A What If Scenario: If America Became A Theocracy

[SICKGUY]

Originally Posted by lew

All of that is summed up in the Golden Rule, which is what Jesus advocated. So, yeah, you have no more higher or moral ground than we.

im glad he did, it means he was a good person, not the son of god.

i never tried to express that i was somehow better than anyone because im an atheist. strictly an observation (on how i see it) as to the difference between an atheist and christian politician. im at a point now where religion makes less and less sense, and i know its something that i will never bring into my life. but i also understand that what works for me isnt what works for you, or anyone for that matter.

is there such a thing as an atheist politician anyway?

[Diamond Cross]

Stop putting words in my mouth,

I never said a damned thing about Evolution nor did I ever say
I.D. wasn't anti-evolution either, nor did I say a damned thing about abiogenesis either.

My argument stands remains you cannot have a specific complex creation without a first cause. Creation has to start somewhere. There can be no creation without some sort of start. There can be no complexity of life without a creator guiding the design is the argument.

You have a blank piece of paper. You can't write an essay without a pencil or pen to place the first letter on it. You can't make a painting without the first brush stroke. You can't write etham stumbltharkum on a piece of paper and call it an essay. However you can just flick spots of paint on the paper and call it a painting, but even that randomness is caused by a guiding hand.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Stop putting words in my mouth,

I'm not. You're using a term out of context.

I never said a damned thing about Evolution

Intelligent Design is definitively against evolution by way of natural selection. When ID is brought into discussion, evolution comes with it (assuming there are participants in the discussion that are against ID ... otherwise, I define it as "preaching to the choir" as opposed to "having a discussion").

nor did I ever say I.D. wasn't anti-evolution either,

Right. You're equating ID to "first cause." That's a mistake on your part.

nor did I say a damned thing about abiogenesis either.

If you don't see a correlation between abiogenesis and "first cause" for life, then you obviously know very little about this subject.

My argument stands remains you cannot have a specific complex creation without a first cause. Creation has to start somewhere. There can be no creation without some sort of start. There can be no complexity of life without a creator guiding the design is the argument.

That's not ID. ID states that natural selection is wrong; God did it.

You have a blank piece of paper. You can't write an essay without a pencil or pen to place the first letter on it. You can't make a painting without the first brush stroke. You can't write etham stumbltharkum on a piece of paper and call it an essay. However you can just flick spots of paint on the paper and call it a painting, but even that randomness is caused by a guiding hand.

Please spare me this nonsensical rhetoric. I fully understand the Cosmological Argument and abiogenesis by way of divine intervention.


Anyway, to get to the crux of your argument: First Cause...

It's impossible to prove that the universe has a "first cause." The beginning of the universe does not have to have causality since the beginning of the universe marks the beginning of spacetime. Therefore, anything happening before the universe began is atemporal, and thus without cause. Making any claims of existence before the universe began is entirely metaphysical and inherently illogical.

As for abogenesis: Well, science doesn't say that there isn't a cause. We just say that the cause isn't divine, so "first cause" isn't exactly the most appropriate term in that sense.

[Diamond Cross]

I am not using things out of context. You're putting words in my mouth.

I agree about ID being more for creationism than evolution.

I am not equating it to cosmological, I am saying they are related and that it is impossible to create something without some sort of start. After all, how can something come to exist if there is nothing at all? That's the problem with the big bang theory, is that there has to be some sort of fuel for it. After all, no explosions anywhere can happen without some sort of fuel and some sortg of action which sets off the explosion.

And you're wrong about I.D. not being about the complexity of life:

Following the triumph of Darwin’s theory, design theory was all but banished from biology. Since the 1980s, however, advances in biology have convinced a new generation of scholars that Darwin’s theory was inadequate to account for the sheer complexity of living things. These scholars—chemists, biologists, mathematicians and philosophers of science—began to reconsider design theory. They formulated a new view of design that avoids the pitfalls of previous versions.

Called intelligent design (ID), to distinguish it from earlier versions of design theory (as well as from the naturalistic use of the term design), this new approach is more modest than its predecessors. Rather than trying to infer God’s existence or character from the natural world, it simply claims "that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable." [3]

Full article:

What is intelligent design?

