Is seeing believing?

[Morkeliph]

Perhaps the biggest controversy between science and religion is the concept of faith vs. evidence. Science, at least any valid science, stands upon the foundation of concrete and measurable evidence, especially those that explain causal relationships. Studies that do not supply ample tangible evidence for their conclusions are generally disregarded as non-empirical and invalid. Only when they can supply tangibility will they be taken seriously. In this sense, science declares that "seeing is believing."

Religion, particularly Christianity, Judaism and Islam, focus on the principle of faith: trusting in something despite the lack of concrete evidence. To supporters of religion, this is nobler than believing because of tangible evidence (in this way, some "sciences" or more like religions than an actual science, but that is another topic (http://www.warboards.org/showthread.php?t=12496)). In fact, it is considered a weakness, and even a sin to seek tangible evidence from diety before you will believe in him; commonly called "sign-seeking."

So which one is it? Which is greater? Is it better to believe in the concrete and tangible, or is faith the way to go? Tell us what you think, and please be courteous of others' opinions. There is nothing I despise more that the hypocrisy of professing tolerance by accusing others of intolerance. What is needed is mutual tolerance.

[GenocideAlive]

Perhaps the biggest controversy between science and religion is the concept of faith vs. evidence.
There is no controversy between science and religion. There is accepted science, and there is accepted religion; both formed by interested, qualified parties to modify and update their field. The only time the two meet is when religions want to remove what is accepted science or at least prevent accepted science from being propogated because it conflicts with their beliefs.

[Xenon]

Knowledge is the death of faith.

[killer-penguin]

Knowledge is the death of faith.

Couldn't have said it better. To reference a movie: In Constantine, Michael (I think thats his first name) Constantine fights to keep the balance between heaven and hell. He KNOWS that they exist, yet he will never be permitted into heaven because as Gabriel states:

*Michael: bla bla I BELIEVE IN GOD
*Gabriel: 'You don't believe in God's existence, you KNOW he exists.

Mork I like how you brought in another SD thread into this :-).

I consider faith a neccesary part of many people's lives. Everyone needs something to believe in, whether it is something Tangible, something proven (my spelling today is horrible its late and I'm hammered.) or something in which one must stretch the imagination to believe in. Religion does a good job of aiding people in living a 'better life' in having a 'purpose.'

I'm not here to argue the existence of any one god or whether faith itself is futile. But I will say that everyone needs at least some type of purpose. And a lot of the time it is religion that gives them one. The purpose being to go to heaven, or in the case of some religions be reincarnated.

[kongurous]

Religion, particularly Christianity, Judaism and Islam, focus on the principle of faith

All religions follow the "principle of faith". Religion is the belief in a diety, those dieties having supernatural powers that cannot be explained. So don't point out three religions, in a sea of the same thing, just different gods. Besides that, I think there should be another option for those who don't care.

[william_clinch]

Knowledge is the death of faith.
I dissagree, knoledge and faith can be compleatly independant of each other, just as some stupid people do and dont have faith, people with vast amounts of knoledge do and dont have faith. As it is impossible to either prove or disprove the existance of God, all that is left is faith.
With science, it takes hundreds of peices of evidence to prove a theory, but it can take just one to prove the theory wrong, and scientific theroys are being reassessed and changed all the time.
And seeing isn't always beleiveing, as evidence can be misinterpreted

I vote for both :D

"and does it matter if you beleive in God, if he doesn't beleive in you?"

[Trotters]

Personally I'm Christian, but even Reverends have their doubts, problem is with local society, their's believers and athiests, the athiests are always fighting saying their's no such thing as god, and the believers will always say their is.

Their's "proof" to both, Christians for example, have miracles that happen, personally I believe most of them exist, but athiests as well have their facts.

The main point, no body's going to change religions, well acctually, some might, athiests believers and believers to athiests, I personally will keep praying to god, and worshiping, you might personally keep writing these articles about how god doesn't exist, but eventually we will all see. ;)

[The_Maker]

There is no controversy between science and religion...
Not exactly true, if you watch those Discovery Channel shows about the Universe and they have "Highly Trained and Qualified Experts" come in and do an interview, many of them will say "There's no proof" when refering to say Christianity for example. The Christian belief in plain and simple, to put it in a nutshell (and not bore you with all the details) it goes like this...

God always existed, from the begining Scientists have a problem with this because there is no 'proof' he always has been and always will be Again more "evidence" problems since we all know nothing lasts forever , If you believe in him and let him be the main purpose of your life then you will go to heaven for eternity, if not you are sent to Hell for eternity. And yet still more proof problems, "highly qualified experts" have found no evidence of alternate dimensions so how can Christians say there is a heaven and hell? Because we believe in it, thats how.

In one of my religous classes, the teacher gave a a sentence to memorize, "Religion is not the hope that something exists, it is knowing that it exists".
(In this case "it" refers to God)

Just my input though, I am not saying Christianity is right and everyone else is wrong, or that Scientists are awrong and we are all going to Hell for our sins.

[GenocideAlive]

Not exactly true, if you watch those Discovery Channel shows about the Universe and they have "Highly Trained and Qualified Experts" come in and do an interview, many of them will say "There's no proof" when refering to say Christianity for example.
To be honest, I'm having a lot of trouble understanding what this mess of a sentence is supposed to mean. No, science does not recognize Christianity as having any validity; furthermore, they do not recognize ANY religion as having validity except in various historical contexts. I'm not sure when the TV began to wholly or in part credibly represent the conglomerate understanding of science. Additionally, the contention of science that religions are bunk doesn't really strike me as an attack on Christianity--but then it's not too hard to figure out your religion and why you're even posting here.

