is actively looking for answers from every side (which might I add is much more constructive than just using inflammatory language meant to belittle someone who thinks differently than you) I have to admit that there is a great and seemingly unsolvable mystery to either worldview so I am not going to get my blood pressure up to convince someone else they are wrong.

Also, of course people are 'atheists when it comes to hundred of other gods'. If someone believes they have encountered the divine through practices in one faith most do not feel compelled to continue a search for something they believe they have already found.

[chiyio]

*I have to admit that there is a great and seemingly unsolvable mystery*

and that's where you fuck up, it's not unsolvable, it's just unkown. Religion is giving up looking for the answer. If humanity just gave up looking for an answer to anything that wasn't currently known, where would we be.

Dawkins put it perfectly. "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world."

[Yugl]

Nonsense argument. If you construct a religion that is intolerant by design (requires "principles of religion to govern"), being tolerant of religions inherently means being intolerant, a contradiction. If you construct a nonsensical situation, you can validate nonsense arguments. Also, water is wet and longcat is long.

1. Religions don't need to be restrictive. Can they be? Sure. At the same time, if I create a religion that revolves around liberty, which is ironically where Locke derives his form of liberalism, secularism is preventing liberty.
2. Secularism can replace religious intolerance with ideological intolerance. If the ideological doctrine replacing the religious doctrine is more intolerant (And in fact, most people mistake religious intolerance for this more restrictive ideological intolerance all the time), then secularism has prevented tolerance.

To be clear about this, if you look at the concept of religious, defined as a doctrine outside the empirical realm, you don't need to have intolerance for anything but disbelief in the most minor non-empirical element. As pointed out earlier, intelligent design is religious by virtue of its properties, but not very intolerant because it says it is "possible for there to be an intelligent creator." Nothing about this implies intolerance because the term "possible" leaves room for disagreement. A secularist doctrine argues it is not possible for there to be anything outside the empirical realm. The religious doctrine only hints at the possibility of one figure. The "intolerance" in this case is that you cannot believe "it is not possible for there to be an intelligent creator." Conversely, the "intolerance" in the secularist doctrine is that you cannot believe an intelligent creator exists. Notice that the secularist doctrine, when written in predicate logic, is the negative of an existential (Or a universal). Conversely, the religious doctrine is an existential. For this reason, the secularist doctrine actually forbids more than the religious doctrine in this case. That said, you could make the case (But you would have to show evidence beyond Christianity and the other major religions since others exist) that de facto, religion is more intolerable, but conceptually, you are incorrect.

[Alleya]

I've been trying to come up with a reply to this but I can't. Are you seriously suggesting that "secularism", which you're conflating with science for some reason, is more intolerant of religion because it doesn't entertain crackpot theories with no evidence to support them?

We're talking about the same religions that lay out strictures for execution of heretics in their holy books and have a history of executing scientists who contradicted them right? The same religions that now want to put a stop to teaching evolution in science class and insist that we defund NASA because we already know how the universe got started? I don't get it.

[Yugl]

Reread the last sentence, think about the how you've constructed your response (Particularly your last "paragraph"), and you'll see why you have difficulty countering what I've said. If you still have questions, feel free to ask for more clarification because it is difficult for most to realize (And I doubt people that would like to defend religion are capable of constructing the argument in this way).

[Ashmada]

I can level with agnosticism. Its the only rational approach to the (currently) unanswerable idea of a deity, but what line of critical thinking brought you to the idea of life after death?

Nitpicking, but weak atheism is the rational approach. Agnosticism is merely a form of appeasement: while neither the existence or non-existence of deities can't be proven, it's as silly to believe in abrahamic gods as in obsolete pantheons, fairies, ghosts, cosmic teapots or invisible pink unicorns.
The agnostic just chooses appeasement and refuses to assign burden of proof where it belongs: on the religious; that's literally the only difference between weak atheism and agnosticism.

For many people the issue of faith boils down to the fact that there are two seemingly impossible realities. 1) The universe, matter, etc has existed forever or 2) It was created. Both are unfathomable. The human mind can no sooner comprehend a universe that has been going through a series of big bangs/crunches for an infinite time period as it can a creator. On our best day we can possibly comprehend an infinite future. But an infinite past? It boggles the mind.

