Tis the season...deja vu anyone?

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

Studies, like public polling with skewed or improperly worded questions, are devices more often than not skewed towards a particular agenda.

Notwithstanding, no study would substantiate the patent hypocritical position to allow or proliferate a "religious" display without allowing EQUAL ACCESS to do the same for "non-religious" displays.

The 1st Amendment of our Constitution protects both points of view...which is an undisputable LEGAL FACT! Though not popular socially...as clearly represented even within this small microcosm of humanity/society, it is nonetheless a FACT!

To argue or defend otherwise is prima facie foolish...

S.D.

So is this about the constitution or the existence (or non) of God?

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

So is this about the constitution or the existence (or non) of God?

I presented it about the constitution...various red herrings have lead it off into the existence (or non) of God.

Take your pick...I'm more than willing to argue either question.

S.D.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

I presented it about the constitution...various red herrings have lead it off into the existence (or non) of God.

Take your pick...I'm more than willing to argue either question.

S.D.

Not interested in the Constitution - heck it can always be amended - the question of God is eternal.

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

Not interested in the Constitution - heck it can always be amended -

NOT without the appropriate vote.

...the question of God is eternal.

Which, clearly, has been debated for CENTURIES (i.e. precisely because the existence of God 'His' so-called word prescribing 'His' religious tenants/facts/etc. have not been proven)!

S.D.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

NOT without the appropriate vote.



Which, clearly, has been debated for CENTURIES (i.e. not proven)!

S.D.

And I'm fine with the notion that there are things that just "unknowable" even our own experience of the world cannot be "proven" to be objective truth (I clearly break with Kant on that one). Since neither position can be proven, from a pragmatic sense I find the argument rather pointless.

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

And I'm fine with the notion that there are things that just "unknowable" even our own experience of the world cannot be "proven" to be objective truth (I clearly break with Kant on that one). Since neither position can be proven, from a pragmatic sense I find the argument rather pointless.

This couldn't be any further from the truth.

Science and scientific theory (e.g. evolution) have already DISPROVEN many religous stipulations, as argued within my various responses.

It is religion and religious belief that is the negative, not non-religion and its susbsequent belief (or absent thereof).

S.D.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

This couldn't be any further from the truth.

Science and scientific theory (e.g. evolution) have already DISPROVEN many religous stipulations, as argued within my various responses.

It is religion and religious belief that is the negative, not non-religion and its susbsequent belief (or absent thereof).

S.D.

Science may have proven that biblical metaphor is just that - metaphor. But I've seen not "scientific" proof of the existence or non-existence of God - and for this point lets define God as Omniscient and Omnipresent (we'll skip Benevolence for now and the problem of evil).

On the other hand many people have claimed to have "numinous" experiences, experiences of the presence of God - so if we accept our senses as legit, then they have a good a claim as those of us who have never had a personal experience of God. (I think scientific knowledge is still based on "observable" repeatable experiments).

If we only accept things as true that we have verified ourselves, we'll then I'm sorry there are a lot of things I'll have to no longer believe, like the existence of Lapland.