That you decided to go off on a tangent of "what Christians believe" is further evidence that you have little idea as to what this thread is about.

[Prozerran]

I believe both science and religion have merit in their own respects. I agree with GenocideAlive though that the two aren't in controversy anymore than two parents arguing over how to raise their children. Insofar as science and religion are concerned, the only controversies generated from these two areas of study aren't self-originated. Meaning, in short, without the human need for one or the other to be correct, the two have nothing to do with one another. At all. Period. Apples and Oranges folks.

So, I can rely on science for everything that science can offer my perspective and believe in God. The two only work in harmony if you can distinguish between the value people place on one or the other in their own lives and reach a philosophical stability you can live by. This can only be attained through personal experience and will invariably differ from one individual to the next. The only reason for controversy really comes down to the value people place on each, the merit they give to each, and the merit they place on someone else's point of view. To assert one or the other as true, right, or wrong is foolish, misdirected, and utterly pointless. The point of arguing the viability of science or religion is a personal pursuit and should be nothing more.

Which brings me to organized religion, which would seem to be the bane of my argument that you can prescribe to both science and religion. While the community structure of like-minded individuals has merit, I don't believe it appropriate to ostracize someone of similar moral structure from said community because they don't take the Bible, word for word, as a code of conduct. Similarly, I don't subscribe to the notion that Atheism has much more merit than the Christian Right-wing propaganda spread around the media by such noteables as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. These people seem to be nothing more than sensationalists, taking advantage of the fragile development of moral structure in people's lives. The same can be said for those that argue "One Nation under God" is unconstitutional.

And come on, Tom Cruise and scientology? Katie Holmes can do better! Hell, I'd do her. Oh, Nicole Kidman's getting naked on television. Nice.

[Morkeliph]

All religions follow the "principle of faith". Religion is the belief in a diety, those dieties having supernatural powers that cannot be explained. So don't point out three religions, in a sea of the same thing, just different gods. Besides that, I think there should be another option for those who don't care. That really depends on your definition of religion. As I understand it, there are sects of Buddhism (spelling?) that do not believe in diety but practice meditation as a form of enlightenment. This could be faith, or it could be "psychology," depending how you look at it. Consider Confucius and Taoism also. These are not your typical diety-worshipping religions. I'm sure there are many religions that do not fit under quite the same "faith-category" as the 3 I mentioned, and I mentioned these three as examples.

Secondly, if you don't even care about the topic, why are you posting in this thread other than to raise your post count?

[Modred]

Drat, and I was hoping this would be about quantum physics. Anyway, seeing is not believing, because your brain see's what it expects to see until you see an anomolous sight enough for your brain to comprehend what your eyes see. When imagining an object, the same neurons fire in your brain as when you actually see that object. So, can you see what is real every time you look? Unlikely. Plus, the brain can only comprehend so many hundred thousand images per second, but your eyes take in a constant stream that could involve millions of images. Not that many things we know of move that fast, but this creates a gap between what probably exists and what we are able to observe.

[GenocideAlive]

Similarly, I don't subscribe to the notion that Atheism has much more merit than the Christian Right-wing propaganda spread around the media by such noteables as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. These people seem to be nothing more than sensationalists, taking advantage of the fragile development of moral structure in people's lives. The same can be said for those that argue "One Nation under God" is unconstitutional.
I liked your first paragraph and bits and pieces of the second and third insomuch as the community aspect of religion being vital to the religion itself. There's a lot that I could say there about how eventually the community gains the power to supercede its religious directives, but it'd be off-topic.

On-topic, I'm attempting to ascertain the meaning behind your later statements. According to you, if someone doesn't believe in a god, they're just as bad as right-wing sensationalists? And hearing "one nation under God" during a pledge of allegiance to America as unnecessary and offensive makes them bad? I wonder if you would be soured if you had to say "one nation under Kali". No "god" has anything to do with a citizen's allegiance to the United States.

Seriously though, if my kid is ever forced to say that shit at risk of punishment, I'll pull him out of the school and sue it to the Stone Age. I swear before anything sacred that I'll die before I'll let some fucking Big Brother government start subtly forcing their religion down my family's throat. Religion is a personal choice; it has no place in schools or in government buildings.

[Prozerran]

Here's the thing. Obviously, no one should ever be forced to recite something they do not believe. I don't believe it even justifies the cost in time, manpower, and finances to have the Supreme Court spend the time to decide on whether or not the words "one nation under God" is a constitutional issue.

In my case, I don't pray in public. That may be why I don't side on the Athiest viewpoint. When people say prayer at the table, I listen but don't acknowledge it in any way. I value time for prayer, but I only pray in private. I do not stand up at the table and say, "this isn't right. I don't want to pray at the table, and it makes me uncomfortable to be here when you are praying." I tolerate it.

In the case involving prayer in public school, from what I understand, this child was not being threatened with punishment for not reciting the pledge of allegiance. His mother was upset that he was being exposed to Christian "propaganda." They took that all the way to the Supreme Court when I think it could have been remedied by tolerance and understanding. At most, the teacher should not have addressed the child in a way that set him apart from the other students. The mother should have used the situation as a lesson that people are free to believe what they will. The two of them could have created a much better situation and set a different standard for child growth and development.

At some point, that child will be exposed to Christian Propaganda on a daily basis. What will he do? File a law suit? What kind of precedent does it set? Now we have people arguing over the sculpture of the Ten Commandments at an Atlanta (?) courthouse. A fucking sculpture. Come on!?

