I’m not making assumptions. I’m just telling you what the law is. I’m givin you facts, not opinions.
That would be a false and disingenuous postition to take, as I’ve already pointed out.
That’s not a philosphical question, it’s a scientific one, and conjuring magical “creators” is neither supported by evidence nor (as of yet) required by anything observable in the universe. Suppositions of magical deities are, by definition, religious. Getting back to the point in this thread, the government is not permitted to state as a fact that a magical “creator” exists. As soon as it does that, it is taking a position that all other beliefs are false. What part of that do you not understand?
Then you have a religious opinion. You have an opinion that some religious beliefs are false. The government has no right to say that (unless it has scientific proof) any religious belief is false.
Baloney. I’ll say it one more time. It is not possible to take a position on the existence of a “creator” without taking a de facto position that any other position is false. Please reach out with both hands and try to grasp that.
If you’re talking about what I’m think about ( from another thread ! :rolleyes: ), I replied twice. If you don’t like the answer, that’s not my problem.
No. This is not a fact, it is an interpretation of a the First Amendment:
And this is an assumption, based on your interpretation:
Those are NOT facts.
Yes. And I replied to your statement with a logical arguement. Your refering back to your original statement, the logic of which I have refuted, does not add to support for your position.
Okay. You just said that it is a scientific question, which makes it NOT a religious one. Good. We’re making headway. For the sake of argument, assuming that you are correct and it is a scientific question, then the theories that attempt to answer that question will fall into two categories: those that we may be able to prove scientifically, and those that we cannot. And while the scientific litmus test may keep some theories out of the science classroom, it has no role in deciding what the state may or should acknowledge. After all, it acknowledges that religion exists, doesn’t it?
This does not follow my logic. You may choose to use loaded words, but I have shown you how belief in a Creator needn’t have a religious component. Prove me wrong. Not just “state” that I am wrong. Show me were my logic fails.
Maybe. But it does permit, and even promote, that an ordinary Creator exists, which is evidenced by the language of the DofI, “In God we trust”, and the the bible in our court rooms, to name just a few.
I understand your words, I simply disagree that you are correct, for the reasons I’ve stated. The Establishment Clause states simply:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
I maintain that this clause merley prevents the establishment of religion. Acknowledging that we were created (and therefore had a Creator) is a philosphical position. I know you disagree, but I have shown how your position is wrong and you have not shown how my argument is flawed. You simply insist that it is and that all words mean what you would like them to.
No, I have a philosophical opinion (which does not require a scientific proof): that we were intentionally created. I do not know what/do did the creating, or why. And even if I had an opinion that some, or all, religious beliefs were false, that isn’t necessarily a religious position. For example, you seem to think that at least some religious positions are false: that doesn’t mean you hold a religious opinion.
Wouldn’t you say that is possile for someone to be an agnostic or atheist and be so on philosophical grounds?
No. But it can stake a chance on philosophical stances, and already has. First in the DofI. And currently on our currency and in our courtrooms. The scientific proof you want to be required applies to the issue of science in the classroom. I think you are confusing issues.
There you go again. Stating something—even stating it is “de facto” so—doesn’t actually make it so.
As I think part of the difficulty we are having can be attributed to lack of agreement of what the word religion means, maybe the idefinition of “religion” will help the discussion. Her is one provided by the American Heritage Dictionary as found on dictionary.com
1.a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
1.b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Note that only definition that comes even close to what you would like the word to mean is 1.a., but even that requires a “belief in” AND “reverence for” a creator".
Here are some others:
This is just silly. Of course the “God” mentioned in the pledge and on the money is a religious concept. If it’s merely some sort of abstract philosophical musing about the existence of a creator, the phrase “In God We Trust” is meaningless, as is the phrase “one nation, under God”. Both clearly refer to an entity with an ongoing involvement in the material world, an entity that we can trust in and that holds dominion over us.
It’s not an interpretation, it’s a straight reading.
Yes, they are the facts. How asinine can you be? Are you actually going to assert that remaining silent on the question of God is the same as claiming God doesn’t exist? You’re wrong. You’re so patently and self-evidently wrong that it’s not even possible to refute you any further. You might as well assert that remaining silent on one’s favorite kind of music is equivalent to a statement that one prefers death metal. It’s nonsensical. It’s gibberish. Explain yourself.
