how can you tell they are intelligent?
toldailytopic: I am so sick of...
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
how can you tell they are intelligent?
If you can speak using words of three or more syllables, operate the internet and manipulate TOL in such a manner as to successfully produce a post on this forum...then you qualify in my book for having enough intelligence to apply your own mind to any and all topics. In fact, I can't help but view this as one's civic duty.
but we have software that can do that
I've seen you reference "software" a couple of dozen times. Can't say I follow your posts closely enough to know what the heck that's supposed to mean. And I honestly don't really want to know. I've followed you closely enough that I recognize when you're sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting out loud.
And so you, likewise, qualify here.
that did make me laugh
Well, there's that.
Well, there's that.
can software make you laugh?
chrysostom :whip:
you are making me laugh
AtheistInFoxhole
New member
Dude, I hate to point this out since its going to make this thread go south in a hurry, but Hitler was an avowed Catholic(a Christian sect). If he wasn't a Catholic he did a darn good job of convincing his followers he was. His speeches often involved invocations of the name of the Christian god, so even if he himself wasn't it was the religious that were moved into action.
The vatican also shares some blame, not for actively taking part in the holocaust, but for remaining silent on the persecution of the Jews, which resulted from thier own declaration that the Jews had committed Diecide and could never be absolved of it. One statement from the Pope could have doen some serious damage control. Silence was as good as giving thier consent, which is sad because the churches have done lots of good work in charity and relief efforts.
And I'd also like to point out that "because the Nazis did it" is not a valid arguement against something's merit. Nor is "Thomas Jefferson owned slaves" a valid arguement for the merits of owning slaves. Ideas and practices should be argued on thier own merit.
Hitler's government (with the exception of his military organization, which wa a blody mess) ran like a well oiled machine, with each ministry doing its job and doing it well. Is an efficiently functioning government bad because Hitler did it?
He was good at many things, unfortunately inciting the religious into a blood feud was one of them. Many great people of marginalized stripes were lost, the majority of them because of a distinction over whether someone was the Messiah or not.
In any case the separation of church and state was deemed neccisary by the founding fathers because of the religious history in the colonies. Seems people's memories were short, because the people that left England to escape religious persecution, were more than happy to start persecuting other groups as soon as they had the power to do so.
Desecularization of government also would work both ways my friend, the government could choose a denomination other than yours, and you'd have to deal with it like it or not. Think of it this way, separation of church and state exists not only to protect the government from church influence, but also to protect your church from the government's intervention.
Respectfully,
An AtheistInFoxhole
When chrysostom, catholics, pentecostals, or anybody else makes statements against the Bible, and we immediately show it be false by copying and pasting from biblegateway, he says we use software programs.
If that were true, so what? We use the Bible, he uses cathecism.
assuranceagent
New member
I read your entire post and found it to be mostly well-reasoned (if not well spelled :freak: )
That said, I think you betrayed a little something of bias and misconception with your last statement, which brings me to my on-topic thought:
I'm sick of people positing that separation of church and state was an idea founded to protect the government from church influence.
The emboldened portion of the quote above has the truth of it. Separation of Church and State (a phrase not even to be found in the constitution) is based on a constitutional mandate (the establishment clause) that bars the government from interfering in the affairs of religion.
Period.
AtheistInFoxhole
New member
To deny that I have a bias would be to make a liar of myself. That's something nobody can really deny. I also appologize fof spelling and composition. I'm, at the moment, sick and exhausted. Working nights outside in the winter is a great opportunity to get sick.
And yes I must concede that protection of the government from church influence is not expressly stated in the constitution, but the founding fathers also made thier intentions more clear in the Treaty of Tripoli that religious establishment could not be allowed to set the course of the government policy. One could even extrapolate the "no law regarding the establishment of religion" statement, and follow the same line of thought, that in order to protect religious extablishments, religion itself could not be allowed to take a part in the governmental process.
Not so much that a Christian shouldn't be allowed to be president, or that his values shouldn't have any affect on his policy, but that his/her religion cannot be given preferential treatment.
Last edited:
- Status