I don't place any sort of importance on the notion that these "religious" expressions in public are somehow infringing on someone's rights. I think it's absurd. Now, if kids were reciting the Apostle's Creed in public school, that might be something I would agree is inappropriate. "One Nation Under God" does not, to me, infringe on the religious right of anyone, child or adult. Like you said, replace "God" with "Kali" and there you have it.

Which takes me back to the balance of value placed on science and religion. Valuing one while actively opposing the other is where we get into trouble. People argue that the two are at odds, but it comes back to that person who doesn't tolerate the prayer at the kitchen table. It's foolish.

[Morkeliph]

I think that perhaps we're missing the point. I did not mean to suggest that science and religion can not coexist peacably and even support one another. However, there is a difference in the philosophy of science, and the philosophy of religion. A scientist must rely on hard evidence in order to construct a scientific theory or law. Religion rejects the necessity for hard facts and even suggests that believing without tangible proof is more noble than relying only upon the directly observable.

Leaving any presumptions of what is correct for society, which philosophy do you adhere to? Which practice holds more correct for you, and why?

Once again, please be considerate of others. There is nothing I despise more that the hypocrisy of professing tolerance by accusing others of intolerance. What is needed is mutual tolerance.That's right, I'm quoting myself and proud of it.

[Prozerran]

But, what if we want to acknowledge both? Doesn't seem very fair.

[Morkeliph]

Then acknowledge both, but surely you adhere to one in some contexts and not the other. Explain to us why and in which contexts.

[GenocideAlive]

When people say prayer at the table, I listen but don't acknowledge it in any way. I value time for prayer, but I only pray in private. I do not stand up at the table and say, "this isn't right. I don't want to pray at the table, and it makes me uncomfortable to be here when you are praying." I tolerate it.
I don't pray, and if I believe something contrary to the prayer then I'm pretty much listening to something that I consider blasphemy. I shouldn't have to listen to "blasphemy" endorsed in public buildings. Why? Because it's disrespectful to my religion and any time the government allows something in public places, it is by proxy endorsing its use in public places. Would you want people around you to join in a prayer of "Our Father Satan" once a day and to see a picture of Mephisto outside a judge's window? Would you stay silent for that? I think not.

Your comments regarding a sculpture of Christian artifacts are equally blind. If they were depictions of Christ in S&M no-butt leather jeans and hitting on some guy, you'd be offended and want it taken down immediately. But since it's an artifact endorsing your religion, it's UNBELIEVEABLE that anybody would ever find something so simple as a SCULPTURE offensive. And don't tell me the state doesn't endorse it; the state paid for it.

You, like many others, fall back on your opinion and religion as a basis for what you believe the legal system should represent. Instead, try thinking of someone that ISN'T like you and DOESN'T believe the same things you do. Try to think of a situation in which people couldn't get offended by government-endorsed items; you'll eventually conclude "WELLL GEEEE THEN NUTHING IS GUD! PPLZ GET OFFFENDED BY EVERTYHING!1!1" Exactly. Nothing is good.

[Prozerran]

I don't pray, and if I believe something contrary to the prayer then I'm pretty much listening to something that I consider blasphemy. I shouldn't have to listen to "blasphemy" endorsed in public buildings. Why? Because it's disrespectful to my religion and any time the government allows something in public places, it is by proxy endorsing its use in public places. Would you want people around you to join in a prayer of "Our Father Satan" once a day and to see a picture of Mephisto outside a judge's window? Would you stay silent for that? I think not.

Your comments regarding a sculpture of Christian artifacts are equally blind. If they were depictions of Christ in S&M no-butt leather jeans and hitting on some guy, you'd be offended and want it taken down immediately. But since it's an artifact endorsing your religion, it's UNBELIEVEABLE that anybody would ever find something so simple as a SCULPTURE offensive. And don't tell me the state doesn't endorse it; the state paid for it.

You, like many others, fall back on your opinion and religion as a basis for what you believe the legal system should represent. Instead, try thinking of someone that ISN'T like you and DOESN'T believe the same things you do. Try to think of a situation in which people couldn't get offended by government-endorsed items; you'll eventually conclude "WELLL GEEEE THEN NUTHING IS GUD! PPLZ GET OFFFENDED BY EVERTYHING!1!1" Exactly. Nothing is good.

I've heard this argument too many times. Ugh...

Ok, the pledge of allegiance is not a "prayer". The phrase, "One Nation Under God," is the only material found objectionable. I'd say in a pledge of 33 words with one word offering some reference of allegiance to a higher power than our government, that's not infringing on anyone's rights. If you don't believe in a higher power, there's nothing wrong with that. No one should chastize you for what you believe. No one should force you to say those words if you do not want to.

At the same time though, there's a line to be drawn. If a witch-hunt is to begin for everything religious in government, then you'll eventually find flaws in everything government and we will discover the vast imperfections in the basis for our government. It's not that Christianity is out to get you in these things, it's just how our government developed from a puritan society.

You see, that you're not a Christian really sucks when it comes to the government, because that government was founded by a group of people who prescribed to said religion. There are traditions buried within that system by those people, like our pledge of allegiance, and are we to just omit its content because those who do not prescribe to a nation "under God" cannot stand to hear those words?

Those people that complain about such imperfections tend to breed just as much intolerance as Christians do. It's a fundamental problem of value in this society, not an issue of Science vs Religion. What we need is more tolerance. Everyone needs a chill-pill, yeah?

