NationStates Jolt Archive

How about moral absolutes? General morality for all, that is not based on any religion. Logic and common sense laws in other words.

The principle holds. If a law fails the lemon test, then it can be ruled unconstitutional. Laws against gay marriage do not fall under the first amendment. Laws against gay marriage have never been struck down by the first amendment.

Not yet!

How about moral absolutes? General morality for all, that is not based on any religion. Logic and common sense laws in other words.

Who decides what is common sense? Some will argue a baby is a person from the moment of conception. It has Its own DNA and is biologicaly a human. Is this common sense. Or is it common sense that it is just really a bunch of cells that feel no pain therfore abortion is Ok? Im not trying to be difficult, but who decides these things.

If things are absoluty wrong then there has to be a source of absolute truth. Is it man or is it God?

Who decides what is common sense? Some will argue a baby is a person from the moment of conception. It has Its own DNA and is biologicaly a human. Is this common sense. Or is it common sense that it is just really a bunch of cells that feel no pain therfore abortion is Ok? Im not trying to be difficult, but who decides these things.

Your benevolent, all-caring and all-knowing government of course.

Back to square 1!

If things are absoluty wrong then there has to be a source of absolute truth. Is it man or is it God?


That depends on who you ask!

Your benevolent, all-caring and all-knowing government of course.

Back to square 1!

Problem is governments arent always benevolent, all caring and are most certainly never all knowing.

Problem is governments arent always benevolent, all caring and are most certainly never all knowing.


I was being facetious. Did you not notice my smiley?

Why is it when someone is against seperation of church and state, there is this fear that it means some guy in jackboots is going to make you kiss a bible and swear you love the Virgin Mary?

And why do you think Islam is growing so fast? Most Christians are secular. Their religion is second to their politics. disenfranchised people see Islam as a way to fight against secular society which they deem to be obscene and degenerate.

You might be able to argue that in Europe but South American is a different situation. Twenty years ago nobody would ever think anybody was a Muslim.

Hmmm obsence and degenerate. You are labeling again.

Why is it when someone is against seperation of church and state, there is this fear that it means some guy in jackboots is going to make you kiss a bible and swear you love the Virgin Mary?

I think we get it from the old days you know when you were killed if you werent a christian. Inquisitian and such. That and you take a look at Falwell and Coulter. Seeing them in power scares the crap out of me.

Why is it when someone is against seperation of church and state, there is this fear that it means some guy in jackboots is going to make you kiss a bible and swear you love the Virgin Mary?

Hmm I don't know

Falwell who said a great day will be when the public school system is replaced with a Christian one.

Robertson has way too many to quote.

Damn I just forgot another fundiloon.

Fred Phelps offers many reasons.

Why do Christian groups go about harassing people and companies over books, music, computer games, and movies? As the Liberterians like to say "Take responcibility for yourself" You don't like it, change the channel, don't buy the book or the computer game, don't go see the movie.....

Recently there are more examples of Religious tests for job employment. The Shrubs faith programs openly descriminate against homosexuals and they take tax money to help the homeless, etc. Perusing the job adds I saw one where you had to be a practicing Catholic before you would be considered for a computer job.

How many good Christians aided Eric Rudolph while he was on the run?

Not yet!
Interesting. Argument from events that might happen in the future. A logical fallacy, me thinks.

Hmm I don't know

Falwell who said a great day will be when the public school system is replaced with a Christian one.

Robertson has way too many to quote.

Damn I just forgot another fundiloon.

Fred Phelps offers many reasons.

Why do Christian groups go about harassing people and companies over books, music, computer games, and movies? As the Liberterians like to say "Take responcibility for yourself" You don't like it, change the channel, don't buy the book or the computer game, don't go see the movie.....

Recently there are more examples of Religious tests for job employment. The Shrubs faith programs openly descriminate against homosexuals and they take tax money to help the homeless, etc. Perusing the job adds I saw one where you had to be a practicing Catholic before you would be considered for a computer job.

How many good Christians aided Eric Rudolph while he was on the run?

