stopcicles (September 7, 2008 at 8:02 am)

pwnsauce

philip1201 (September 4, 2008 at 8:00 pm)

They have. The court didn't say the religion was false, but that it was against the law. The court is not intended to make a moral judgement but a legal one. Those who make laws must make moral choices.

wimscheers (September 4, 2008 at 7:00 am)

"Logic IS NOT a set of rules which govern human behavior" Nobody said so. Because we are rules by emotions most of the time. (Ex Religion, 'heat of passion'-murders) "Humans do have logically conflicting goals and beliefs." Nobody said they have. Why? Because there behaviour is not governed by it. "Atheist and evolutionists do not hold a patent on Logic." Nobody said this. You can believe in god and still use logic to now that A = B & B = C gives A = C. I don't get your point Or the negatives

rakshamg (September 2, 2008 at 12:28 pm)

Benwantstosk8, in separation of religion & state, people are free to worship God in whatever religion or denomination they choose. People are also free to not worship God. This allows you religious freedom, also. How can you not understand the importance of this?

rakshamg (September 2, 2008 at 12:27 pm)

Thanks so much for making these videos!

Towedwart (September 2, 2008 at 5:40 am)

This series is awesome.

benwantstosk8 (August 31, 2008 at 6:10 pm)

If A tells B to respond by believing religion x, then B cannot remain indifferent by not responding. Anything else is a contradiction. Tolerance is intolerance of the intolerant(i.e.most religions). When someone calls for a response there is no middle ground. I agree that government could still condemn non-religious actions on non-religious bases. But religion could always be claimed so I assumed that wouldn't happen. Everything the government does could, "Infringe on religious rights."

benwantstosk8 (August 31, 2008 at 5:40 pm)

If A says that it is right to do x because of his religion. And B says that it is wrong to do x, then there is no way that B is indifferent toward A's religion. The government could condemn any non-religious action on a non-religious basis, so you're right. What I was trying to say was that the religious basis could always be claimed and therefore probably would. So to restate:If Jesus says you should respond with belief in Him and a B fails to respond then He is in disagreeing with Jesus.

TheProf1988 (August 29, 2008 at 10:21 am)

'saying that God told him to do it ' at which point we will lock him up for being mentally ill, religion is a handicap caused by a form of child abuse; indoctrination

faolitaruna (August 28, 2008 at 9:40 am)

Logical reasoning is a bedrock of scientific method. If some relation is logically impossible is not even wrong. If You find absurd in the science maybe you should learn more about it.