Intolerance + Intolerance = .... Intolerance

[Morkeliph]

I have to agree. Not everything religious present in our government is some secret plot to impose on your belief system, but it is the result of historical circumstance. That being as it is, I can see where non-Christians come from when they argue that such things are not necessary today. It may be that our country was staunchly Christian, but if the state of our country is different today, then government should be adapted to meet the new requirements. I support the majority rules paradigm that we run under. I think that if the people want "Under God" in their pledge, they should have it; if not, then remove it. If it is a minority of citizens that want things a certain way then I'm afraid that just sucks to be them, move somewhere else where your opinions are shared by others. Yeah, that's pretty harsh and unfair in some ways, but that's the kind of world we live in and I think it's foolishness to pretend it's not.

That being said, I think we've strayed off topic again; this is not a thread discussing the seperation of church and state. Refer back to earlier posts. Let's discuss what philosophy of knowledge you prescribe to: faith or empiricism. I understand, of course, that your opinions of what is correct carry over into application to society, but we're discussing the philosophy you prescribe to, not what everyone should prescribe to.Those people that complain about such imperfections tend to breed just as much intolerance as Christians do[...]What we need is more tolerance[...]Intolerance + Intolerance = .... IntoleranceHow many times have I tried to say this?

[Prozerran]

I have to agree. Not everything religious present in our government is some secret plot to impose on your belief system, but it is the result of historical circumstance. That being as it is, I can see where non-Christians come from when they argue that such things are not necessary today. It may be that our country was staunchly Christian, but if the state of our country is different today, then government should be adapted to meet the new requirements. I support the majority rules paradigm that we run under. I think that if the people want "Under God" in their pledge, they should have it; if not, then remove it. If it is a minority of citizens that want things a certain way then I'm afraid that just sucks to be them, move somewhere else where your opinions are shared by others. Yeah, that's pretty harsh and unfair in some ways, but that's the kind of world we live in and I think it's foolishness to pretend it's not.

You want us to stay on topic, but unfortunately, we're right on topic. The problem is that without the human need for absolute truth, science and religion co-exist in harmony. Just as you're asking "which one do you prescribe to more," and etc.. that's exactly what we should not be doing. Drawing lines and drawing comparisons and trying to come up with who believes what is just a waste of time. Science and Religion don't have one thing to do with the other. All you're asking is who likes apples and who likes oranges. I like both.

How many times have I tried to say this?

The entire point of this thread is on a very thin line of not saying it at all. I'm saying that tolerance of people's beliefs goes much further than trying to compare them like they are related in some way. Science and Religion have nothing to do with one another. To ask people "which is it?" is asking them to make a choice between the two when they can feasibly choose both. You're creating a choice that isn't necessarily a choice. Does that make any sense to you?

[GenocideAlive]

You see, that you're not a Christian really sucks when it comes to the government, because that government was founded by a group of people who prescribed to said religion. There are traditions buried within that system by those people, like our pledge of allegiance, and are we to just omit its content because those who do not prescribe to a nation "under God" cannot stand to hear those words?
I've heard this a number of times, and sadly, it's Christian propaganda. Most of the founding fathers were either Aethists or Deists, which means they either didn't believe in God or believed that God had created the Earth and left it to its own designs. By modern day standards, they would be more Jewish than they would be Christian, maybe you should read up on that.

And I never contended that the Pledge of Allegiance was a prayer; I went out of my way to say "the 'one nation' phrase". You put those words in my mouth because without that kind of flaw, your argument is seriously lacking. Nobody is saying the Pledge of Allegiance needs to be changed, they just want two words omitted; there's no non-Christian reason to not do that. And as far as a "witch-hunt" for all things Christian in the government, I honestly don't know what to do about it. But whenever someone is sworn in, I can't help but feel exasperated at the ridiculousness of an Aethist swearing in "by God". It's just totally inappropriate both in meaning and application; what does that change?
You want us to stay on topic, but unfortunately, we're right on topic. The problem is that without the human need for absolute truth, science and religion co-exist in harmony. Just as you're asking "which one do you prescribe to more," and etc.. that's exactly what we should not be doing. Drawing lines and drawing comparisons and trying to come up with who believes what is just a waste of time.
Word. When he says "we're not on topic", what he means is that he doesn't find what we're discussing interesting and he'd rather see debate on something else. Tough titty.

[Prozerran]

And I never contended that the Pledge of Allegiance was a prayer; I went out of my way to say "the 'one nation' phrase". You put those words in my mouth because without that kind of flaw, your argument is seriously lacking. Nobody is saying the Pledge of Allegiance needs to be changed, they just want two words omitted; there's no non-Christian reason to not do that. And as far as a "witch-hunt" for all things Christian in the government, I honestly don't know what to do about it. But whenever someone is sworn in, I can't help but feel exasperated at the ridiculousness of an Aethist swearing in "by God". It's just totally inappropriate both in meaning and application; what does that change?

I never said you called the Pledge of Allegiance a prayer. I can see where you could have gotten that implication though, so let me clear that up.

The general debate of that statement in the Pledge of Allegiance came about from the issue of Prayer in School. I never agreed with prayer in school, I never thought it was appropriate, and I'm glad it has been dealt with.

The problem with "anti-christianization" in the government, at least where I'm concerned, is mostly if not entirely in the Judicial branch, as many of the laws are established through the established morality set forth in Christianity from the creation of that body of government years ago. I concede, changes should be made. But I do not agree with making changes to tradition that are without true relevance to the function of the establishment. In short, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it is broke, fix what needs to be fixed and leave everything else alone.

As I said before, it's a very thin line between imposition and intolerance. We must be careful when walking that line, not to look for things that are of discriminatory significance. If an Athiest wants to put a symbol of humanism in the lobby of the supreme court, I say let them. Hell, they put the lady of blind justice in almost every courtroom in the world, and all she wears is a single sheet... and a blindfold... hmm... you know, that's pretty kinky. Anyone else agree?