I dont agree with falwell and Robertson on many things. If schools were made catholic by a gov. that recognized catholicism as the state religion, individuals should still be free to open their own private schools. Catholics today have to send their children to private schools, or send them to a public school where they get indocternated with things they find offensive. Whats the difference?

Why do "secularists" attack religous books, movies (Passion of christ). Its a two way street.

Was the computer job for a Church run bussiness?

I doubt very many "good christians" would help someone who indiscreminatly killed!

Interesting. Argument from events that might happen in the future. A logical fallacy, me thinks.

The same would hold true for the idea that a religous state would directly force people to follow the officiall religions dogmas.

I dont agree with falwell and Robertson on many things. If schools were made catholic by a gov. that recognized catholicism as the state religion, individuals should still be free to open their own private schools. Catholics today have to send their children to private schools, or send them to a public school where they get indocternated with things they find offensive. Whats the difference?
Okay could you point out examples of indoctrination within the public schools?

Why do "secularists" attack religous books, movies (Passion of christ). Its a two way street.
Because its freedom of speech dude. You can say what you want and I can say what I want. And come on show me an example where secularists are attacking religious books? And the passion of the christ. Come on people were worried because of how violent it was and the potential antisemetic backlash that could be caused. Yes its a two way street but it has nothing to do with seperation of church and state.

Was the computer job for a Church run bussiness?

I doubt very many "good christians" would help someone who indiscreminatly killed!
Funny you would be suprised how many good christians send money to the IRA. I do believe the US is one of its biggest fundraisers.

Okay could you point out examples of indoctrination within the public schools?


Because its freedom of speech dude. You can say what you want and I can say what I want. And come on show me an example where secularists are attacking religious books? And the passion of the christ. Come on people were worried because of how violent it was and the potential antisemetic backlash that could be caused. Yes its a two way street but it has nothing to do with seperation of church and state.


Funny you would be suprised how many good christians send money to the IRA. I do believe the US is one of its biggest fundraisers.

Many schools teach in sex ed that contraception is good and preferable. Evolution being taught as fact not theory. That religious pluralism is good etc..

I didnt bring up free speech you did. My point was that it is free speech if they want to attack games, books, etc.. its their right. just like those who thought the passionwould be harmful had the same right

What makes them good? because you say so? their actions would say otherwise.

Many schools teach in sex ed that contraception is good and preferable. Evolution being taught as fact not theory. That religious pluralism is good etc..

I didnt bring up free speech you did. My point was that it is free speech if they want to attack games, books, etc.. its their right. just like those who thought the passionwould be harmful had the same right.

Contraception isn't preferable (except perhaps to abortion), but it is the only realistic method of preventing prgenancy that actually works. Abstinence is unrealistic unless there are responsible parents to make sure they remain abstinent. Schools do not teach morality, they teach knowledge. It is the duty of parents to teach morality. Evolution is the only scientifically legitimate explanation for the development of life, and much of it has been proven beyond doubt. Lastly, religious pluralism is good because it keeps people from murdering each other over religion by actually teaching them about others.

Many schools teach in sex ed that contraception is good and preferable. Evolution being taught as fact not theory. That religious pluralism is good etc..
Funny because for me it was just taught as a theory just like gravity. Not only that but Sex ed for me wasnt just okay here is what a condom looks like now have at it. They just don't give you one option they give you multiple ones like how they teach about abstenance as well as contraceptive methods. Your making generalizations.

I didnt bring up free speech you did. My point was that it is free speech if they want to attack games, books, etc.. its their right. just like those who thought the passionwould be harmful had the same right
And I agree with that. But when people start to say I can or can not do something because of their beliefs that I dont necessarily agree with then we have a problem.

What makes them good? because you say so? their actions would say otherwise.
You were the one who brought up how good christians wouldnt help a bad person. And I brought up a point that the IRA a Catholic organization recieved a large part of its funding from the USA. Who do you think gives them that money? Muslims and Athiests?

