RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (37) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: No reason for a rift between science and religion?, Skeptic's chance to prove his claims.< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,07:39   

All,

The wheel turns, and yet again we are getting the following from Skeptic:

Quote
Louis, referencing our earlier discussion, this is the damage that radical atheists can do.  There is no reason for a rift between science and religion and to perpetuate the lie is damaging.  This in no means exonerates the religious who attempt to do the same thing but I hold science to a higher standard and you can not have an argument by yourself.


Skeptic has been remarkably silent about the evidence for the wanton damage we nasty old radical atheists (if indeed we are all nasty old radical atheists, which I know we're not, but seems to have escaped Skeptic) cause, but he does rear up every now and again and tell us that religion and science are not in conflict and (along with certain naughty religious people) we are responsible for world destruction and kittens dying. Or something.

We also get the very strong claim from Skeptic that it is a LIE (not merely wrong, but intentionally dishonest no less) to perpetuate the claim that the existance of a deity or set of deities is open to scientific scrutiny. Well dear friends, Skeptic included of course, I am going to shock you all to your cores and disagree with Skeptic. I know, I know, an amazing surprise!

I'm going to disagree on 3 bases:

1) Epistemiology: Very briefly and roughly speaking science at its core is the acquisition of knowledge by the application of reason and observation. Religion at its core claims to garner knowledge by faith and relevation. These mechanisms (faith/revelation and reason/observation) are diametrically opposed.

Now I want to be very careful about a potential misreading here, I do not mean that in the day to day practise of science there is no use of "faith" by individual scientists (with a very small f), or that people who practise religion are incapable of reason or that in religious teachings no reasoned or observational elements exist. To claim that would be a rampant straw man version of the epistemological argument, so best to get it out the way right now. I also do not mean that a false dilemaa exists; one is either 100% a person of reason, or 100% a person of faith, again this is a straw man.

What I DO mean is that the mechanisms of acquiring knowledge about the universe advocated by science and religion are very different and give different results. They are absolutely anathema to each other, and this is where the very real, very valid conflict between science and religion has its basis.

2) The existance of a deity/set of deities: There is a habit amongst some of our religious chums to define their deity/deities out of existance. See Carl Sagan's "Dragon in the garage" analogy in "A Demon Haunted World" for an excellent example. Like squid, our religious chums are occasionally prone to hiding behind clouds of ink when threatened. The word salad doesn't impress.

Unless one is going down the deist (Spinoza, Einstein etc) route (or perhaps the pantheist or panentheist routes) then the believer has problems because their deity or set of deities interacts with the material universe in some manner. If their deity created the universe a specific way that claim is in principle a scientific one and as such open to scrutiny. IF however, as some of our more learned chums claim, the deity in question did remarkably subtle work, using the mechanisms of the universe (i.e. not miracles) then (as mentiuoned above) then they have defined their god out of existance and have nothing but their faith (no reason, no observation) that this is the case. They multiply logical terms and claims unnecessarily.

Now I don't really have much of a problem with that, live and let live and all, but I at least hope that people can acknowledge it honestly. The faith in a tinkerer deity who moved this particle or this allele and so on, is pretty innocuous. However, if we are honest, we must acknowledge that in principle (even if in practise it is beyond our ability to figure out at this time) these tinkerings are detectable. This is the god of very very very small gaps!

Even the deist/pantheist/panentheist deities have problems logically, and upset good old uncle Ockham, however they do at least move themselves beyond the point where we can currently even conceive of scrutinising their existance. I will say this though, that which is totally undetectable is indistinguishable from that which doesn't exist. In the end, the believer always resorts to an appeal to faith, revelation or some combination of personal prejudice and ignorance. I have no problem with that on a personal level. I really don't care what exciting things people believe (I believe a few myself), what I DO care about is that claim that such beliefs have a rational, reasoned, evidenciary basis when they don't.

3) The "Radical" atheists charge, or as I like to call it the "Because you shout as loud as me, you are equally fundamentalist" fallacy: Reality does not necessarily lie halfway between two equally vocally expressed claims. There is another mechanism for deciding between the validity of two equally vocally expressed claims. See above for a hint!

Skeptic's employment of the "Tu Quoque" fallacy is noted. Nasty radical atheists are fuelling the fire of this rift (to mix my metaphors) because they have the temerity to ARGUE with religious people. They do it, thus we can do it and vice versa.

In the USA (and increasingly across the first world, rather annoyingly) resurgent relgious sects are demanding that their views and faith based claims be treated as equally as claims based on evidence, even where the evidence demonstrates the falsity of their faith based claims. Secularists (some of whom are religious), scientists (some of whom are religious) and even some atheists (none of whom are religious) have been opposing this with words and argumentation. No planes have been crashed into buildings, no people killed, no effigies burnt. The tally is slightly biased in that respect, the false equation is obvious. We "radical" athiests argue because the premises and claims of the various resurgent religious sects and cults are demonstrably false and are agressively marketed and privileged. We are not trying to force everyone to be an atheist (a common straw man), we are trying very hard not to be forced to be a member of some religion or to grnat some religions and religious people special privileges based only on their faith. Other than that, go in peace.