[GenocideAlive]

I'm not into Anti-Christianization, but I am into de-Christianization. At some point some people got together and decided certain things should be made Christian that ultimately weren't such a good idea. Get rid of it.

But in the context of whether or not some imitation of Michealangelo's Sistine Chapel is there, I don't particularly care. Sure the topic is Christian and all that, but I kind of like it, actually. If someone got offended at it, I'd sort of wonder what they see as offensive, but can I really say that they have "no right" to be offended? I dunno. :/

[Morkeliph]

You want us to stay on topic, but unfortunately, we're right on topic. The problem is that without the human need for absolute truth, science and religion co-exist in harmony. Just as you're asking "which one do you prescribe to more," and etc.. that's exactly what we should not be doing. Drawing lines and drawing comparisons and trying to come up with who believes what is just a waste of time. Science and Religion don't have one thing to do with the other. All you're asking is who likes apples and who likes oranges. I like both.I can see that the topic has shifted in direction but is still related. I suppose I should have been more clear in the beginning of what I meant to discuss: the pros and cons between philosphies of understanding, empiricism (only the objective and concrete) or faith ("intuition-guided" understanding). The discussion was meant to be much more philosophical in nature: why objective evidence is or is not important to understanding.

Anyway, seeing as the discussion has shifted into another, functional topic, I don't mean to divert it back; I can always try again with a new thread if I want. Instead, as I know you will anyway, let's continue to discuss the issue of tolerance and seperation of church and state.

The entire point of this thread is on a very thin line of not saying it at all. I'm saying that tolerance of people's beliefs goes much further than trying to compare them like they are related in some way. Science and Religion have nothing to do with one another. To ask people "which is it?" is asking them to make a choice between the two when they can feasibly choose both. You're creating a choice that isn't necessarily a choice. Does that make any sense to you?I think you misunderstood my point. I was agreeing with you that intolerance breeds intolerance. As I have tried to explain earlier, tolerance must be a mutual operation to function. While Christians may seem intolerant of other religious views or atheism, non-Christians are being intolerant of Christianity when they attack it. Hence both parties are intolerant and the end result is wide-spread intolerance. What is needed is for both parties to mutually tolerate the existence and practice of the other, without attempting to change each other's practices and without taking offense when contrasting arguments are presented. This is what I mean my mutual tolerance, mutually tolerating each others perspectives without denouncing them. Perhaps this is another unachievable ideal.

As for the seperation of church and state, I believe that the two should be seperated. If that means removing the phrase "under God" from the pledge, or not posting the Ten Commandments at a courthouse, then so be it. Let Christians and atheists practice their respective philosophies privately, but the government should avoid appearing to favor one side over another. This also goes for posting Jewish or Islamic or whatever religious doctrines, including atheism. The government should not be a religious institution, that's why we have churches to begin with. I don't think that atheists find the Ten Commandments themselves, or "under God" itself to be offensive, but the unequal representation by governmental agencies is offensive.

[Prozerran]

As for the seperation of church and state, I believe that the two should be seperated. If that means removing the phrase "under God" from the pledge, or not posting the Ten Commandments at a courthouse, then so be it. Let Christians and atheists practice their respective philosophies privately, but the government should avoid appearing to favor one side over another. This also goes for posting Jewish or Islamic or whatever religious doctrines, including atheism. The government should not be a religious institution, that's why we have churches to begin with. I don't think that atheists find the Ten Commandments themselves, or "under God" itself to be offensive, but the unequal representation by governmental agencies is offensive.

The problem though is allowing Christians and Athiests to practice their respective philosophies privately... and this might set some off... but the key word in this statement is "practice."

Philosophy is a state of mind, not a practice. A practice is an act, and acting on one's philosophy is not necessarily the same as assuming or adhering to a philosophy.

The lynchpin is this...

Christians actively announce their doctrine. This is at the heart of the King James Christian movement - not a historical reference, but for purposes of this discussion, a key factor (and the major contributing factor to why I whole-heartedly denounce organized religion). I'll return to this.

Athiests actively denounce Christian doctrine. This is a reverberation of Christian doctrine, as the effects are seen as evangelism increases. The theory being, the more influence Christian doctrine has, the stronger the Athiest's position. So, the two necessitate each other. The only difference aside from the glaringly obvious one, is that Athieism is reverberative of all religious influence in Government. This would just as easily apply to Islam.

Returning to the matter at hand, these two "entities" manifest each other by influence. Athiests have influence because they call out Christian doctrine in government, and Christians side on the tradition of Religion that was here when our government was founded.

Now, let's take this to an extreme just to see the extent of potential influence these two entities have. Our laws are based on basic moral principles we all accept to be inalienable rights. Most of them are common of all religions, but there are exceptions (i.e. the islamic view of women in society, etc...). There is an underlying moral fabric in the structure of our laws that can be credited to religion, a tradition that appeals to the better person inside each and everyone; or, as a societal standard, an expectation of every person to live by that standard.

Now, removing religion entirely from government (and some will disagree with me) ultimately ends up removing any moral obligation the government has to respect our rights as free men and women. That begs the question, how does removing religion from government remove morality? In the simplest sense of the word, you can view it as a semantic argument, but if we ask what religion is, or what is the funadamental, undeniable element in any religion, we get one answer. Morality.

Some would argue that religion does not necessitate morality. I argue that morality is religion, just the fundamental form. So, in separating church from state, it should be done with care that we do not alienate morality in the process. We tend to do that when we make broad laws for or against abortion, stem-cell research, and homosexual marraige and the like when we don't take into account what our expectations are for one another in society.

