Which political ideology do you most identify with?
Would society be more harmonious without government involvement in religion?
@TruthHurts1015mos5MO
I couldn't disagree more completely. When the founding fathers separated church and state, they meant the state should not control the church not that the church should not control the state. Government will inevitably promote some form of moral agenda or religion – and let's face it, secularism is a faith-based belief in evolution, making it a religion – and why not push Christianity, which has proved most conducive to the liberties and happiness of a free people. PS: Before you attack me with talk of the "crusades" let me remind you that these were wars of self-defence against aggressive Islamists.
@VulcanMan6 5mos5MO
Nice try, but even the first amendment proves your initial argument wrong. Separation of church and state is incredibly good and important in keeping religion away from any kind of public legislation, because enforcing religious laws or values onto others is bad and wrong. Governments and law should always be exclusively secular.
Secondly, don't project your own belief's lack of evidence onto everyone else. Atheism, which you seem to have conflated with secularism, does not rely on faith to understand the objective reality of things like evolution or the age of the earth (without the… Read more
@Patriot-#1776Constitution5mos5MO
Christianity offers the only rational explanation for the Laws of Logic. Without an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, all-powerful one true God to create the Universe, there could be no exception-less, universal logical laws as we see in the universe today. The atheist believes that nothing exists beyond the physical – there is no spiritual world or anything like that. But, I would then ask, are the Laws of Logic physical entities that we can see and touch? No. Therefore atheists who are using the Laws of Logic to argue against Creation are inadvertently proving that it's true, because, in their worldview, if it was consistent, they wouldn't be able to reason at all. They have to borrow from the theistic worldview in order to argue against it, which creates an absurdity. I await your response.
@VulcanMan6 5mos5MO
I assume you are referring to the Laws of Identity, Non-Contradiction, and Excluded Middle, right? Those "Laws of Logic"? I ask because your argument that these require a god, or even a religion/spirituality, makes no sense. We made up these laws of logic when we made up language and communication. Without our sentient interpretation of the universe, assigning meaning to the world around us, the universe has no objective "logic" to begin with. The universe simply exists whether or not we were ever here to even come up with the word "existing". Logic only exists… Read more
@Patriot-#1776Constitution4mos4MO
“We made up these laws of logic when we made up language and communication.”
If we made up laws of logic when we made up language and communication, how does one explain the fact that they are universal, applicable everywhere, and unchanging. If like language, they were mere products of our minds, they could not apply outside our finite minds, making them impossible to apply to the universe or world around us. If we merely used the laws of logic because they work and life goes better for us when we use them, that's well and good, but it necessitates their existence before the creation of man. And if laws or logic were just agreed upon objections, why does every… Read more
The historical activity of users engaging with this answer.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