But such is the problem with the first cause argument (that's what you're referring to): it doesn't work.
It's no less mind-boggling to comprehend a god/creator that has always existed than an universe that has always existed: "mah god did it" only alters the question, it doesn't answer it.
And it's no more intuitive, in fact it's even less intuitive: now, instead of something that has always existed, you've got a defined being that has always existed and always been sentient!


Yugl: secularism isn't the antithesis of religion; it's the antithesis of theocracy. Don't know why you keep insisting on the former, but that's where your perceived "intolerance" comes from. You've been disserting on a misconception for a while.

[Yugl]

Yugl: secularism isn't the antithesis of religion; it's the antithesis of theocracy. Don't know why you keep insisting on the former, but that's where your perceived "intolerance" comes from. You've been disserting on a misconception for a while.

The argument only changes to make secularism and theocracy equal because the minimum of a theocracy is that the state have a divine official or officials ruling. What does this mean? To regard it in its most blunt sentential form, the difference between these two systems is whether or not the officials ruling are divine officials or not. It does not relate to their policies or restrictions. Since the absolute chance of an individual being regarded as a divine official is 50/50 (They are or they aren't), then it stands that they're both equal in regards to policy. Alternatively, theocracy is less restrictive because the minimum you need to have a theocracy is one leader regarded as a divine official. It's not the case that if you have one official not regarded as a divine official, then you have a secular society. As a result, I'll change my initial statement to agree with my previous post: secularism is more intolerant.

However, I question whether what you're presenting me with is true because I'm looking it up on several sources and finding contradicting statements. Perhaps you meant theism because theocracy implies a form of government whereas the latter is more encompassing than that?

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Secularism is the concept that government or other entities should exist separately from religion and/or religious beliefs.

In one sense, secularism may assert the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, and the right to freedom from governmental imposition of religion upon the people within a state that is neutral on matters of belief. (See also Separation of church and state and Laïcité.) In another sense, it refers to the view that human activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be based on evidence and fact unbiased by religious influence.[1] (See also public reason.) Some scholars are now arguing that the very idea of secularism will change.[2]

This one supports your statement.

Dictionary: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/secularism

secularism
- 3 dictionary results
sec·u·lar·ism
   /ˈsɛkyələˌrɪzəm/ Show Spelled[sek-yuh-luh-riz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.
secular spirit or tendency, especially a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.
2.
the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.

This one helps your statement, but only says "especially" meaning it can reach beyond that.

Oxford Dictionary:http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/vi..._us1288478.013

secular(sec·u·lar)
Pronunciation:/ˈsekyələr, ˈsɛkjələr/
adjective

*
1 denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis:secular buildingssecular moral theory Contrasted with sacred
*
2 Christian Church(of clergy) not subject to or bound by religious rule; not belonging to or living in a monastic or other order. Contrasted with regular
*
3 Astronomyof or denoting slow changes in the motion of the sun or planets.
*
4 Economics(of a fluctuation or trend) occurring or persisting over an indefinitely long period:there is evidence that the slump is not cyclical but secular
*
5 occurring once every century or similarly long period (used especially in reference to celebratory games in ancient Rome).

Nothing about government here either. The second definition is interesting because it implies a Church not bound by religious rule.

Edit: Yes, it is political.

[aurik]

I've been trying to come up with a reply to this but I can't.

I already pointed out why this seems to be the case, he's creating a nonsensical paradigm and then drawing conclusions based on it.

Best to just ignore him, because he's either trolling or too dumb to bother with.

[Alleya]

I already pointed out why this seems to be the case, he's creating a nonsensical paradigm and then drawing conclusions based on it.

Best to just ignore him, because he's either trolling or too dumb to bother with.

Guess I'll cosign. The whole thing just seems completely divorced from reality.

[Elrina]

*I have to admit that there is a great and seemingly unsolvable mystery*

and that's where you fuck up, it's not unsolvable, it's just unkown. Religion is giving up looking for the answer. If humanity just gave up looking for an answer to anything that wasn't currently known, where would we be.

Dawkins put it perfectly. "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world."

This isn't really an argument against you, just informing you that both your quote from Dawkins and your statement that "Religion is giving up looking for the answer" are fallacies. Religion as a concept demands no such thing, and while some specific religions may, the requirements of some do not equate to an all-encompassing assumption of the whole.

Like I mentioned, religious leaders that claim we should avoid certain aspects of science or exploration simply because it isn't given to us or asked of us in scripture is silly. If something is not strictly forbidden in the scripture of a religion, then it is a personal choice to give up searching for answers to questions related to all matters of science. That religious leaders in the past have used their stations and authority to enforce some measure of restriction upon the advancement of knowledge is because of misplaced belief. For example, the study and advancement of genetics.

