Lawsuit Over Prayer Is Settled

[shagdrum]

I'm saying that you can't know for sure so Agnosticism and morality is the most sensible out of any of them.

Agnosticism is nothing more then spiritual uncertianty at best, and an unwillingness to draw conclusions at worst.

Basically a refusal (for whatever reason) to subscribe to spiritual faith. Which is inconsistent (in a way) with the rest of human life, as faith is involved in most everything, in some fashion, and to different degrees.

 

[Mick Jagger]

I stand by my statement that the absolute seperation of church and state (or any religion or philosophy and any govt.) is an impossibility in a free society.

Jesus thought it was possible. See Matthew 22:21.

 

[Mick Jagger]

Separation of Church and State means that the government will not establish a state religion, no religious oath or test will be required to hold a public job, and laws must be neutral and not advance or discriminate against a person's choice to be religious or nonreligious what part of the Constitution can't you understand?

I thought it meant no civil authority over religion, the duty we owe to our Creator.

 

[shagdrum]

I thought it meant no civil authority over religion, the duty we owe to our Creator.

Don't you mean...

no civil authority over religion at the federal level...​

...since the Bill of rights was a restriction on Congress?

 

[KD00LS]

Agnosticism is nothing more then spiritual uncertianty at best, and an unwillingness to draw conclusions at worst.

Basically a refusal (for whatever reason) to subscribe to spiritual faith. Which is inconsistent (in a way) with the rest of human life, as faith is involved in most everything, in some fashion, and to different degrees.

I disagree, life isn't a straight line. You can have non religious faith.

 

[shagdrum]

I disagree, life isn't a straight line. You can have non religious faith.

What? that made no sense. Explain that one, please. Where does life being a straight line or not come into play? That's a confusing claim in this context.

What exactly do you mean by "non-religious faith"? Are we talking faith that the sun will rise in the morning and faith that your car will start (which is the type of faith I was alluding too)? What are we talkin about.

 

[Maxb49]

What? that made no sense. Explain that one, please. Where does life being a straight line or not come into play? That's a confusing claim in this context.

What exactly do you mean by "non-religious faith"? Are we talking faith that the sun will rise in the morning and faith that your car will start (which is the type of faith I was alluding too)? What are we talkin about.

I think he means spirituality. Those kind of people exist. They're called "libertarian religions" (not to be confused with the political doctrine) and manifest themselves in gnostic or neopagan beliefs.

 

[Mick Jagger]

Don't you mean...

no civil authority over religion at the federal level...​

I thought we were talking about religious liberty.

 

[Mick Jagger]

Don't you mean...

no civil authority over religion at the federal level...​

...since the Bill of rights was a restriction on Congress?

Did you forget about the 14th Amendment?

 

[shagdrum]

Did you forget about the 14th Amendment?

The Bill of Right as originally written, was only a restriction only on the federal government. This isn't in any way vauge, it is rather clear.

The 14th amendment didn't extend those restrictions to the states, it was distorted through the legal fiction called incorporation to do so.

Besides, my original statement was that the Bill of Rights was a restriction on Congress.

 

[shagdrum]

I think he means spirituality. Those kind of people exist. They're called "libertarian religions" (not to be confused with the political doctrine) and manifest themselves in gnostic or neopagan beliefs.

Yes, but aren't those built around non- belief? Faith is based on belief, not the inverse of belief (not believing).

 

[shagdrum]

I thought we were talking about religious liberty.

...as spelled out in the Bill of Rights, which, as originally written, only applied to the Federal government.

 

[fossten]

That's just your opinion. It means nothing.

Wrong, troll. It means more than your unresponsive posts mean. And I wasn't talking to you.

 

[KD00LS]

What? that made no sense. Explain that one, please. Where does life being a straight line or not come into play? That's a confusing claim in this context.

What exactly do you mean by "non-religious faith"? Are we talking faith that the sun will rise in the morning and faith that your car will start (which is the type of faith I was alluding too)? What are we talkin about.