Contraception isn't preferable (except perhaps to abortion), but it is the only realistic method of preventing prgenancy that actually works. Abstinence is unrealistic unless there are responsible parents to make sure they remain abstinent. Schools do not teach morality, they teach knowledge. It is the duty of parents to teach morality. Evolution is the only scientifically legitimate explanation for the development of life, and much of it has been proven beyond doubt. Lastly, religious pluralism is good because it keeps people from murdering each other over religion by actually teaching them about others.

How is it the parents responsibility? Are they the ones having sex? should they put chasity belts on their children? Its the people having sex who are responsible. And to have a school tell a Catholic child that contraception is good, is nothing short of indocternation. it is against the beliefs of the child if they are truely catholic.

Religious pluralism goes against many peoples beliefs, and is not about teaching about other religions its about teaching all religions are equal. that is indocternation.

Please send me a list of all those proven aspects of evolution. by your answer I can see their indocternation has worked well.

Funny because for me it was just taught as a theory just like gravity. Not only that but Sex ed for me wasnt just okay here is what a condom looks like now have at it. They just don't give you one option they give you multiple ones like how they teach about abstenance as well as contraceptive methods. Your making generalizations.


And I agree with that. But when people start to say I can or can not do something because of their beliefs that I dont necessarily agree with then we have a problem.


You were the one who brought up how good christians wouldnt help a bad person. And I brought up a point that the IRA a Catholic organization recieved a large part of its funding from the USA. Who do you think gives them that money? Muslims and Athiests?


Its not that they taught abstenance along with contraception its the fact that they teach it at all. It is offensive to a Catholic who believes it is evil to use contraception to have to listen to it. I know most schools allow you to opt out of these classes. but it is still indocternation. leave sex ed at home

Im surprised, but glad evolution was taught as a theory not fact.

The Ira is not a catholic orginzation! Its organization made up by catholics. Please dont act as if it has been approved as a personal prelature by the Pope.

And the battle goes on!

We need solutions to resolve this, not constent fighting. Please feel free to post any just and reasonable solutions any of you might have. Mine has already been opposed. Come on, I'm sure you all have an opinion on how to best resolve this. I have a feeling they will all be opposed in some way. But hey, at least we will be making the effort.

See you all later!

Its not that they taught abstenance along with contraception its the fact that they teach it at all. It is offensive to a Catholic who believes it is evil to use contraception to have to listen to it. I know most schools allow you to opt out of these classes. but it is still indocternation. leave sex ed at home
Guess what in a secular state which the US is they go with universal human rights instead of one groups moral code. So instead of going with say the christian ideal of abstenance they teach a sex ed class that tells kids what sex is, the dangers of it, and the precautions they can use. T

Im surprised, but glad evolution was taught as a theory not fact.
Well would you rather have evolution taught, you know something that is verifiable by facts and is not singularly endorsed by any religious group or perhaps you would prefer the Hindu creation story taught?

The Ira is not a catholic orginzation! Its organization made up by catholics. Please dont act as if it has been approved as a personal prelature by the Pope.
By Catholic organization I meant run by and made up of Catholics. It may not be the pope running it but its certainly not the "secularists". I'm not lumping all Catholics in with the IRA but what I am saying is that there are plenty of good christians who have given money to them. They could have done it because its a political party or perhaps they thought they are freedom fighters. But these average people who would never murder, who dont steal, who are hard working, everything we would consider a good person to be have given money to a terrorist organization. They did what you said good christians wouldnt do.

The same would hold true for the idea that a religous state would directly force people to follow the officiall religions dogmas.
No one says that it does. The constitution merely forbids the chance of it happening. Nice try buddy, do come back again.

yes there shoud be separasion of chuch and state. it is ni the contatoion wech is altament and that is that i do think leting it hapen woud be the bigses mistaek in us history just the tout of fudamentalist crchense in these cuntry is enoff to screr me out of my mind.so it think it shoud be completly separaet.and thay shount be alownd any say in these contry and that go for all group that are religise intatosions.that is waht needs to be done and i am buddhist so i am evcen say that to my self