Now, obviously, it is more extreme cases that I refer to. Are we in danger of losing the moral fabric of our society? No, not in our lifetimes. But the risk is there and I don't see anyone really addressing that objectively. They tend to side for or against something without understanding the context or the significance of precedence in those decisions. Doesn't anyone ever wonder why court cases are decided on rules that date back over 100 years? Really, precedence is one of the quintessential elements of our government... and religion, like it or not, has been playing a hand in it for as long as it has existed.

[GenocideAlive]

Athiests actively denounce Christian doctrine. This is a reverberation of Christian doctrine, as the effects are seen as evangelism increases.
Wrong, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

I know plenty of Aethists who think their role in life is to bash the brainless sheep Christians, just like I know plenty of Christians who think that their role in life is to convert the heathen Aethists; however, that does NOT define the category. A suicide bomber isn't the quintessential Islamic believer any more than a Christian abortion sniper composes the standard Christian.

I spend a good part of my time in American Aethist discussion-boards trying to get some of the more rabid aethists to find peace with their beliefs. As in, aethism is a belief structure itself, not an anti-Christian stance. Opposing Aethism and Christianity IMO lowers Aethism--it's not the non-Satanist anti-Christian group, it's a group that simply believes that things have come to pass without the influence of fantasy beings.

So please don't propegate a stereotype on what Aethists believe when you aren't even an Aethist; not all Aethists are 15-year-olds mad at their parents and trying to lash out. Most are just people around the world that don't believe in what they're told about whatever mainstream religion around them for one reason or another.

[Prozerran]

Wrong, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

I know plenty of Aethists who think their role in life is to bash the brainless sheep Christians, just like I know plenty of Christians who think that their role in life is to convert the heathen Aethists; however, that does NOT define the category. A suicide bomber isn't the quintessential Islamic believer any more than a Christian abortion sniper composes the standard Christian.

You have a very bad habit of reading to a certain point in someone's post and lashing out before putting such statements into context.

The only difference aside from the glaringly obvious one, is that Athieism is reverberative of all religious influence in Government. This would just as easily apply to Islam.

Had you read further, you would have hopefully figured out that without a religion (or anything in general that points to a higher power at work), there would be no point in calling it Atheism. It would just be coming to terms with living, like you so eloquently pointed out. Debating over the definition of Atheism is entirely beyond the point of this discussion. While using Atheism as an example, I could've just as easily used the scientific community, or any such group of "objective and concrete" philosophical views.

Let's argue the origins of Atheism, where Christianity and other religions fit in, etc... in another thread. As to the topic at hand, I should go ahead and point out that my previous post was illustrating the thin line of influence between Faith and Empiricism on Government and why controversy between the two is a double-edged sword. If you had any thoughts on the actual topic, it'd be nice to hear those.

[GenocideAlive]

Had you read further, you would have hopefully figured out that without a religion (or anything in general that points to a higher power at work), there would be no point in calling it Atheism. It would just be coming to terms with living, like you so eloquently pointed out. Debating over the definition of Atheism is entirely beyond the point of this discussion. While using Atheism as an example, I could've just as easily used the scientific community, or any such group of "objective and concrete" philosophical views.
You're making very subtle remarks about aethism that reek of uninformed stereotypism for purposes of furthering your viewpoint. Saying that without religion there would be no aethism is going nowhere and just a pointless meandering that had nothing to do with your previous post. Equating aethism to science is pretty baseless as well, considering that aethism is an existing form of religious denomination--trying to equate aethism to empiricism is so uninformed it's painful...either pull something halfway believeable out of your butt or just admit error.

[Neo]

Uhm, so are you saying that all aethiests are now immoral? People who don't practice Christianity are immoral?

I dont really understand this. You bring a this arguement of morality, yet make it sound like if you arent "with us" then theirs no way you could be "like us" or some such.

Excuse me, but I may not be a Christian, or for that matter an Athiest, but I am certainly not an immoral (is that amoral?) individual. Niether is my Brother or my Mother. I find it offensive to think that you believe Religon IS Morality.

Its very possible to not believe in ANYTHING, Athiesm, Christianity, or anything, and still be a good person, with good morals.

And why is it that topics somehow end up circling back towards religious debates? :/ I thought this topic might end up a good one, instead it somehow ended up as another religious arguement.

-Neo

[Prozerran]

Time to clear some things up:

GenocideAlive: Atheism, albeit a belief that no "God" exists, is still just as much a "belief". Morality is fundamentally at the origin of each and every religion. If you adhere to any moral code, you are religious as you have some faith in the morality of your decisions. For all intensive purposes, Atheism is just as much a "religion" in this context as Christianity or Islam.

NeoX: It was never implied or suggested that Atheists have no morality. See Above Response to GenocideAlive.

This is why this poll sucks. In order to actually explain why this comparison doesn't work, you need examples of religion (faith) and examples of empiricism (concrete objectivity). If you try to compare them, it just doesn't work. It is very possible that we naturally subscribe to both views. We can trust in something we may not know to any certainty, and we can simultaneously disregard something we cannot prove to any certainty. These two philosophical views can and do work in harmony.

[GenocideAlive]

Atheism, albeit a belief that no "God" exists, is still just as much a "belief". Morality is fundamentally at the origin of each and every religion. If you adhere to any moral code, you are religious as you have some faith in the morality of your decisions. For all intensive purposes, Atheism is just as much a "religion" in this context as Christianity or Islam.
I love the way you work out Logic in your threads. You always start with something inherently obvious, then switch over to something completely unrelated and nonsensical.