There are those in recent history, and today, who claim that genetic study and alteration is encroaching on the territory of God. I disagree. Simply because God tread there first does not mean there is any reason we should not as well. It's an assumption, made to exact some measure of control over what is done with the use of a technology that has potential to change human beings on such a fundamental level. It's the same with cloning humans, which had religious leaders up in arms, but was restricted (iirc) on ethical grounds and not religious ones.

Are you seriously suggesting that "secularism", which you're conflating with science for some reason, is more intolerant of religion because it doesn't entertain crackpot theories with no evidence to support them?

We're talking about the same religions that lay out strictures for execution of heretics in their holy books and have a history of executing scientists who contradicted them right? The same religions that now want to put a stop to teaching evolution in science class and insist that we defund NASA because we already know how the universe got started? I don't get it.

I'm not involving myself of the tolerant/intolerant discussion, at least insofar as to which is supposedly "more intolerant". As history can show, intolerance is a human trait that is no more present in those not religious than those who are. We are all of us intolerant, in our own way, with our own prejudices and bias. No one is exempt.

And yes, there are followers of most major religions who, in the past, have committed atrocities. From killing scientists to those who practiced medicine with herbs and tinctures, to more dramatic examples such as the crusades.

Personally, I believe evolution deserves a place in the classroom to some degree, in some capacity. But I don't believe it should be taught in the classroom as if it were a Law of Nature and the abiding factual truth of the origin of mankind, anymore than I believe creationism should be. Evolution isn't a Law of Nature, and as such, however much it may irk those who believe faith in religion is mental instability and as such should be wiped out, neither has a place being taught to children in public education as Fact. People have the right to instruct their children in their religion, just as those who don't believe have the right to teach their children the opposite, and it is not the place nor right of public schools to tell our children that their parents are liars and fools, no matter what they believe (or don't believe).

As far as NASA funding being removed since we "already know how the universe was started", I've never heard of that. I'm not claiming that you're wrong, but if that is an accurate statement then whoever is doing so (especially if it's as a result of a religious belief) are ignorant fools. Even if we assume we do know how the universe is started, if anything, that should encourage us even more so to get out and explore more of it, learn more about it. Like I've said, another attempt at stifling progress in order to maintain some measure of control, even if it's only over a concept.

Nitpicking, but weak atheism is the rational approach. Agnosticism is merely a form of appeasement: while neither the existence or non-existence of deities can't be proven, it's as silly to believe in abrahamic gods as in obsolete pantheons, fairies, ghosts, cosmic teapots or invisible pink unicorns.
The agnostic just chooses appeasement and refuses to assign burden of proof where it belongs: on the religious; that's literally the only difference between weak atheism and agnosticism.

It's no less mind-boggling to comprehend a god/creator that has always existed than an universe that has always existed: "mah god did it" only alters the question, it doesn't answer it.
And it's no more intuitive, in fact it's even less intuitive: now, instead of something that has always existed, you've got a defined being that has always existed and always been sentient!

Not really trying to argue with you either, but I would like to make an observation. First, that the burden of proof is on the religious. That is only the case if said religious people are trying to convince you to believe. Personally, I couldn't care less as to whether you believe or not. It is not my responsibility to convert you, and as such, I feel no need to prove anything. What I believe to be truth is what I believe to be truth. I don't need your approval, nor that of anyone else, to do so.

I often find that some people who are not religious, self-proclaimed atheists, have much more of a problem with my willingness to believe in my faith than I have with their refusal to. It's as if they can't accept that I truly do believe in God, simply because they do not. There is no burden of proof placed on me simply because they demand it to believe. If anything in those cases, it places the burden of disproving God on them, since they seem to be so concerned with the need for proof, while I couldn't care less, I simply believe.

And I agree that it's no less mind-boggling to comprehend that either has existed for an infinite period of time in the past. Our minds understand the concept of the infinite, and can consider it intellectually, yet few can truly encapsulate the enormity of it, regardless of it's manifestation. Anyway, we do not need to comprehend something for it to be factual. So this proves neither concept, it is simply an understanding that extremely difficult (if possible at all) for us to truly achieve.

[Yugl]

Guess I'll cosign. The whole thing just seems completely divorced from reality.

