nanofever

You can say Atheism is a cup of lentil soup but that does not make it so. From my perspective, Atheism is a lack of spirituality and belief, and thus under your description is immoral.

I have also realized that on a personal level your position lacks logical consistancy. A person has a a religion or they don't. Theism or Atheism. However, you suggest that both Theism and Atheism are spiritualities. Thus, all people have spirituality in them.

Then, who are the people that you are refering to that lack spirituality? Since all people are theist or atheists, no people exist that lack spirituality.

Seriously, who are you talking about when you say "lacking spirituality"?

Quote:

No I said as long as their are religious and spiritual people who firmly hold their beliefs, THEY will not do anything against those beliefs. Therefore, to try and seperate themselves from their beliefs when making laws is next to impossible and will never be done.

If a person can not perform the job required of them because of their religious beliefs, then perhaps they should not have that job. If it is against your religion to harm other, then don't join the army. If your religion requires you to empose your religion on others, don't become a public servant.

Quote:

I am saying without spirituality, yes, the masses (society) as a whole will eventually lack morals. Yes, you can seperate the individual from society. We are not inherently born knowing right from wrong. As society gets away from spirituality, you begin to see immorality, you begin to see crime rise, you begin to see people doing whatever they choose to do. This has been proven in the Old Testament, this was a serious downfall of the Roman empire (when they got away from worshipping their Gods. It was a downfall of the Egyptian civilization. It was a downfall for all major civilizations when they got away from spirituality. The USSR was a "spiritual" free government and they did not work.

No.

The Roman Empire(s) fell after they adopted christanity, RCC in the west and Orthadoxy in the east.

Egypt was forced into Christanity in 389 A.D. by the Emperor Theodosius. Egypt was a province before this, but it was still somewhat Egyptian. This was the end of the Egyptian Empire, when it stopped being Egyptian and was a Christian, Roman province.

The USSR was never a "spirtually free" nation. Stalin might have tried to empose atheism on the people, but the USSR was a peasant nation. The peasant farmers clung to their orthadoxy as it was one of the few things they had. Furthermore, three generations is no where near enough time to remove religion from a place where it has been strongly rooted for at least a milenia.

Quote:

First, I have no problem with you calling me on my views and beliefs civilly and without calling names or implying you are so much greater than I because you are enlightened and I am something lesser than you. Especially whan I have done nothing but show you respect.

I don't consider suggesting that people without spirituality are immoral to be respect.

Quote:

Secondly, morality is not inherent, you are not born knowing right from wrong. It has been taught to you through traditions (which in this country have been Judeo-Christian, however Hindu, Buddhism, even Islamic traditions have been incorporated) and trial and error and observations.

Religion is not inherently moral, only actions have any moral standing.

Quote:

Yes, this is EXACTLY part of your argument as you feel left out in your beliefs by a "Christian society" because in a previous posting and I will not go back to quote it, a person argued they felt pressured to say "under God" because if they didn't they would be subject to dirty looks from others. So, by my not believing in your argument you are doing that to me.

Can you explain ? I don't understand what you mean by "So, by my not believing in your argument you are doing that to me. ".

Quote:

You are the one without facts, without seperating emotion from a philosophical and educational debate. You see things your way and have resorted to name calling to avoid facts and argue without emotion.

Warrants and proof please.
Also, calling an ignorant statement "ignorant", should hurt the statement's feelings not the person.

Quote:

You are the one cutting and pasting parts of my argument and twisting things I say instead of reading with open mind ALL that I am saying.

I have read what you posted with an open mind. Then, I decided the best way to disagree with you is to go line-by-line and de-construct your arguments. This type of reply makes the debate easier to follow.

*snip* (This is where I declined to argue about what an abusive person I am.)

Quote:

To take this farther and yes, I know the left like I know the back of my hand. IF you are dead set against government recognizing religion, then the Muslim lady in Fla. who by her faith had to wear a veil on her driver's license would be denied by you, because that would endorse a religious practice. YET, many who are arguing total seperation, argue that lady is well within her rights and government should honor her religious values. That is not a seperation of church and state though, because the government has to recognize her religious values. Total seperation means government cannot recognize ANY religious values and therfore CANNOT OFFER ANY DEVIATION OF LAWS TO ACCOMODATE A RELIGIOUS VALUE. Therefore she would be unable to wear her veil. Therefore she has no frredom of religious practice.

Is the lady a state actor? No? Then, they were wrong in not letting her take the picture that way. I'm for total government seperation with religion, however; that lady is not acting as part of the government (public servant on the job) and thus can do as she pleases.


On that note, I'm done with this particular thread. The SCOTUS did the right thing by ruling on a lesser issue.

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."