That should do for starters.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,07:44   

Thank you, Louis.  I was kicking this around last night and I appreciate the opportunity to explore it further.  I'll put together my post and get it up by this afternoon.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,08:46   

Damn you Louis, damn you to (atheist) hell, which is probably similar to a blog thread giving skeptic a chance to bloviate. I prefer just to poke him with a stick. (snikker)

To wit.

Skeptic, if god exists then why are there creationists?

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,11:06   

Skeptic,

Make sure you notice the combination of good humour and exasperation! ;-)

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,11:26   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 06 2007,19:06)
Skeptic,

Make sure you notice the combination of good humour and exasperation! ;-)

Louis

Don't forget charm and genius :>

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,11:43   

Yours, mine, or his?

Actually, forget I asked!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,13:15   

Louis - outstanding work - as usual.  I hope you don't mind that I appropriated one of your lines...

Most of the time I agree with k.e. - "poke them with a stick", but I do realize that engaging in dialogue ala this post is the best route to take for us civilized types.  

But, just so you know Louis, like I told Kristine earlier, just cuz you Brits are smarter, better looking and talk prettier than us Colonials, don't mean you're better than us.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,14:08   

Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 06 2007,13:15)
Louis - outstanding work - as usual.  I hope you don't mind that I appropriated one of your lines...

Most of the time I agree with k.e. - "poke them with a stick", but I do realize that engaging in dialogue ala this post is the best route to take for us civilized types.  

But, just so you know Louis, like I told Kristine earlier, just cuz you Brits are smarter, better looking and talk prettier than us Colonials, don't mean you're better than us.

No, but the fact you invented NASCAR does.


Sorry, low blow, low blow.....

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
heddle



Posts: 124
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,14:49   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 06 2007,14:08)
No, but the fact you invented NASCAR does.


Sorry, low blow, low blow.....

NASCAR rocks!  Much better than that effeminate F1 racing, where nobody ever passes for the lead.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,14:50   

Quote (heddle @ Aug. 06 2007,14:49)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 06 2007,14:08)
No, but the fact you invented NASCAR does.


Sorry, low blow, low blow.....

NASCAR rocks!  Much better than that effeminate F1 racing, where nobody ever passes for the lead.

Oh trust me, I am NOT a fan of F1 either.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,15:00   

Quote (heddle @ Aug. 06 2007,14:49)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 06 2007,14:08)
No, but the fact you invented NASCAR does.


Sorry, low blow, low blow.....

NASCAR rocks!  Much better than that effeminate F1 racing, where nobody ever passes for the lead.

Normally I have zero interest in either. Things have changed a jot with Hamilton leading the competition in his rooky year. Kinda schoolboy comic stuff.

Now since you are here you could head onto the educated creationist thread and explain why physics demands an older Earth than 6K years? Please.

  
heddle



Posts: 124
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,15:08   

I'll trundle over.

The coolest thing about Lewis Hamilton is that he presents a delightful political correctness conundrum for the American press. I believe USA Today has referred to him as a "British African-American F1 Driver."

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,15:17   

Quote (heddle @ Aug. 06 2007,14:49)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 06 2007,14:08)
No, but the fact you invented NASCAR does.


Sorry, low blow, low blow.....

NASCAR rocks!  Much better than that effeminate F1 racing, where nobody ever passes for the lead.

Uh oh. No religious wars allowed here.



--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,15:17   

Quote (heddle @ Aug. 06 2007,15:08)
I'll trundle over.

The coolest thing about Lewis Hamilton is that he presents a delightful political correctness conundrum for the American press. I believe USA Today has referred to him as a "British African-American F1 Driver."

That is damn funny.
Something that I heard (pure anectdote) is an American (USA) reporter insisting in calling/labeling Nelson Mandela as "African-American."

Sorry for going way off-topic.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,17:02   

Hey Heddle, there's some guy in the "Educated Creationist" thread who thinks he is God's Spokesman.

Since YOU are, you might want to pop on over and set him straight.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,17:50   

Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 06 2007,13:15)
Most of the time I agree with k.e. - "poke them with a stick", but I do realize that engaging in dialogue ala this post is the best route to take for us civilized types.  

Screw "civilized".  They're all nuts.

Pass me a stick.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,18:25   

Here Lenny - use mine.  I'm not using it right now, as I am now going through my "civilized" phase, but I am pretty sure I will want it back later.  Probably right after Pat Robertson makes another pronouncement, or sceptic makes another post.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,20:32   

As usual, great post Louis but, as usual, we have some differences of opinion.  I'm going to try to be as brief as possible and lay out my thoughts as well as address yours but I expect it will take a number of posts to really get into it.  