First, ignore my name, its just NS and not my real beliefs :P

Second,
The problem that I have with discussing the Separation of Church and State is that it is usually poorly defined, if defined at all. If you look at the precise wording of the First Amendment (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof) it allows virtually all religous matters being debated today. It would have very little impact, as the main thing it says is simply that we can't have a religous (read: Christian) society or we can't stop people from practicing religion. That said if the definition of Sep. of Church and State is simply the statement of the first amendment, I would say that we unquestionably should have this, and probably more. I think virtually everyone agrees that we should have separation on this level. However if no one provides a more strict and applicable definition or clear examples, it becomes impossible to discuss as people have different things in mind when thinking about this issue.

Should we have a religious fundamentalist state? No. We should separate Church and State.

Should we have a state where people can't vote based on their religious beliefs? no. We shouldn't separate Church and State.

Hope this is clear.

I dont agree with falwell and Robertson on many things. If schools were made catholic by a gov. that recognized catholicism as the state religion, individuals should still be free to open their own private schools. Catholics today have to send their children to private schools, or send them to a public school where they get indocternated with things they find offensive. Whats the difference?

Indoctrinated? :rolleyes:


Why do "secularists" attack religous books, movies (Passion of christ). Its a two way street.

Again with the labels. You are a very judgemental person. You realise your very arguments prove why we need the establishment clause.....

The "secularists" (disclaimer: most) didn't try to censor the passion. They don't try to censor your ability to obtain religious books.


Was the computer job for a Church run bussiness?

Do tell me how running a data center requires being a Catholic?

If I listed a job which said NO CATHOLICS, there would be people screaming discrimination.



I doubt very many "good christians" would help someone who indiscreminatly killed!

Actually several did. They kept supplying him.

Its not that they taught abstenance along with contraception its the fact that they teach it at all. It is offensive to a Catholic who believes it is evil to use contraception to have to listen to it. I know most schools allow you to opt out of these classes. but it is still indocternation. leave sex ed at home


Well until the vatican apologises for the program of protecting pedophilliac Priests, they really can't talk about morality anymore.

Many Catholics don't follow that stance.


Im surprised, but glad evolution was taught as a theory not fact.

If you had bothered looking into credible sources, you would see that no credible teacher would ever declare the THEORY of evolution is FACT. If it was it would be called the LAW of evolution.


The Ira is not a catholic orginzation! Its organization made up by catholics. Please dont act as if it has been approved as a personal prelature by the Pope.

Has any Pope ever threatened ex-communication for their activivies? Yet more then one family planning clinic person has been threatened with ex-communication.....

and what reference to limitations on government involvement in religion do exist in the constitution only refer to Congress specifically, and not state legislatures (which existed at the time).


That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.

Religion is dictated as the duty which we owe to our Creator, and any such matter as we discharge it. Such is directed by our personal reasons and convictions. All men equally entitled to the free exercize of their religion. And it is all of our duties to practice (this is a constitutional duty of everysingle person in the Commonwealth) Christian Forbearance; (patients with others), love and charity. [This is why Pat Robertson would never make it in this Commonwealth).


No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

People cannot be forced to worship by any dictate of the state, or anyone else; nor subscribe to any place of worship, or under any ministry of worship.

They canot be forces, restrained, or troubled by others (including the state); either bodily, or by matters of goods (taxation); not be penalized for their religious opinions or belieffs.

All are free to profess and argue their individual beliefs. And no such arguments may be made against these opinions to diminish their civil capacity.



And the General Assembly shall not prescribe any religious test whatever, or confer any peculiar privileges or advantages on any sect or denomination, or pass any law requiring or authorizing any religious society, or the people of any district within this Commonwealth, to levy on themselves or others, any tax for the erection or repair of any house of public worship, or for the support of any church or ministry; but it shall be left free to every person to select his religious instructor, and to make for his support such private contract as he shall please.