"First, everyone knows that white light actually divides into multiple different colors which constitute its makeup. Obviously, this means that since the light is hitting the moon and the moon reflects that light, there must be Martians on Saturn and being gay means you like white chocolate."

Let's give you a basic refresher on Logic:
Religion is constituted of morals.
Morals constitutes a religion.

In more basic terms:
The number four is made up of four ones.
The number one means the number four.

In summary, stop raping Logic so you can justify your view on religion.

[Prozerran]

In summary, stop raping Logic so you can justify your view on religion.Look, this is really, really simple.

Christianity is a belief that a God Exists.
Atheism is a belief that a God does not Exist.
God cannot be proven to Exist.
God cannot be proven not to Exist.
Therefore, Christianity is based on Faith.
Therefore, Atheism is based on Faith.

Now, obviously your objection to this is that Atheism is based on concrete evidence, and because God cannot be proven to exist, He must not exist. However blind an Atheist would consider a Christian to be because of their faith is matched by the reasoning that because God cannot be proven to exist, He doesn't. Be it faith in God, or faith in the truth of your perception, there's no way to prove it either way.

[Morkeliph]

This is why this poll sucks. In order to actually explain why this comparison doesn't work, you need examples of religion (faith) and examples of empiricism (concrete objectivity).The point in making the poll this way was to force people to make a decision and take a stance rather than sitting on the fence. It's sort of the concept of being either hot or cold, but not lukewarm. Granted, most people probably subsribe to both at different times, but as I stated before, the original intent of the thread was to initiate a discussion on the strengths and weaknesses of both philosophies.Let's give you a basic refresher on Logic:
Religion is constituted of morals.
Morals constitutes a religion.Where do the morals come from? I believe that morals are the results of personal interpretations of perceived facts. In other words, the doctrines of a religion are what imply its related morality. In that sense, the "doctrines" of atheism also have potential for moral implications of a different kind. So as to avoid this sort of semantic argument in future posts, let's address this issue now. Perhaps the problem arises from two valid but contrasting definitions of "religion." Even Webster reflects this problem:RELIGION
1 b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious (http://www.webster.com/dictionary/religious) faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious (http://www.webster.com/dictionary/religious) attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS (http://www.webster.com/dictionary/conscientiousness)
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
See, you're both right depending on which definition you are using. It would seem that GenocideAlive subsribes more to definition 1b, and Prozerran to definition 4. According to "Mr. Webster," you're both correct, but before this discussion can make any real progress, the issue of semantics must be resolved and we ought to agree upon which definition we are referring to.

Edit: (By definition 1b, I would argue that psychology is a religion because it adheres to the belief in the supernatural phenomenon of "the mind," but that is off-topic and a different discussion.)

[GenocideAlive]

Look, this is really, really simple.
Well, at least on that we can agree.
Christianity is a belief that a God Exists.
Atheism is a belief that a God does not Exist.
God cannot be proven to Exist.
God cannot be proven not to Exist.
Therefore, Christianity is based on Faith.
Therefore, Atheism is based on Faith.
Um, no. Atheism is a belief based on that neither a god nor gods exist. It's a total lack of faith in any of the above. Atheism isn't like Christianity at all; it doesn't state that THERE IS NO GOD, it simply states that we do not believe there is one. Christianity states THERE IS A GOD, and those that do not believe in god are incorrect. Atheists simply do not think so; it's our opinion. By virtue of our belief, most recognize that others may think differently. That we do not believe in any god or gods doesn't mean that we believe it to be the ultimate truth. It simply means that for one reason or another, we do not believe.

Attempting to say that we have "faith" in our decisions is a total bastardization of the word in the initial context in which you used it. There is a big difference between having faith that my car will start and having faith that j. c. is ressurected and coming for me. You are trying to equate the two so that you can assign the flaws of one to the flaws of the other. It's simply not applicable.

[Prozerran]

That we do not believe in any god or gods doesn't mean that we believe it to be the ultimate truth. It simply means that for one reason or another, we do not believe.

This seems to be more of an Agnostic principle rather than an Atheist viewpoint. GenocideAlive, please explain what you see as the difference between your belief and that of an Agnostic so I'm clear on where you're coming from.

As for the rest of your post, I see what you're saying about my argument, but that's more or less coming from a semantic issue in the definition of Religion. I wasn't trying to even make this a "Christian vs Atheist" discussion, I was hoping we could stay within the context of Church and State, but now I'm going to have to go back and figure out what got us here.

[GenocideAlive]

This seems to be more of an Agnostic principle rather than an Atheist viewpoint. GenocideAlive, please explain what you see as the difference between your belief and that of an Agnostic so I'm clear on where you're coming from.
I'd be inclined to agree, but I can't really think of any Atheists who'll outright tell someone that "there are no gods, your beliefs are totally incorrect." Because of the more secular ideal that Aethism endorses, it seems completely contrary to the typism of the belief.

[Morkeliph]

Actually, atheism is the belief that there is no God. Just breaking down the roots of the word gives you that much information (like amoral, and asymmetric).ATHEISM
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity By definition, it would appear to me that atheism does reject the existence of God and declare Christians, and even all diety-worshipping dogmas, as incorrect.AGNOSTIC
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
It would seem that your arguments are more agnostic than atheist. FAITH
2b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefsAs far as a bastardization of the term, I think that is a unfounded accusation.

Edit: Color added.

[GenocideAlive]

I don't believe in gods.
I don't believe that my opinion is absolute truth.
There's no proof of or not either way.

This makes me Agnostic, not an Atheist? Kiss my ass.

Look that up in the dictionary.