First, I'd like to address the general assumption that there must be a rift between science and religion.  In order for a conflict to arise between two disciplines they would have to trying to answer the same questions.  For example, look at astronomy and particle physics.  Both deal with the actions of massive bodies and have working theories to examine their respective spheres.  Unfortunately, the two theories are incompatible with each other.  They're both trying to answer the same questions from two different viewpoints and are in conflict.  Fortunately, because both are "speaking the same language" there is not only the inclination but the possibility of unifying both theories.

Now lets contrast that to science and religion.  First, the two are not even trying to answer the same questions.  Science is no more equipped to tell someone how to live a moral life as religion is able to calculate the acceleration due to gravity.  As practical issue this does not pose a real problem.  Science relies upon data, evaluation of data and confirmation of theories using those data.  This is man's attempt to explain the universe using his senses, the only source he really has, through his limited abilities.  The picture that science gives us is one that is incomplete and dynamic and limited to those areas in which data can be collected and evaluated.

Religion, on the other, does not rely upon empirical data.  In fact, actual sources of knowledge are varied and open to interpretation.  Appropriately enough so are the questions that religion attempts to answer.  How do I treat others?  What is goodness?  What is the purpose of my life?  The answer to any of these questions can hardly be "42" or some other hard answer.  Whether through inspiration or revelation the answers given still must be digested individually and implemented personally.  This again is in contrast to science as each answer is technically universal.  It is not for religion to say how the heavens work just where Heaven is and how to get there.  This leaves open the question concerning the existence of God and which discipline should claim superiority.  We'll get back to that question later.

So in my opinion, why does the creationist get a free ride while the scientist is subject to scorn.  To put it plain, I expect more of the scientist.  Just speaking of the US, the vast majority of Americans are religious, 80-90% depending upon which poll you accept.  In similar polls a minority of people reject evolution.  That leaves a large percentage of Americans who are both religious and accept evolution.  Now stick with me because these people are very important.  That also leaves a very vocal minority that rejects not only evolution but the science behind it.  Scientists are supposedly governed by rationality and yet some feel compelled to respond to this vocal minority.  The YECs/IDs do not deal in scientific fact, something the scientists know something about, but still some scientists cannot resist.  Why is this a problem?  On it's face, there is no problem as long as the scientists restrict their criticism to inaccuracies of fact and data but the ultimate bait is still out there and a vocal minority of scientists rise to it.  They go after God and attempt to refute the existence. We can disagree on whether this is even possible but I contend it is not and it compromises the credibility of the scientist.

Now comes in the large group that previously had no crisis between science and religion.  The scientists enjoy more popular exposure and media credibility and their message is released.  Now a conflict arises between an anti-God message and a less threatening more familiar religion.  Remember, religion is very much a part of culture that begins very early and can have deep roots.  Science, on the other hand, is not shared extensively by the general population and to many not utilized in everyday life.  Given these choices it's not a wonder which direction people tend to move.  This heats up the rhetoric on both sides and continues to widen a rift that shouldn't exist in the first place.

So, I think science should not engage religion on religious topics but stick to science.  This removes the perception that science is anti-religion and refocus the debate on science.  It's much more productive to tell people about chemistry then how chemistry supposedly eliminates the need for God.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,20:47   

Um, hey Skeptic, in case you haven't noticed, it's not the scientists who are trying to pass laws to force their religious opinions into school classrooms and textbooks by lying to people and claiming those religious opinions are actually "science" . . . .

Fix that, and all the scientists will happily go back to their science and ignore all the religious nutters again.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,20:53   

Astronomy is a theory? And it competes with particle physics? Wow...just...wow.

As an astronomer (unfortunatly not professional) that is possibly the funniest thing I've read yet today - and I've been reading up on Hovind, so your doing pretty well.


As for the rest, sounds like you just want to protect the IDers, to me. They can bring their books into schools, get teaching of evolution banned, and any other tactics that seem to be OK with you - but scientists shouldn't dare respond.

It's clear your motive has nothing to do with the prattle you write here, which is pretty thinly veiled. Your real motive is to advance that causes that you pretend to belittle here.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
Henry J



Posts: 4788
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,22:12   

Re "For example, look at astronomy and particle physics."

Just wondering, but did you mean general relativity and quantum mechanics?

Henry

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,22:51   

Yes, comparing GR and QM brings you to an impasse but the quest for a Unified Theory goes on because of the reasons I stated.

Lenny, there's no problem with discussing science in an ID sense.  I don't accept ID as science and it is very easy to point out why.  This doesn't require attacking a religion or God in order to do so.  It's like being goaded by a three year old, when you bring yourself down to his level by arguing with him then you both look like three year olds.