I already pointed out why this seems to be the case, he's creating a nonsensical paradigm and then drawing conclusions based on it.

Best to just ignore him, because he's either trolling or too dumb to bother with.

If you're unable to meet the conceptual argument, then you are incapable of distinguishing between the statement "We are unable to test a theory" and "We are unable to test this theory ever" (Freudian statement). If you're both in favor of blurring this distinction, then by all means do so. There is a difference between the logical property of a set of statements and the de facto statement. Arguments based on abstract ideals such as "Secularism is more tolerant" can only rely on the former.

[Ashmada]

Oxford Dictionary:http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/vi..._us1288478.013

secular(sec·u·lar)
Pronunciation:/ˈsekyələr, ˈsɛkjələr/
adjective

*
1 denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis:secular buildingssecular moral theory Contrasted with sacred
*
2 Christian Church(of clergy) not subject to or bound by religious rule; not belonging to or living in a monastic or other order. Contrasted with regular
*
3 Astronomyof or denoting slow changes in the motion of the sun or planets.
*
4 Economics(of a fluctuation or trend) occurring or persisting over an indefinitely long period:there is evidence that the slump is not cyclical but secular
*
5 occurring once every century or similarly long period (used especially in reference to celebratory games in ancient Rome).

Nothing about government here either. The second definition is interesting because it implies a Church not bound by religious rule.

Edit: Yes, it is political.

Did you just try to substitue "secular" instead of "secularism"? Really? Even as an attempt to SAFEFACE, that's pretty low.


Anyway, if you have trouble grasping the concept, fine. Give us your own definition and we'll go from there; no point discussing if we're not talking the same language.
Most of us (or I should hope so), when reading "secularism" understand "the doctrine of separation between political power and religious authority", not "OPPRESS THEM SMELLY RELIGIOUS FOLKS!", but if you understand otherwise, fine, just tell us exactly what.


But if you insist on positing a tolerant theocracy (or "less intolerant than the alternative"), then I'll have difficulty taking you seriously.
The very notion that one religious congregation should hold political power is intolerant not only towards unbelievers, but also towards minority religions or even minority congregations of the dominant religion.
A tolerant religious doctrine is necessarily secularist; and having to explain that diminishes my faith in humankind.


Elrina: I'm not quite sure you're grasping the context, I'll try to bring you up to speed in PM.

[Yugl]

Did you just try to substitue "secular" instead of "secularism"? Really? Even as an attempt to SAFEFACE, that's pretty low.

I actually didn't notice that it said that because I googled oxford + secularism and it came up with that. It doesn't even save face since I acknowledge that it is a political adjective, so how are you positing that it's saving me?

Anyway, if you have trouble grasping the concept, fine. Give us your own definition and we'll go from there; no point discussing if we're not talking the same language.
Most of us (or I should hope so), when reading "secularism" understand "the doctrine of separation between political power and religious authority", not "OPPRESS THEM SMELLY RELIGIOUS FOLKS!", but if you understand otherwise, fine, just tell us exactly what.

A political doctrine or formation that forbids divine/religious government office. For example, the president cannot represent someone that interprets the bible or something to that extent.

But if you insist on positing a tolerant theocracy (or "less intolerant than the alternative"), then I'll have difficulty taking you seriously.
The very notion that one religious congregation should hold political power is intolerant not only towards unbelievers, but also towards minority religions or even minority congregations of the dominant religion.
A tolerant religious doctrine is necessarily secularist; and having to explain that diminishes my faith in humankind.

Secularism, according to the definitions NOT from Oxford (Since the word was different when I grabbed it from google), not only rejects offices to a particular religion, but all religions. Remember how you said that the office is intolerant of minor religions? So is secularism. The only thing that changes is that the nonbelievers switch with the people who would otherwise be the ruling religion.

You also seem to be mixing up two different concepts. The definitions provided, and the one I'm about to quote from dictionary.references, only talk about the government structure.

theocracy
the·oc·ra·cy
   /θiˈɒkrəsi/ Show Spelled[thee-ok-ruh-see] Show IPA
–noun, plural -cies.
1.
a form of government in which god or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
2.
a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.
3.
a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.