[Diamond Cross]

All right D.D., I apologize. I haven't been in a very good mood and had traken it wrong.

I haven't changed my mind about I.D. though.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

I am not using things out of context. You're putting words in my mouth.

No, I'm not. You brought up ID. So I told you what it was.

I agree about ID being more for creationism than evolution.

ID *IS* Creationism. It's just been rebadged.

I am not equating it to cosmological, I am saying they are related and that it is impossible to create something without some sort of start.

YOU said, "Ther modern equivalent is Intelligent Design, which is nothing more thn an argument of logic based on the logic of the First Cause."

YOU equated Intellegent Design to "logic based on the logic of the First Cause." I simply told you that the "logic of the First Cause" is known as the "Cosmological Argument."

After all, how can something come to exist if there is nothing at all? That's the problem with the big bang theory, is that there has to be some sort of fuel for it. After all, no explosions anywhere can happen without some sort of fuel and some sortg of action which sets off the explosion.

I guess my response wasn't good enough for you? If you have a question regarding my response to this exact paradox, feel free to ask. Circular argument ad infinitum ftl.

And you're wrong about I.D. not being about the complexity of life:

I said it goes against evolution by way of natural selection. I didn't say it goes against "the complexity of life."



I can't help but notice that you're really having a difficult time here. If you have questions regarding ID, First Cause, abiogenesis, logic, etc., then you should just ask, rather than assuming your argument substantiates and then defending it such great temerity.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

I urge all Texans to answer the call to serve those in need. By volunteering their time, energy or resources to helping others, adults and youngsters follow Christ's message of love and service in thought and deed.
Therefore, I, George W Bush, Governor of Texas, do hereby proclaim June 10, 2000, Jesus Day in Texas and urge the appropriate recognition whereof,
In official recognition whereof,
I hereby affix my signature this
17th day of April, 2000.
--George Bush Jr.

I though christmas was Jesus Day

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by lew

An atheist has no more claims to "common sense" than a Christian.

Further common sense isn't.

[Kytro]

If the US became a theocracy the major difference would be that opinion you hold would be limited to religious values.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by SICKGUY

i wasnt raised with any sort of religion growing up, so these are basic rules that arent hard to figure out.

Yet numerous people dont follow those simple social behaviors. And their personal morals are just as correct as yours or mine.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Yet numerous people dont follow those simple social behaviors. And their personal morals are just as correct as yours or mine.

The question is does religion actually make a person more likely to act ethically?

Personal morals are basically a form of reasoning. Society needs to have some form of baseline ethics in order to function so they should be based on solid reasoning rather than religion

[Diamond Cross]

No, religion is not likely to make a person act more ethically.

Although they do use religion to support their beliefs and actions.

[Pro Street]

The U.S. is already a thocracy, although it's hardly official.

There ARE blue laws in states that require an acceptance of God in order to hold office, but of course they aren't really enforced.

However, the control of the churches as voting power and campaign support is enough to influence all levels of the Government.

I honestly can't come up with one "non monotheistic" religious public official

[motivez]

Doesn't it kind of have to be 'official' for it to be a Theocracy though?

There's a difference between having leadership which is religious, and religious leadership.

But I see your point.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by motivez

Doesn't it kind of have to be 'official' for it to be a Theocracy though?

There's a difference between having leadership which is religious, and religious leadership.

But I see your point.

blue laws do make it official though, not to mention god referred to on our currency.

we stopped being secular around 1950

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Kytro

The question is does religion actually make a person more likely to act ethically?

Well since only God can decide on what acts are ethical, yes.

Originally Posted by Pro Street

blue laws do make it official though, not to mention god referred to on our currency.

we stopped being secular around 1950

At least get the info correct in the rant. The money mention God in the 1860s.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

blue laws do make it official though, not to mention god referred to on our currency.

we stopped being secular around 1950

That is not correct.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Well since only God can decide on what acts are ethical, yes.

I'd have to disagree on that point. Even if God decides what is ethical (which I don't agree with) does religion actually get people to act more ethically?

There are more religious people in prison as a percentage of population than atheists.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by lew

That is not correct.

maybe I need a 3rd person to tell me.