Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

1…3637394142…101

Comments

  • #1142
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,034 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    It cannot be both ... as one is a subset of the other.
    If you are saying that it is the 'separation of all religions and none from the state' ... please say so.

    ... and what about the place of organised irreligion, in all of this?

    Irreligion is indifference to religion, i.e. neither for or against religion. How exactly can there be separation of church and state if irreligion isn't allowed?

    EDIT: and how exactly do you organise indifference? :pac:

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1143
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Just like with everything else you say you're wrong on this. The only bit of land in Luxemburg that is US territory (by international law, convention, and treaty) is situated on 22 Boulevard Emmanuel Servais, L-2535 Luxembour, because the only part of one country that another country can own legally or de facto istheir embassy to that other country.

    JC the more I hear of your ignorant nonsense, the more I come to accept that there are prokaryotes with bigger brain capacities than what you displace.
    Less of the name calling, please.
    Leases in Perpetuity are also recognised in International Law ... and they grant absolute authority over the lands concerned to the lessee ... and they have been used historically to legally establish sovereign colonies on the territories of other countries.

    Beneficial ownership and total control by the lessee State characterise these Leases.


  • #1144
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    J C wrote: »
    ... only if they were 'turkeys voting for Christmas'.

    All kind of ways ranging from pressing for the 'separation' / discrimination against Christianity by the state ... to the legal proscription of religious expression in public and in schools.

    Turkeys ... and Christmas comes to mind.

    How has Christianity been discriminated against that is unique to them? You seem to only think about Christianity but show no worry about any other religions.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_State
    The separation of church and state is the distance in the relationship between organized religion and the nation state.

    You are the only person that sees the two as different.


  • #1145
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    If you are saying that it is the 'separation of all religions and none from the state' ... please say so.

    ... and what about the place of organised irreligion, in all of this?

    SW
    Irreligion is indifference to religion, i.e. neither for or against religion. How exactly can there be separation of church and state if irreligion isn't allowed?

    :pac:
    I'm not talking about irreligion not being allowed ... I'm just saying that it should be included in the proposed 'separation from the state'.
    ... but the fact that you think that the inclusion of irreligion in the list to be 'separated from the State', will result in it 'not being allowed' ... tells us all we need to know about what you think the ultimate purpose of the 'separation of church and state' to be.
    SW wrote: »
    EDIT: and how exactly do you organise indifference?
    Irreligion generally isn't indifferent to religion or anything else.
    Atheist Ireland and similar organisations seem to be doing a very good job at organising irreligion!!!
    I'd suggest that you ask them how they do it.


  • #1146
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,034 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    I'm not talking about irreligion not being allowed ... just included in the proposed 'separation from the state'.
    ... but the fact that you think that the inclusion of irreligion in the list to be 'separated from the State', will result in it 'not being allowed' ... tells us all we need to know about what you think the real purpose of the 'separation of church and state' to be.

    Irreligion is not taking a stance on religion, be it pro or anti-religion. How exactly do you separate church and state while at the same time say irreligion must also be separated from the state? It makes zero sense.
    Atheist Ireland and similar organisations seem to be doing a very good job at this!!!
    Atheist Ireland are promoting the separation of church and state, true. But I wouldn't consider them an irreligious group as they certainly aren't indifferent to religion and its place in society/the world.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #1147
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    Irreligion is not taking a stance on religion, be it pro or anti-religion. How exactly do you separate church and state while at the same time say irreligion must also be separated from the state? It makes zero sense.


    Atheist Ireland are promoting the separation of church and state, true. But I wouldn't consider them an irreligious group as they certainly aren't indifferent to religion and its place in society/the world.
    I agree that Atheism/irreligion generally isn't indifferent to religion and its place in society ... and that is another very good reason why Atheism / irreligion should also be separated from the State ... if religion is to be.


  • #1148
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,034 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Irreligion is not the same as atheism. This discussion might go better if you didn't confuse the two.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1149
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    J C wrote: »
    I agree that Atheism/irreligion generally isn't indifferent to religion and its place in society ... and that is another very good reason why Atheism / irreligion should also be separated from the State ... if religion is to be.

    Atheism is completely neutral and isn't bound to the bias of any religion... so if atheism is the only neutral step, why should it be separated from the state.

    That's completely illogical


  • #1150
    ardmacha
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    So, again instead of actually owning up to your own mistake and retracting it, like any honest and decent person would do,

    I object to the contention that I am not an honest and decent person. I did not make a mistake, so cannot own up to it. I wished to post a picture that raised the question that a US funded facility might have religious symbols. I posted such a picture, which was relevant to the debate, and not an occasion for apology.

    Please withdraw the allegation that I am not an honest and decent person.


  • #1151
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    Atheist Ireland are promoting the separation of church and state, true. But I wouldn't consider them an irreligious group as they certainly aren't indifferent to religion and its place in society/the world.
    _Redzer_ wrote:
    Atheism is completely neutral and isn't bound to the bias of any religion... so if atheism is the only neutral step, why should it be separated from the state.
    Which is it guys ... is Atheism completely neutral on matters of religion ... or very concerned about religion and its place in society/the world?