You responded to it with the same hollow assertions that you started with and have completely ignored the inescapable point that endorsing one view amounts to a statement that other views are false.
I don’t think we are. The question is scientific but your answer is not.
There’s no “assuming” about it. Merely asking the question of how the universe came to be is a factual question with a factual (albeit unknown) answer. That makes it purely scientific. The question of why the universe exists is philosophical/religious. The “how” is scientific.
If you can’t prove it scientifically, it’s not a theory. There is no scientific theory of a divine “creator” for the universe. That hypothesis is a logical and scientific non-sequitur in relationship to the question. It is a religious, unscientific- indeed anti-scientific answer to the question.
Incorrect. The state has no right to endorse unsupported religious answers to scientific questions. You are dead wrong and you don’t seem to understand anything about either science or SOCAS.
Huh?
Simply acknowledging that religious beliefs exist is not the same as endorsing any of them as true or false. Surely even you can understand that.
I never said anything “followed your logic.” You misquoted me. You attributed words to me in a quote box that I did not say. That is against the rules. Please do not repeat it.
Belief in a “creator” is the very definition of a religious belief. Denying that is just disingenuous to the point of childishness. You also keep sidestepping the issue that it constitutes a position on the truth or falsity of other specific religious beliefs. Something the government is forbidden to do.
What the hell is an “ordinary creator?”
The Declaration of Independence has no legal relevance or authority. All that matters is what the Constitution says.
“In God We Trust” is most defintely a violation of Establishment but SCOTUS simply hasn’t had the balls to say so and have hidden behind the activist invention of a non-Constitutional device called “Ceremonial Deism” to avoid having to call it what it is.
The Bible in Courtrooms is optional. It is not required by law.
When you say “acknowledging that we were created,” you are making a purely religious statement. I acknowledge no such thing and the state has no right to say that I’m wrong.
Congratulations. Bully for you. You’re allowed to believe that all you want and the government is not allowed to say yu’re wrong…but it’s also not allowed to say you’re right. You say you don’t require scientific evidence. Unfortunately for your position regarding the Constitution, though, the STATE does indeed requre scientific evidence.
Yes it is…completely necessarily.
Yes it does, and when I worked in public schools. I was quite rightly forbidden to express those opinions in the classroom as fact.
What do you mean by “philosophical grounds?” I don’t understand your question. Philosophy doesn’t have “grounds” except for provisional ones. People tend to be agnostic or atheistic on logical or scientific grounds but those are not the only reasons. It doesn’t really matter. Having an opinion is not the same thing as asserting a fact. Any assertion as fact that God does not exist represents an unscientific and unsupported position on religion and the government is not allowed to do it.
No it can’t.,
The DoI was not an official opinion expressed by the government of the United States. It’s irrelevant.
I’ve already addressed these.
I
ncorrect. The government does not have the right to express religious opinions as fact, no matter what the context.
What’s “not so” about it? Address the point instead of waving your hands.
What a stunningly specious argument. Dude, you still just are not getting it. The problem is not just what the state would be claimng IS true in that regard (and a belief in a deity is religious. Your objection that you don’t “revere” it is too inane to even justify a response), but what it would be claiming is NOT true. This is the primary point that seems to keep sailing over your head.
One last time:
The government doesn’t have a right to say that anyone’s religious beliefs are NOT true
Moderator’s Warning:Diogenes the Cynic, you need to cool it with the personal insults outside the Pit. You have been warned about this before; more than once. If you keep this up, your temper is going to wind up costing you your posting privileges.
This is not just a statement of some intellectual idea that more likely than not an intelligence created the Universe, but an expression of a belief about the proper relationship between human beings and God. If beliefs about the relationship between humans and God aren’t “religious”, then “religion” is a meaningless word, and the free exercise clause will have to go out the window–you might as well say “Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise of marklar”.
The fact that you do not even realize, or acknowledge that your reading of the First Amendment is an interpretation, is the height of hubris and does not bode well for any meaningful debate.
I’ve been civil with you, I expect the same courtesy. And no, they are not facts. I’ll also add that the more frothing at the mouth and more indignation that someone expresses when challenged doesn’t make one more right. If he is not right and yells, the yelling doesn’t change the error of his position.