The General Assembly (the law making power of this Commonwealth, housed in the Virginia Senate and House of Delegates) may not prescribe religious tests for any office (even those outside of the Assembly) or pass any law authorizing or requiring a particular religious society (sect or denomination), or empower any locality (district) within this Commonwealth to do the same. For the purpose of levying government funds and taxes upon others, or even themselves; to erect or repair houses of worship; to support any church or ministry.

Each individual person is free to determine for themselves their religious instruction, and instructors; and to support privately, those institutions as they please.

______________________

This was ratified by the Virginia Commonwealth; a decade (plus) before the drafting of the United States Constitution. Under primary authorship of the then future govenor (and an Espicopalian) Patrick Henry; also undersigned by James Monroe; who took this same mentality; along with Jefferson; into the writting of the first clause of the First Amendment, of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.

All of the first 8 amendments, while enumerating specific rights in the US Consitution, are subject to clause in the 9th and 10th, as being incomplete. Thus recognizing such documents as only partial testinomy of the rights the people possess.

The general belief by most errant Christians; in the legal principle of the Constitution, as empowering government in all aspects, unless specifically barred by enumeration; is, in fact, false..... And the opposite thereof, of true Constitutional construction: That is, the Constitution enumerated certain powers to the Government; and all such not empowered thereunto; reside with the people first; and then their states.

In matters of the press, speech, and religious liberty, supreme power and determination of one's course lays with themselves alone; and not to their state, nor the Federal Power.

The 14th Amendment further annotates this; pressing Amendment concerns; not only upon limitation, and enumeration against Federal Power; but also limitation unto the states. Affirming the sovereign right of the people as individuals in matters of conscience and liberty, regardant.

Indoctrinated? :rolleyes:


Again with the labels. You are a very judgemental person. You realise your very arguments prove why we need the establishment clause.....

The "secularists" (disclaimer: most) didn't try to censor the passion. They don't try to censor your ability to obtain religious books.


Do tell me how running a data center requires being a Catholic?

If I listed a job which said NO CATHOLICS, there would be people screaming discrimination.




Actually several did. They kept supplying him.

I dont mind labels, and if the label fits so what. did I label you or anyone in particular. Do you deny that there are secularist?


Most of the things you listed can be seen from a secular position as being harmful. some consider violence& sexuality in movies, games, books etc.. as harmful to society as it encourges people to act on these impulses. I personally dont care. I dont have to watch them or read them. Dont act as if its only the "religious Right" I wouldnt consider Tipper Gore a right wing religious freak.

IF it was a non church business they should not be allowed to keep people from working based upon religion, but I dont expect the Baptist church to hire catholics either. If they disagree with the Catholic religion they shouldnt be forced to hire Catholics.

Well until the vatican apologises for the program of protecting pedophilliac Priests, they really can't talk about morality anymore.

Many Catholics don't follow that stance.


If you had bothered looking into credible sources, you would see that no credible teacher would ever declare the THEORY of evolution is FACT. If it was it would be called the LAW of evolution.



Has any Pope ever threatened ex-communication for their activivies? Yet more then one family planning clinic person has been threatened with ex-communication.....

Please forward me any document that the vatican covered it up. Local diocese and bishops covered things up, but not the pope. the vatican is used to described any member of the clergy or spokesperson working in the vatican by the media. its a broad term. I personally feel that the Church in the states is very liberal and accepting of homosexual preists. which is why most cases were against teenage males. I agree there should be more done to these predators. This still does hamper the churches ability or obligation to speak out against moral issues.



I have no problem with the THEORY OF EVOLUTION, but in my experience it was taught as fact.


I think membership in the IRA still incurs the penalty of automatic excommunication. The same as anyone procuring an abortion or helping a person get one.

Why all the anger. I just disagree. I do not believe in seperation of church and state and Im honest. YOU dont have to agree. I just wish you would see that a religious state forcing religion on an individual is the same as a secular state forcing secular "rights" on a religious person. the two are opposed and always will be.

I have no problem with the THEORY OF EVOLUTION, but in my experience it was taught as fact.

That's because you are unable to differentiate between the ToE and the fact of evolution. The fact is that evolution happens, and all life on earth is descended from a common ancestor. The ToE explains how evolution happens. If you can't distinguish between the two, it's your problem, not the schools'.