Nerull, you obviously don't have a clue what my motives are but you could easily rectify that by going back and reading what I've said...over and over and over again.  You'll see that I've been pretty consistent over the last year and a half.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2007,07:23   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 06 2007,22:51)
Lenny, there's no problem with discussing science in an ID sense.  I don't accept ID as science and it is very easy to point out why.  This doesn't require attacking a religion or God in order to do so.  

Um, you DO understand that the vast majority of people (and scientists) who attack ID, are not only NOT "attacking religion or God", but are actually theists themselves.

Right?

You DO understand that, yes . . . .?


Have you ever read any of my big long wars with PZ Meyers?

Ring any bells for you?


Or, like all fundies everywhere, do you just want to whine and bitch and moan about how oppressed and downtrodden you are . . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2007,07:24   

Hey skeptic where is heaven again? And how long does it take to get there? (Please convert to parsecs per fortnight)

And you still haven't answered my question, if a god exists why are there priests and pastors?

No rush, take your time. You soul savers seem to think eternity is the same as the attention span of an UD contributor.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Darth Robo



Posts: 148
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2007,09:45   

"They go after God and attempt to refute the existence."

Refuting ID and Creationism is not the same as refuting God.  Then the fundies complain about people like Dawkins who got that way by putting up with fundie bull for years.

--------------
"Commentary: How would you like to be the wholly-owned servant to an organic meatbag? It's demeaning! If, uh, you weren't one yourself, I mean..."

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2007,17:25   

Skeptic's basic complaint is that he wants the barrier between "science" and "religion" to be one-way only, just as he wants the wall of separation between "church" and "state" to be just one-way.

For me, the walls between science and religion, and between church and state, act equally on both sides.  Otheriwse they are gateways, not walls.

For Skeptic, those walls are indeed gates -- one-way gates that open only to one side.  He has no gripe at all if religion starts pronouncing itself on things scientific, and he has already delcared that he has no gripe with church invading state.  For Skeptic, the walls between science and religion, and church and state, are nothing but shields that he wants to be able to hide behind whenever his side moves on the other side and starts getting their holy little tookuses kicked for it.  It's his equivilent of "Safe zone! You can't beat me up anymore when I'm in here!"

If the goddamn fundies would keep their crap in church where it belongs, and stop trying to drag it into public schools and public governmental institutions, there'd be no problem, and we could all go home.

And by making excuses for the goddamn fundies and declaring that those walls don't apply to them, Skeptic only reinforces the problem.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2007,17:39   

Quote (Darth Robo @ Aug. 07 2007,09:45)
"They go after God and attempt to refute the existence."

Refuting ID and Creationism is not the same as refuting God.  Then the fundies complain about people like Dawkins who got that way by putting up with fundie bull for years.

Indeed, the fundies have been telling people for DECADES that science and religion are incompatible, and that if the Bible isn't literally true in every detail, then there is no God.

Odd that Skeptic wants to bitch and moan when some scientists simply take the fundies at their own word.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2007,19:36   

I'm waiting for some intelligent responses but I'll deal with these in the mean time.

k.e., is English your second language?  If so I can find the appropriate translation to get my point across.  If English is indeed your native tongue then I'll try to speak very slowly.  Ready?  Here goes...

It is impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of God.

What part of that statement do you not understand and I'll be happy to clarify it for you.  As far as your other question, it is completely nonsensical.  Its akin to say if there is garbage, why is there garbage collectors?  Maybe it is a typo, that would explain it...well maybe not.

Lenny, as usual, you didn't comprehend what I was saying.  Not only is there no barrier between science and religion but there is no overlap.  Different questions, different methods, different purposes, no common ground.

Also, if religious people attempt to refute science from a theology perspective then they can easily be disputed from a scientific perspective.  They are in the wrong and can easily be corrected.  To compound their error by attacking them religiously does much more harm and has the potential of swaying the opinions of the onlookers.  

Discussions of the Establishment Clause are better left elsewhere as we fundamentally disagree on its intent but I will say an excellent example of how ID proponents should be reacted to could be seen in Dover.  Not the court decision but the subsequent elimination of the ID supporters from the school board.  That is democracy in action in the spirit of the Founders' intent.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2007,19:47   

Quote
Discussions of the Establishment Clause


That's the one where it talks about congress shall not favour any religion or somesuch, right?

What the hell DO you think it means Skeptic?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2007,19:49   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 07 2007,19:47)
Quote
Discussions of the Establishment Clause


That's the one where it talks about congress shall not favour any religion or somesuch, right?

What the hell DO you think it means Skeptic?

Yeah, Skeptic --- go ahead and tell him what YOU think it means . . . .

(reaches for popcorn and beer)

This should be fun . . . . . . . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
  1091 replies since Aug. 06 2007,07:39 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (37) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]