You are correct. I misposted. I meant to delete your quote that appered directly above my statement. The “those” was intended to refer to the two “facts” I was refuting in the two posts above. My mistake. Sorry for the confusion.
No, no, no. I’ll try again. The claim that there is a Creator (or creators, as I said) conflicts with NO religious belief. If I start to define that Creator and give him/it attributes, I will undoubtedly run into the problems you describe, but not until I do so. The only position that it MAY conflict with is atheism, and then only for those who hold that atheism is a religion, which from previous threads seems to be a debate among atheists themselves. But I offer that it is not a religious position, but a philosophical one.
Well, we won’t make any headway if you change your position mid-stream and not acknowledge it. In post #157 you claim that the conclusion that there is a creator is an answer to a religious question:
“The Establishment Clause says that the state is not allowed to endorse a particular religious view. That means the government is not allowed to take a stance on whether gods do or do not exist”
Then in post #161 you say that is a scientific question:
“That’s not a philosphical question, it’s a scientific one…”
And my answer was appropriate. If you ask me “What causes gravity?”, that is a scientific question, correct? Now some theories that may answer that question will be both both testable and falsifiable, and fall under the heading of science. Other answers might not be testable or falsifiable, and therefore not fall into the realm of science. The two groups represent two sets of theories, but only the former group will deserve to be considered scientific theories. Your confusion may stem from the erroneous assumption that all theories are scientific.
An agnostic, and I, would say that is incorrect. In fact, many cosmologists would agree, as well. We may very well never be able to answer that. Thinking otherwise is fine. Insisting otherwise I consider an indication of extreme hubris.
Only if you assume that there is no “God” or extra-natural phenhomena.
I agree with the first part, not the second.
Again, assumes that no Creator exists and leaves no room for extra-natural explanations. If we ask “How did we get here?”, there are two categories of answers:
A: creator(s), responsible for First Cause
B: purely natural forces, no First Cause
Seems like we all are human, and make posting mistakes. I hope you don’t mind that I corrected it in what I stated from you post (above).
But to answer: As I mentioned, I think you are working from the assumption that all theories are scientific. They are not. So while there is no “scientific” theory of us being the work of a Creator, there most certainly is a (non-scientific) theory of one. For the record, though, I maintain the position is a philosophical one. Answering the question “Is there a Creator” with “yes” does not make one religious. Indeed, that person may go as far to believe that we are merely detritus left over from some other creation and the creator has never, and never will, give us a thought. He may simply believe that we were created by a willful act, directly or indirectly. In which case, how woulod you say that person holds a “religious” view? You can’t unless you diregard the very meaning of the word “religion”, which I presented numerous cites for.
I’ve covered this. And, :rolleyes:
Another posting mistake I must apologize for. I was cutting and pastiing and forgot to delete a previous attempt at an answer. It was not an attempt to put words in your mouth, which should be evident by the fact that it makes no sense. Still, my full apologies. It’s never happened before and I will be intent on it not happening again.
No. Belief in a creator is what separates theists and atheists. That is the initial toggle switch. Flicking it one way or the other does not make one pro-religious and the other anti-religious. They are mutually opposing beliefs that are both mute on religion. Question # 2 is one that each theist much decide for himself: “Assuming I can even guess as to the nature of this “entity”, do I believe that it/he should be acknowledged in some way?” The third Question is “How do I define this Creator?”. And Question 4 is “In what way, if any, should I pay homage this Creator I’ve identified and defined?”
True. But when it is unclear, we look to other founding documents for support. That is why Jefferson’s “church and state” letter to the Danbury Baptists is so often cited in support of your side of the debate. And that isn’t even a founding document, with the weight of any congress behind it.
The important thing is that it is NOT disallowed.
We’ve been over this.
Again, we disagree. And this has been covered.
I thought that our discussion had moved to what the correct interpretation of the Establishment Clause is, not what the law is. If it is the latter, pretty much this whole discussion is moot.
We agree that government cannot take a religious position. We seem to disagree that the goverment can take a philosophical position. I say they can and do all the time. At what age shoud a person be considered an adult? Should we have the death penalty? Should we allow euthanasia. How should we treat the severly mentally ill? When does life begin? Etc.
I maintain that whether there is a creator or is a philosophical position. And taking our cues from the founders, they clearly believed there was. No founding documents refute that. No private writings I am aware of refute that. The were theists, at minimum.