Please forward me any document that the vatican covered it up. Local diocese and bishops covered things up, but not the pope.

Hmmm lets see where are my Vatican files? :rolleyes:

Sorry slick but for the amount of time that it's been going on and the fact the bishops in many countries seem to move the pedophile Priests around suggests otherwise. At the very least they don't have a clue whats going on in their ogranzation. I have read instances in Europe, Canada, South America, Asia, the PI, and the US. I even have a coworker whose husband(he is Irish) learned the local Priest kidnapped his best friend, took him out in the middle of nowhere, tortured him and raped him. This was 30 years ago. The response "Don't worry and don't make noise about it as we will deal with it" They transfered him to Canada.

Ever hear of the Duplessis' Orphans?
http://members.tripod.com/~rootsunknown/intro1.htm

Even the Panzer Pope has said the US press has overblown the situation and yet the Church has paid out over a billion dollars in settlements since the 1950s.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/06/church.abuse.settlement.ap/index.html

The Vatican is loosing people over it's inaction.


the vatican is used to described any member of the clergy or spokesperson working in the vatican by the media. its a broad term. I personally feel that the Church in the states is very liberal and accepting of homosexual preists. which is why most cases were against teenage males.


Wow that is very ignorant.

Newsflash: Pedophilliac != homosexual

Again. Cases in Euope, Canada, the PI, and Asia.

Access to boys is easier then girls.


I have no problem with the THEORY OF EVOLUTION, but in my experience it was taught as fact.

Well I think that is a bad teacher or you are reading you own viewpoints into the lessons.

Almost nobody declares it as fact. Even the processes involved are heavily debated amoung the people that defend it.

Again Law of Evolution vs Theory of Evolution.


Why all the anger. I just disagree. I do not believe in seperation of church and state and Im honest. YOU dont have to agree. I just wish you would see that a religious state forcing religion on an individual is the same as a secular state forcing secular "rights" on a religious person. the two are opposed and always will be.

I hold no anger towards you. Why would I? I don't know you.

Secular rights is the Freedom from Religion aspect which you can't understand.

There shouldn't be Religous test for any job or any office. Religion should be taught in the Chruches/whatever and by the family.

You have no right to take my daughters class time and talk about God without my permission.

Your ability to go to Church is not impaired. You can live what ever moral code you want. When you try to force others to live it, then you have problems.

Why all the anger. I just disagree. I do not believe in seperation of church and state and Im honest. YOU dont have to agree. I just wish you would see that a religious state forcing religion on an individual is the same as a secular state forcing secular "rights" on a religious person. the two are opposed and always will be.

And as other posters have actually posted actual articles on this issue stating that not endorsing a religion does not mean they are endorsing a policy of no religion. Secularists never force people rights on the people they get the government to change. Case in point gay marriage. No secular person is trying to get religious people to accept gays or force them to marry them in churches. All they are trying to do is get the government to give them the same rights as straight couples. Lets also look at school prayer. Secularists arent saying that students cant pray in school. What they are saying is that the school can not do prayer because not everyone agrees with what is being said. Would you want your kids to constantly have say a jewish prayer every morning or have to sit through them in silence? Secularists deal with the government and its organizations.

Please forward me any document that the vatican covered it up. Local diocese and bishops covered things up, but not the pope. the vatican is used to described any member of the clergy or spokesperson working in the vatican by the media. its a broad term. I personally feel that the Church in the states is very liberal and accepting of homosexual preists. which is why most cases were against teenage males. I agree there should be more done to these predators. This still does hamper the churches ability or obligation to speak out against moral issues.



I have no problem with the THEORY OF EVOLUTION, but in my experience it was taught as fact.


I think membership in the IRA still incurs the penalty of automatic excommunication. The same as anyone procuring an abortion or helping a person get one.

Why all the anger. I just disagree. I do not believe in seperation of church and state and Im honest. YOU dont have to agree. I just wish you would see that a religious state forcing religion on an individual is the same as a secular state forcing secular "rights" on a religious person. the two are opposed and always will be.