    I think we all know the answer ... and that is why no exceptions should be made if religion/irreligion/anti-religion is to be separated from the state.


  • Advertisement
  • #1152
    el pasco
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 353 ✭✭el pasco


    J C wrote: »
    Which is it guys ... is Atheism completely neutral on matters of religion ... or very concerned about religion and its place in society/the world?

    I think we all know the answer ... and that is why no exceptions should be made if religion/irreligion/anti-religion is to be separated from the state.

    Would it not make more sense for a secular group called say Secular Ireland to promote secularism and not atheist Ireland


  • #1153
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    Irreligion is not the same as atheism. This discussion might go better if you didn't confuse the two.
    Irreligion and anti-religion is to Atheism what religion is to Christianity.

    ... so is it to be 'the separation of religion/irreligion/anti-religion from the state' then?

    ... or do still believe it should only be the Christian Church that should be 'separated', to use your 'colloquialism'?


  • #1154
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    J C wrote: »
    Which is it guys ... is Atheism completely neutral on matters of religion ... or very concerned about religion and its place in society/the world?

    I think we all know the answer ... and that is why no exceptions should be made if religion/irreligion/anti-religion is to be separated from the state.

    Secularism strives to make everything equal for everybody. Atheists don't believe in anything, so why would we be bound to religious policies we don't adhere to? Same for a Muslim, Jew or Christian having to comply to religious rules they don't follow or believe in.

    Having a secular, non-religious state is in everybody's interest as no one group has a foothold or rung above the rest.

    And before you say otherwise, atheism is a complete lack of belief, not a belief in itself, so a secular state is the fairest option, then all beliefs have parity in society. Everybody wins, and everyone is happy, or should be anyway...


  • #1155
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,034 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Irreligion and anti-religion is to Atheism what religion is to Christianity.

    ... so is it to be 'the separation of religion/irreligion/anti-religion from the state' then?

    ... or do still believe it should only be the Christian Church that should be 'separated', to use your 'colloquialism'?

    You're the only one suggesting that the Christian church should be singled out.

    The rest of your suggestion is nonsense. How can the state be pro-,anti- and indifferent to religion all at the same time? Please explain how this is possible?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1156
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    Secularism strives to make everything equal for everybody. Atheists don't believe in anything, so why would we be bound to religious policies we don't adhere to? Same for a Muslim, Jew or Christian having to comply to religious rules they don't follow or believe in.

    Having a secular, non-religious state is in everybody's interest as no one group has a foothold or rung above the rest.

    And before you say otherwise, atheism is a complete lack of belief, not a belief in itself, so a secular state is the fairest option, then all beliefs have parity in society. Everybody wins, and everyone is happy, or should be anyway...
    Nobody is suggesting that anybody should have to comply with religious or indeed, irreligious rules that they don't believe in ... but they should also not be prevented from the expression of their religion ... or irreligion.


  • #1157
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    You're the only one suggesting that the Christian church should be singled out.
    It is you (and not me) who continues to confine the 'separation' from state to the (Christian) church.
    ... or have you changed tack ... and have now widened it to religion/irreligion/anti-religion?


  • #1158
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    J C wrote: »
    Nobody is suggesting that anybody should have to comply with religious or indeed, irreligious rules that they don't believe in ... but they should also not be prevented from the expression of their religion ... or irreligion.

    Yes, I agree, but the state should only have a neutral stance, because as pointed out here already, how could it possible for and against all at the same time? It doesn't make sense


  • #1159
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,034 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    It is you (and not me) who continues to confine the 'separation' from state to the (Christian) church.
    ... or have you changed tack ... and have now widened it to religion/irreligion/anti-religion?

    Incorrect. You are the one saying that church refers to only Christianity. Something multiple posters have been attempting to explain where you're in error.

    Do you now accept that the separation between church and state does not only refer to only Christianity?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1160
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,146 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    FFS J C, look up "irreligion" in a dictionary so you have some idea of what you're arguing against.


  • #1161
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    J C wrote: »
    It is you (and not me) who continues to confine the 'separation' from state to the (Christian) church.
    ... or have you changed tack ... and have now widened it to religion/irreligion/anti-religion?

    And yet again JC is so blinded by his bible blinkers that he again confuses the word church to mean only Christianity.

    Church of Scientology

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology


  • Advertisement
  • #1162
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    bumper234 wrote: »
    And yet again JC is so blinded by his bible blinkers that he again confuses the word church to mean only Christianity.

    Church of Scientology

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology

    He doesn't confuse anything, he only cares about Christianity, nothing else matters or is relevant to him


  • #1163
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    FOLKS!

    If you can't disagree without being civil in your post DO NOT post. Take a breather and cool down.