[Morkeliph]

No need to be crudely defensive. I just wanted to clarify the difference between philosophies. As defined, Atheism is in fact the philosophy that postively reject the existence in God. That would make it abstractly faith-based in a similar way as Chrisitanity, just in the opposite direction. Really, the agnostic perspective is the only one that holds strictly to the scientific method because agnostics choose not to take a stance because there is not reliable evidence for either viewpoint. Now, as to whether you are atheist or agnostic is up to you, but let's please make the correct distinction. There's absolutely no need to take offense where none is intended and not all correction is critical of your character. Certainly there's no need to retort with uncontrolled emotional insults in a civilized discussion.

For additional forumer advice, not from myself, follow the link in my signature, tied to the word "function," and reflect on how it relates to the quote. (I'll let you take offense here if you really like.)

[GenocideAlive]

I didn't play your little clicking-link game, but I'm sure that it would have been neat. Or at least had a good insult in there somewhere. Sounds fun, but no.

Either way, I consider it foolish to categorize a category of people solely on the basis of their complete devotion to their viewpoints as a litmus test. You don't have to be a fanatical you'll-go-to-hell-without-jesus Christian in order to be a Christian. Similarly, I don't believe you have to swear up and down that no gods existed now or ever to be an atheist in anything more than the purest sense.

I really don't think it's appropriate to consult dictionaries to define someone's religion stance, but in the context of the discussion, I'm sure clarity is at a premium.

[UnHoly-Assassin]

The way I see it, claiming to have faith is just to excuse their ignorance.

[Neo]

The way I see it, claiming to have faith is just to excuse their ignorance.
Whats that supposed to mean?

Why is it that a religious discussion almost always turns into semantics? Its as if once you get to the core arguemnt, almost every time, one particular side resorts to semantic nonsense.

One can have no faith, but still be a christian.

You can't define an entire peoples beliefs or ideas from a dictionary.

-Neo

[UnHoly-Assassin]

Why is it nonsense? Just reading about it, then passing it off as just being semantic, then thinking nothing more of it doesn't make it nonsense.

And I wasn't defining Christianity. I was just saying the relationship between faith and knowledge. Faith is the absence of knowledge.

But now you got me wondering. If you have no faith in your religion, how can you still consider yourself part of it?

[GenocideAlive]

Depends on your definition of faith. Aquiescing that you don't know everything and that you're choosing what you think best doesn't mean you're wishy-washy, it just means you're tolerant. I think more people could use some tolerance when it comes to religion.

[Morkeliph]

Why is it that a religious discussion almost always turns into semantics? Its as if once you get to the core arguement, almost every time, one particular side resorts to semantic nonsense.

One can have no faith, but still be a christian.

You can't define an entire peoples beliefs or ideas from a dictionary.I would suggest that controversial topics in general eventually have to deal with semantics. Why you ask? Well, in topics such as these people have a tendency to get passionate, take offense, and abandon reasonable restraint. Much of this comes from a confusion of terminology or conflicting personal definitions. In order for the discussion to continue on a civil level and in order to avoid miscommunication, it is imperative that clarity is maintained.Often, semantics are of a great deal of importance and even greater controversy[...]One important component of spoken language is that words maintain universal meaning between individuals, or else miscommunication ensues. The only thing that makes spoken language, or even written language for that matter, useful and effective is that meanings can be conveyed from one individual to another. When words have different meanings to different people, then communication can be corrupted as unintended meanings are portrayed.Yes, I'm quoting myself once again, and yes, I do have a considerablely large head (however, it is less exhausting to quote oneself than to repeat oneself over and over). Anyway, the point is semantics are of incredible importance to civilized, productive discussion, and should not be looked upon as trivial.You can't define an entire peoples beliefs or ideas from a dictionary.I don't see where this has been attempted in this thread. I do see where terms being debated over have been clarified by reference to a commonly accepted source.

Edit: I digress; arguing about the importance of semantics isn't the point of this thread.

[GenocideAlive]

Much of this comes from a confusion of terminology or conflicting personal definitions
Actually, I'd have to agree with Neo.

Resorting to citing the dictionary in terms of a philisophical debate or a religious context is tiresome and useless. Most dictionaries generally exist to provide quick-reference definitions for purposes of fast information. They fail over and over when it comes to either technical definitions or more elaborate concepts, because that's not their intent.

Consider this definition:
behaviorism, n. an approach to psychology that emphasizes observable measurable behavior. Princeton U.'s online dictionary

Using this "definition" as my standing point, I could immediately shoot down your attempts to secede behavioralism from psychology by stating that behaviorism "is an approach to psychology" and therefore only to be considered in the context of the whole. Thereby, it would be insufficient to stand alone much like a leg from a tripod would be inadequate without the other two legs and stool.

If you attempted to argue, I could make some sort of lame point about "semantics being needed for clarity". In which case, you would never be able to argue that behavioralism is anything more than an aspect of psychology without first contradicting a dictionary that doesn't account for your viewpoint that exists contrary to the paradigm.

And yes, you do have a big head. I don't know about your ego.

[Morkeliph]

Point taken, and I think I've made this point as well once.Behavior science, however, is the actual study of behavior from objective evidence from replicatable cause and effect experiments. I do not blame you for making this mistake in definition, for even Merriam-Webster makes this mistake, but what do you expect when a group of men get together to define something that they are only limitedly acquainted with.
I concede that referring to a dictionary for the "true meaning" of a term is not always the best approach. However, let it be said that terminology should be agreed upon rather than argued over before an effective discussion can be had. That is the point I mean to make about semantics.

For the record, quoting oneself is damn fun and should really be tried by everyone.