Then you have no idea what "theory" means, do you?

Let's start here:

This is easily the number one creationist argument. They trot it out usually at the very beginning of any creation vs evolution debate, and tend to repeat it ad nauseum. There are three possible rebuttals for this one:
The word "theory" has taken on an unnecessarily perjorative meaning in light of the fact that people do not distinguish between a theory which is supported by the evidence and one is not, ie- an idea which exists "only in theory". A scientific theory is more accurately described as a rational explanation of the facts, and an accepted scientific theory is the only rational explanation of the facts which makes sense. Tell me, would a creationist feel quite as pleased with himself if he triumphantly stated that "evolution is just the only rational explanation of the facts that makes sense"? Of course not; they are taking advantage of the fact that the word "theory" has more than one meaning.

(a slight variation on the previous) Did you notice that the person making this argument simply assumed that "theory" = "unreliable"? Is it impossible to have a reliable theory? If so, shouldn't this person explain why all theories should be assumed to be unreliable? Look at police forensics work; a police forensics expert must invariably construct a theory of what happened in the past, based on physical evidence. Are 100% of police forensics theories bunk? Of course not. And if it is possible to have a reliable theory, then you can't really question a theory by pointing out that it's "just a theory", can you?

Technically, evolution is actually both a theory and a fact, much like gravity. In the case of gravity, the fact of gravity is the observation that objects fall on Earth. The theory of gravity is (among other things) the idea that the force of gravity is proportional to mass, and that all objects create it (yes, even you or I). It has been extensively tested, but of course, nobody was around a million years ago to test it back then; this does not stop anyone from agreeing that there was gravity a million years ago! Similarly, the fact of evolution is that species exhibit both genetic variation and change over generations, and that this corresponds to structural variation and change. This is not in dispute, but most creationists do not even realize that this is considered evolution (they seem to have their own very narrow definition of what it is; how convenient). The theory of evolution argues that this observed mechanism is sufficient to account for the development of life on this planet.

It is difficult to say which rebuttal is the best; that is a judgement call which may depend on the literacy level of your audience. To put it bluntly, some younger or less educated audiences may find the third one too difficult to understand, even though it has the advantage of addressing a serious misconception about evolution which the first and second ones do not.

Fallacy watch:
Non-sequitur (the argument implicitly argues "it's a theory, therefore it's unreliable", which does not logically follow).
Recommended reading:
TalkOrigins article: Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

There is literally mountains of evidence to support evolotuon, to the point that it pretty much is "law". It's been observed in nature, and the fossil record shows ample evidence of evolution in Earth's past..

I strongly believe that the State has no business interfering with my religion; the government should stay out of our churches!

I strongly believe that the State has no business interfering with my religion; the government should stay out of our churches!

Then it appears you support the separation between church and state. ;)

I strongly believe that the State has no business interfering with my religion; the government should stay out of our churches!

Keep your church out of government, and we might have a consensus. Unless it does, I have no problem regulating it out of existance.

The three great cancers of civilization: 1. Racism 2. Nationalism 3. Religion

Get rid of those, and humanity might one day make it's way to the stars.

It is offensive to a Catholic who believes it is evil to use contraception

Well look. I believe it's evil to have to wash my hands and get innoculations to prevent diseases, but I guess that's tough shit, now isn't it?

The bottom line is, overpopulation is a very serious problem, and its only prevention is contraception. Now I'm glad that you are capable of ignoring your natural instincts, but most humans can't. Just because you declare something offensive or evil, doesn't make it so, and especially doesn't mean that the government should have to bend over forwards to be nice to your 15th Century beliefs if they are trying to promote something that is beneficial to the whole.

Then it appears you support the separation between church and state. ;)

exactamundo! the state has no right interfering with my church! keep government out of religion!

Keep your church out of government, and we might have a consensus. Unless it does, I have no problem regulating it out of existance.

The three great cancers of civilization: 1. Racism 2. Nationalism 3. Religion

Get rid of those, and humanity might one day make it's way to the stars.