  • #1164
    gaynorvader
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭gaynorvader


    From the OED:

    CHURCH
    NOUN

    1A building used for public Christian worship:
    the church was largely rebuilt at the end of the 15th century
    some people go to church every Sunday
    after church we went to a restaurant
    [IN NAMES]: St Luke’s Church

    1.1 (Church) A particular Christian organization with its own clergy, buildings, and distinctive doctrines:
    the Church of England

    1.2 (the Church) The hierarchy of clergy within a particular Christian Church:
    Isobel would enter the Church as a deacon

    1.3 b]MASS NOUN[/b Institutionalized religion as a political or social force:
    the separation of church and state



    The word church in "the separation of church and state" refers entirely to the definition of 1.3. It is precise language and everyone knows what we're talking about when we say it. To pretend otherwise is dishonest. To pretend it only refers to the Christian church is dishonest.


  • #1165
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    ardmacha wrote: »
    I object to the contention that I am not an honest and decent person. I did not make a mistake, so cannot own up to it. I wished to post a picture that raised the question that a US funded facility might have religious symbols. I posted such a picture, which was relevant to the debate, and not an occasion for apology.

    Please withdraw the allegation that I am not an honest and decent person.

    I was going to take your post apart, but then stopped and thought better. Do you know why? Because we'd be going around in circles for ever, me refuting your point, and you dodging evading those refutations, by firstly denying what you said, then attacking me for the "heinous crime" of pointing out your fallacy.

    So we're done, I'm never going to respond to anything you post again, and you're never going learn how act when in a debate, it is shown that you are wrong.


  • #1166
    sea_monkey
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 755 ✭✭✭sea_monkey


    J C wrote: »
    The separation of Church and State, the belief that there is no God and therefore materialistic explantions are the only ones to be accepted and provided with state support, the belief that public expression of religious faith shouldn't be allowed, the belief that religious faith shouldn't be expressed in school. the belief that the state shouldn't financially support any school with a particular religious ethos, the belief that full respect shouldn't be accorded to religious beliefs in hospitals, the military and prisons including the provision of a chaplancy service ... and that's just a few off the top of my head.

    I'm sure that you guys can think of a few more.

    ... and if I'm wrong about any of these ... please feel free to correct me.

    All of those that you mentioned are religious in nature so why should the state pay for them?
    Let the religions pay for them if they are so important.
    Using state funds to further religious intent is wrong when those funds come from people who do not believe.

    As for the education thing, it would be wrong to educate children incorrectly.


  • #1167
    72DSpecial
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27 ✭72DSpecial


    '3. Behavioral (learning). Darwinian evolution does not address how organisms react to their environment, develop traits to respond to it and pass on these traits to their offspring. Anyone who looks at an ant hill will understand this point. The underlying mechanism here is not well understood yet, although it is clearly to do with neurological development.'

    Sorry - This is all wrong. It's a vague referral to Lamarckism. Of course Darwinian evolution addresses how organisms react to their environment and develop or favour traits which respond to it! - ie. make their survival and thus the passing on of their genes more likely. When it comes to evolution bashing there seems to be a wilful attempt to ignore the facts, or at the very least an inability to understand the underlying scientific principles.


  • #1168
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Sh1t just got interesting...

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25471-spark-of-life-metabolism-appears-in-lab-without-cells.html

    MrP


  • #1169
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Sh1t just got interesting...

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25471-spark-of-life-metabolism-appears-in-lab-without-cells.html

    MrP

    Will be interesting to see what the creationist side make of this.:D


  • #1170
    Bellatori
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 276 ✭✭Bellatori


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Will be interesting to see what the creationist side make of this.:D
    They will just ignore it as with everything else that is slightly problematic for them.

    Just like the following

    bbc.co.uk/news/10132762

    Scientists took the DNA out of a cell and ran it through an analyser. They then manufactured an identical DNA and put it back in the remnants of a cell. Now the remnants of the cell is a non-living artefact. All the chemicals used to make the artificial DNA are also non-living so the creation of the living cells represents living from non-living therefore the nature of life itself is not special but intrinsic to the chemical nature of the processes.


  • Advertisement
  • #1171
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by MrPudding View Post
    Sh1t just got interesting...

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/...out-cells.html

    MrPbumper
    Will be interesting to see what the creationist side make of this.:D
    The relative difference between spontaneous glycolosis and the specified complexities and essential interactions observed in living organisms is akin to claiming that because static electricity has been observed being spontaneously generated ... that this explains the origins and spontaneous production of the 'Big Blue' computer.

    The fact that electricity is required to operate the computer doesn't explain how the computer was manufactured or programmed (which requires Intelligent Design) ... and ditto for life and spontantaneous glycolosis.

    We have actually been 'here' before with the Miller-Urey experiment which spontaneously produced certain amino acids, back in the early 1950's ... but again, its the massively complex and highly specified and intelligently designed combination of amino acids with other specific biomolecules that defies spontaneous generation ... and therefore proves the intelligent design of life.
    ... and the possibility of billions of years and the selection of mistakes also doesn't get us any futher in relation to explaining the origin of the tightly specified, complex and information-rich systems that we observe in life.


Advertisement