How is this important you ask? Recall that you said

The very notion that one religious congregation should hold political power is intolerant not only towards unbelievers,

This is misleading because what you describe is tolerance of the people. However, it is really tolerance of the the type of offices the government has. Look closely at the definitions. If I have a government where the Prime Minister or President is considered a divine official for a religion a, then I satisfy the definition of a theocracy. Since this government is a theocracy, by your own words (You said that Theocracy and Secularism are opposites), this form of government does not have Secularism. Notice none of this implies intolerance except for the office. It says nothing about what the people can believe. It says nothing about what the practices of society are. The only thing it is "intolerant" of is the existence of government without at least one religious post (In this example, that being the Prime minister or Presidential post). Since you can create a theocracy without intolerance for anything but the lack of one or more offices dedicated to a religion, it means that having a theocracy is not intolerant of nonbelievers with in all aspects of their life. It is only restrictive as far as the type of office post you have.

Even though I have established that, that alone is not enough to say one is more intolerant than another. All I have done is shown that by the definition of the term, there is a difference between the representation of the office and the actions of the office. You cannot assume the actions of a Theocracy because the definition is so minimal and encompassing. Since the difference between them is only the structure of the office, determining the degree of intolerance is strictly limited to that. At this point, you might make the mistake I did and say "Well, the office being or not being a religious post makes it 50-50, so the post forbids religion as much as it could support religion." However, that only applies if there is one office. If you have multiple offices, secularism would forbid that any office be religious posts. So if you had nine offices, secularism would forbid all nine of them from representing a religious figure. Conversely, Theocracy only says that at least one of them has to be a religious figure. The rest can be secular. At this point, lets compare. Secularism makes nine restrictions on the offices. Theocracy makes restrictions on only one of the offices. Therefore, Theocracy is less restrictive than Secularism as a concept.

[Ashmada]

Remember how you said that the office is intolerant of minor religions? So is secularism. The only thing that changes is that the nonbelievers switch with the people who would otherwise be the ruling religion.

Oh, come on, it's not that hard. Secular!=nonbeliever. Secular christians, secular muslims and so on not only exist, but abound! Do you really think all christians are Palins? All muslims are Ahmadinejads? Of course not!

You live in a secular society (but won't anymore if Palin&friends win), despite having a christian president. In fact, nonbelievers have absolutely no chances to be elected to the highest office in your own country, yet it's secular.


A theocracy is a country ruled by the very precepts of a specific religion, and, religion being a dogmatic animal (especially any religion interested in political power), that implies exclusivity. Being ruled by the precepts of a religion that isn't your own is oppression. Oppression isn't very tolerant .

[Yugl]

Oh, come on, it's not that hard. Secular!=nonbeliever. Secular christians, secular muslims and so on not only exist, but abound! Do you really think all christians are Palins? All muslims are Ahmadinejads? Of course not!

I just went through a whole post saying that secularism is the office not the individual, so why are you suggesting that I'm saying secular=believer? That's changing what I'm saying.

You live in a secular society (but won't anymore if Palin&friends win), despite having a christian president. In fact, nonbelievers have absolutely no chances to be elected to the highest office in your own country, yet it's secular.

Yes, and the reason it is secular is because we have no offices attributed to religion.

A theocracy is a country ruled by the very precepts of a specific religion, and, religion being a dogmatic animal (especially any religion interested in political power), that implies exclusivity. Being ruled by the precepts of a religion that isn't your own is oppression. Oppression isn't very tolerant .

This is where we disagree. If Theocracy implied anything beyond the structure of the government, one could argue that the US is a Theocracy dominated by Christianity because a lot of America's fundamental principles come from Christianity. However, given the definition of a Theocracy, we don't need to look beyond the office to see whether a country is a Theocracy. You assumed too much when you stated that the existence of a religious office implies that the doctrine of that religion (or even religions) applies to anything beyond the office itself.

[Ashmada]

...and this is where I stop getting trolled. For now.

[quannum]

because a lot of America's fundamental principles come from Christianity.

no they don't.

[Faris]

*I have to admit that there is a great and seemingly unsolvable mystery*

and that's where you fuck up, it's not unsolvable, it's just unkown. Religion is giving up looking for the answer. If humanity just gave up looking for an answer to anything that wasn't currently known, where would we be.

Dawkins put it perfectly. "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world."

This is wrong, religion as a system, gives you some answers, and instructs people to look for the rest. on a personal level, i wouldnt follow something that tells me not to think.
If God have created this brain, and he created me to develop, then anyone telling me to do otherwise and claim he is God, is a liar.
you really make us sound like we are seriously crazy, lol.