Your line of thinking will someday be nothing more than an asterisk on page 759 of an unopened history book. We're here forever, baby. :)

Your line of thinking will someday be nothing more than an asterisk on page 759 of an unopened history book. We're here forever, baby. :)


Possibly, but medical science is making great strides in treating the delusional, which religious folks clearly are.

Your line of thinking will someday be nothing more than an asterisk on page 759 of an unopened history book. We're here forever, baby.

Possibly, but medical science is making great strides in treating the delusional, which religious folks clearly are.

As much as I enjoy a good free for all, I'd prefer we just keep this stuff to a maximum... of 0.
i.e. Not in my thread.

However, Brians Test, the separation of church and state works both ways (via case laws and other precedents), and therefore Klackt has a point (about the duality).

You all seem to have so many opinions and obvious answers to everything, but when I asked for opinions on a solution that both side could endorse, you had nothing to say. Or is it that there is no middle ground concerning this issue. Interesting!

However, I gave one. So since ther are no other opinions on this issue, then I guess that mine is the one that we should all consider.

Now that it's settled, I shall be moving along to another topic.

Goodbye and GOD bless!

You all seem to have so many opinions and obvious answers to everything, but when I asked for opinions on a solution that both side could endorse, you had nothing to say. Or is it that there is no middle ground concerning this issue. Interesting!

However, I gave one. So since ther are no other opinions on this issue, then I guess that mine is the one that we should all consider.

Now that it's settled, I shall be moving along to another topic.

Goodbye and GOD bless!

Yeah, u 2.

You all seem to have so many opinions and obvious answers to everything, but when I asked for opinions on a solution that both side could endorse, you had nothing to say. Or is it that there is no middle ground concerning this issue. Interesting!

However, I gave one. So since ther are no other opinions on this issue, then I guess that mine is the one that we should all consider.

Now that it's settled, I shall be moving along to another topic.

Goodbye and GOD bless!


I think my plan would be better. My plan of course being that the goverment has the right to keep a person or people from daaging/limiting other persons/people meaning no rape, murder, stealing, etc. However the goverment should not be able to legislate what one does in the privacy of one's own lair by one's self or with other consenting adults, meaning gay sex, religion, etc. This is version one of what this statement and will be modified, or amended, as need be

The bottom line is, overpopulation is a very serious problem, and its only prevention is contraception. Now I'm glad that you are capable of ignoring your natural instincts, but most humans can't. Just because you declare something offensive or evil, doesn't make it so, and especially doesn't mean that the government should have to bend over forwards to be nice to your 15th Century beliefs if they are trying to promote something that is beneficial to the whole.
(Bold mine)

More importantly, most humans SHOULDN'T BLOODY WELL HAVE TO. I could "ignore my natural instincts" if I had to, but I DON'T HAVE TO! Why should I deprive myself of something wonderful just because some religious killjoy doesn't understand the practical origins of his own religious laws? Should I have to stop eating pork because a rabbi several thousand years ago figured out that insufficiently-processed pork is dangerous to human health, even though there are now many safe and fun ways to enjoy the deliciousness of pigflesh?

(Bold mine)

More importantly, most humans SHOULDN'T BLOODY WELL HAVE TO. I could "ignore my natural instincts" if I had to, but I DON'T HAVE TO! Why should I deprive myself of something wonderful just because some religious killjoy doesn't understand the practical origins of his own religious laws? Should I have to stop eating pork because a rabbi several thousand years ago figured out that insufficiently-processed pork is dangerous to human health, even though there are now many safe and fun ways to enjoy the deliciousness of pigflesh?

Eww eww eww I am going to play fundiloon.

So what you are saying is that we should be able to have sex with animals and children just because our instincts tell us!

Just to head those comments off. ;)

Eww eww eww I am going to play fundiloon.

So what you are saying is that we should be able to have sex with animals and children just because our instincts tell us!

Just to head those comments off. ;)

Fundiloon? What was that about labels, and being judgmental again?