That was my interpretation of you saying being agnostic in life is inconsistent, maybe I drew the wrong conclusion.

 

[shagdrum]

That was my interpretation of you saying being agnostic in life is inconsistent, maybe I drew the wrong conclusion.

Ok, I will try to clarify:
Being agnostic is a denial of spiritual faith. This goes against human nature (in a sense) as faith is inherent in everything we do, to varying degrees, because the future is unknowable to an absolute certianty. We have faith that the sun will rise tommorrow, or that our car will start when we turn the key, etc., etc.

 

[KD00LS]

Ok, I will try to clarify:
Being agnostic is a denial of spiritual faith. This goes against human nature (in a sense) as faith is inherent in everything we do, to varying degrees, because the future is unknowable to an absolute certianty. We have faith that the sun will rise tommorrow, or that our car will start when we turn the key, etc., etc.

I don't really consider it denial, more as open minded. Again that's my standpoint. I can see what you mean against faith, it's almost like a unconscious faith that things will work a certain way.

 

[Mick Jagger]

Wrong, troll. It means more than your unresponsive posts mean.

That's just your opinion. It means nothing.

 

[fossten]

I don't really consider it denial, more as open minded. Again that's my standpoint. I can see what you mean against faith, it's almost like a unconscious faith that things will work a certain way.

If you're truly open minded, then you wouldn't automatically reject evidence that supports either side. But you do reject evidence that shows that God exists. Therefore, you are not open minded.

Open mindedness also indicates a desire to resolve the truth. If there is strong or overwhelming evidence that God exists, and you ignore it, then you are in denial. I have not witnessed you demonstrating an open mind here.

 

[Mick Jagger]

The 14th amendment didn't extend those restrictions to the states

Tell us why you think you're qualified to interpret the 14th Amendment.

 

[Mick Jagger]

If you're truly open minded, then you wouldn't automatically reject evidence that supports either side. But you do reject evidence that shows that God exists. Therefore, you are not open minded.

Open mindedness also indicates a desire to resolve the truth. If there is strong or overwhelming evidence that God exists, and you ignore it, then you are in denial. I have not witnessed you demonstrating an open mind here.

That's just your opinion. It means nothing.

 

[fossten]

That's just your opinion. It means nothing.

Bak. Derk-derk-Allah. Derka derka, Mohammed Jihad. Haka sherpa-sherpa. Abaka-la.

 

[Mick Jagger]

That's just your opinion. It means nothing.

 

[shagdrum]

Bak. Derk-derk-Allah. Derka derka, Mohammed Jihad. Haka sherpa-sherpa. Abaka-la.

Yeah, Team America was hilarious!!

 

[KD00LS]

If you're truly open minded, then you wouldn't automatically reject evidence that supports either side. But you do reject evidence that shows that God exists. Therefore, you are not open minded.

Open mindedness also indicates a desire to resolve the truth. If there is strong or overwhelming evidence that God exists, and you ignore it, then you are in denial. I have not witnessed you demonstrating an open mind here.

Well in being openminded I don't believe in "sides." Like I said I think language gets in the way alot. You might think there is strong or overwhelming evidence, and that is your interpretation of it. I consider it a possibility. What you're doing is imposing your faith as if it's the truth. I don't know any biblical references or sermons. I base all of my decisions off of every day life. I respect your faith and opinion, I just haven't seen enough evidence in either direction to be fully convinced. I'm not denying anything, I've just yet to see what I need to see to be convinced, regardless direction.

 

[fossten]

Well in being openminded I don't believe in "sides." Like I said I think language gets in the way alot. You might think there is strong or overwhelming evidence, and that is your interpretation of it. I consider it a possibility. What you're doing is imposing your faith as if it's the truth. I don't know any biblical references or sermons. I base all of my decisions off of every day life. I respect your faith and opinion, I just haven't seen enough evidence in either direction to be fully convinced. I'm not denying anything, I've just yet to see what I need to see to be convinced, regardless direction.

Are you saying that if I offer you evidence, you will consider it as evidence and evaluate it accordingly, rather than reject it out of hand?