The Glade 4.0

The only laws that can govern a people of mixed religions is to have laws that do not involve any of them. Laws that focus on people and not beliefs.

As opposed to...?

So governance should be based on the morality of the majority?

_________________

@Darksiege

/bonk

_________________

This is just another way of saying that atheist beliefs must govern. What's needed is to stop preyending laws establish religion just because religious people happen to advocate them.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

BZZZZZT. It's another way of saying that everyone, regardless of belief or any other factor, should be viewed and treated exactly the same in the eyes of the law. If you want to attribute that to atheist belief, go for it, but I like to think it's just called being a good person.

Within the limits of established protections, yes. Why should it be based on anyone else's morality?

There rarely is a clear unified majority on moral issues anyhow. People ostensibly part of the same "majority" often differ sharply.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No, it actually isn't a way of saying that at all. It is at odds with your previous statements in this thread and othets. You cannot demand that religion be kept out of public policy and simultaneously advocate everyone be treated the same in the eyes of the law. Those goals are contradictory.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No, they are not. Allowing anyone freedom of religious practice does not mean you get to make doctrine part of national law, because that is going to infringe on everyone else's beliefs, which is NOT EQUAL.

The atheist's demand for evidence is merely that which emerged from the scientific community. The atheist's standard for evidence actually predates atheism. That metric has given us flying machines which launch from platforms that float in the ocean, a worldwide communications network in orbit about the planet, and the ability to take a **** whenever you want without having to bring a shovel to dig a hole. Since that standard of evidence has done pretty well for the species, it's the one we're going to continue to use until we come up with something better.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Then stop expanding "doctrine" to include "any law religious people advocate that I disagree with." No one is talking about making doctrine part of law, national or otherwise.

Equal has nothing to do with it. We have due process protections and protections of expression for that. Everyone's beliefs get infringed in some ways

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

This.

Since that is the scientist's demand, not the atheist's, you're pretty much totally wrong. Atheists are not usually scientists any more than anyone else, and even atheist scientists pretty much toss concepts of evidence out the window as soon as anything religious comes up in favor of blatant question-begging. Richard Dawkins has a long history of trying to present complete ignorance and total abandonment of reason as scientific just because he's a biologist.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Source? And contrary to apparent popular belief here Biology is a core science.

You want a source for my evaluation of Dawkins? Its me. The entire God Delusion book was pretty much exactly what I said. Biology being a core science is irrelevant.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Part of how we do that is making our views known in the political debate.

Lenas: That's a bit extreme. If you had read what I said, you might have noticed I thought the government should stay out of marriage and therefore everyone's personal liberty on marriage could be respected. The same could apply to the meat issues.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

So one book is a "long history"? I haven't read it yet, so can't comment on the contents. That said, having watched a number of videos of presentations he's made, his science is pretty sound.

His book is exemplary of pretty much everything else. His biology may be good, but when it comes to religuon, its not science. Its assumptions and circular argument.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Because that's what religion *is*?

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Specifically, what do you mean when you say he presents "complete ignorance and total abandonment of reason?"

If you're expecting him to be reasonable regarding religious belief, that's impossible. Religion is not reasonable and that's why it requires faith.

Religionvis not unreasonable at all, that is not why it requires faith, and I am not going into a lengthy discussion of Dawkins, who was an example. The fact that Dawkins considers the existence of God a scientific question like any other demonstrates a total collapse of reason on his part. This is unsurprising; Dawkins emotionally invested himself in evolution as a teenager and his entire identity and self-image is wrapped up in it. This is why even other atheists complain about him from time to time.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No, it isn't, and repeating it over and over will not make it come true. Neither will the asterixes; Monty proved they don't work a long time ago.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

How so, I don't understand your logic here at all.

Okay, so you made a statement and backpedaled when asked to explain. That's fine, I'll drop the "Dawkins is an idiot" argument.



First, nearly every scientist considers the existence of God a scientific (and currently untestable) question. Whether or not they believe in him is a philosophical question. Second, at some level there needs to be an explanation for God's possibility to exist and method of existence. Even if the only being with that knowledge is God himself. Even if God chose to always keep it a mystery, he himself must know how he came to be. That's part of being all-knowing.

There is no way that the existence of God can be a scientific question without either changing the definition of science, or else positing a hypothetical God no one is talking about. As to the rest, knowledge available only to God would exist outside the universe and thus be unavailable to us and irrelevant.

As to Dawkins, I gave a brief explanation. I'm not going into him, specifically, in a lot of detail. I am not going to develop a lengthy explanation of just why every major argument he makes iswrong just so you and Mus can continue posting one liners amounting to "nuh uh"

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."