Yes it can, and does. See the paragraph above showiing examples of philosophical positions the government has and does take.
I agree with the statement you wrote. I disagree that acknowledging a creator necessarily constitutes a religious position and not merely a philosophical one.
I can only repeat myself so many times. (No doubt we are both feeling this frustration.) See above.
Specious? Asking you to adhere to definitions of words as they appear in the dictionary is specious? If that’s what you think, you might want to look up “specious”. I think the word you meant to use is “reasonable”.
And by taking the position that we are in some way the result of a Creator is not taking any religious belief.
Look, Dio I have little more to say on this than I have said elswhere. Some of those threads you, I think, were in. But here are the links for reference, in case you haven’t gone through them. If you are interested in continuiing the discussion, reviewing those threads might give you a better idea of my position and reduce the frustration for both of us. Just a suggestion. If you think it a good one, I will do the same before responding to your next post, as well. (I wold have done it this time but I just thought of it.)
This is just flat wrong. It conflicts with any religion which does not believe in a “creator.”
When you say that there is “a” creator, you are saying that there is not more than one. An endorsement of monotheism represents a statement that polytheism is false. It’s also not true that secular atheism is the only position which is denied by the endorsement of of theism. There actually are some non-theistic religions out there. Buddhism, Taoism, Janism, animism and ancestor worship, to name a few. The government doesn’t have a right to say that any of those are false.
I didn’t change my position. You just don’t seem to understand the terms. Any question with an objective, factual answer is a scientific question. A scientific answer to that question qould be one that is supported by observable evidence. Positing deities in the absence of evidence or necessity is positing a religious answer to a scientific question.
I don’t understand what you’re objecting to. There is an objective, factual answer to the question of how the universe began. That is true whether we know the answer or not. Theistic belief doesn’t enter into it. The question is purely scientific EVEN IF the answer is “Goddidit.”
Not true. No such assumption is necessary. The question itself is purely scientific regardless of the answer. Hypotheses and theoretical explanations, however, are not scientific unless they are supported by obrvable evidence and empirical method.
This is simply wrong. The question assumes no such thing. Whether the question itself is scientific has absolutely no contingency upon whether the factual answer is natural or otherwise.
Neither answer has any bearing on whether the question itself is scientific, and unles it is supported by evidence, option A is a religious answer to a scientific question. And before you say it, it’s not a “philosophical” answer in the sense that it can be segregated or distinguished from a religious one. Philosophy is about epistemological exploration. It’s not just a synonym for “my unsupported opinion,” and it is improper to try to use the word as a obfuscation for religious assumptions. Philosophy relies on premises about what is known or what it is possible to know. Scientific method (itself a “philosophy”) relies on the premise that whatever is empirically observable and repeatable is “true.” A belief in a spernatural “creator” would be discussed and explored under the philosophical headings of metaphysics and theology- realms which rely on **a priori religious premises[/b, and in the case of theism, a specific religious assumption that God exists. Please understand this. A belief in a creator is not a philosophy, it’s a premise. The chains of logic and discussion which follow from that premise are philosphical. but the premise itself is religious.
It sounds like you’re trying to apply a non-scientific definition of the word “theory” to a scientific question. If it can’t be confirmed or falsified by observable evidence, it’s not a scientific theory. If it’s not a scientific theory, it’s simply a premise or an opinion. If it’s a premise that “God exists,” it’s religious. I’ve already attempted to explain the difference between philospohy and religious assumptions.
I assumed it must have been a mistake, and my apologies for being so sharp about it.
Once again, the statement that one God exists amounts to a de facto statement that non-theistic and polytheistic religions are false. Are you aware that not all religious traditions have gods or “creators” in them?
Jefferson’s Banbury letter has no legal relevance either…and the DoI is not a founding dicument.
In order for it to be an Establishment violation it would have to be more than just “allowed.” It would have to be mandatory. The restriction applies to the state, not to the individual. Individual citizens are allowed to say all they want that God exists and they can say it in any building. The Constitution only forbids the government from saying that or from forcing the citizenry to say that.
The rest of your post is mostly just repetitions of the same points. I don’t think I would have any more responses than what I’ve already posted so I’ll just leave it here.
