ActRaiserTheReturned

State-Church Separation

Vortex said
I don't think anyone ever said a religious persons morals are less acceptable than a AthiestsI "Communism" has killed more than religion. When you compare every religious related death, be it war, persecution, or death for heresy to "Communism" and all related deaths, Religion far exceeds the death toll. Communism made the common man worse? Mate do you have any blinking idea what Communism actually stands for? Look if your talking about Stalin, Mao, Pol pot then fair enough because yes they did kill many people but THEY WERE NOT MARXIST, THE ONLY COMMUNIST THING ABOUT THEM WAS THEIR NAME. It's not really fair to compare all these 20th century killers to ancient religious murderous tyrants, for the modern killers had modern weapons which enabled more death. Think what would have happened if a medieval religious leader got their hands on some tanks?Also I'm fairly sure I mentioned Hitler was not a Atheist but a devout Catholic.

Yikes

You realize that ye old burning times only killed 100,000?-_-
Inquisition lasted centuries, killing somewhere around that many?
All Crusades combined could not reach a fraction of modern deaths by tyrannical regimes including Adolph Hitler, since as i said, he was more like a shapeshifter opportunist than anything.

State-Church Separation

So Boerd said
Any reason why your moral values are acceptable and a religious person's are not? Can you prove your moral values? You can't argue consequences, Communism has killed more and in less time. Communism made the lot of the common man worse in the long run. But I don't see you taking such a hard stance on it.Biggest killers in history, all atheists. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot.

Hitler was Hitler. :/
People may have been evil, even worse than Hitler but you don't see that because he's an athiest. He was a weirdo.

The Creepy Pasta Horror Show : No Doctor Frankenfurter

"Um. . . I'm sorry. Ted. . . is no longer. Alive." A tear fell from his face. "He's gone. Like our other friends."

State-Church Separation

I am now a God because I say so. You can't disprove that. Now worship me in my newly founded church of Brovism. The one tenet is that you must wear a silly hat. Also gimmie all your monies plox or else you will go to candy-land and die over and over from cholesterol.

It's not insane if I've give you reasonable room and freedom to disprove it, like I have.
"I am God!" Worship me!"


::Gets back up, shoots Bison in the head::
"And thus, you are refuted!"

On the other hand, if someone says, "It's true that the Church has brought suffering and negative repercussions to society when it merges with the Government, but the Church involvement with the Government is acceptable and even beneficial to society, if it's prevented from taking involvement AS the Government." In other words, the burden is on the other side of the Debate to prove that if officials indulge in shedding positive light on their religion with statements, that it will somehow harm society through political involvement of the Church is somehow hurting our freedoms/hurting society in some way. It doesn't."

State-Church Separation

Vortex said
Dear god, someone actually listened to my rambling about communism. I do agree yes, there is a lot of factors against communism but unlike God (who has equal, if not more evidence against it) it is not a entity but a political system with many experts in the field of political theory. Now you may say that there are many priests in the field of religion who may be considered experts of such, but how can you be "expert" in a field which studies a entity that may or may not exist. Communism does not physically exist ether, but nobody claims it to be a entity which created the universe but merely a political and economic system in which we govern ourselves.Look when I said "He doesn't FYI" it was supposed to be young and cheek and not supposed to rally the libertarian army against me. Now let's get back to Church and state. If you want to talk about god himself (herself? Itself?) go make a thread about that. If you want to talk politics go to the political ideology thread. Just stay on topic.

I would rather that we go back to the discussion like I have. I'ts about Church and State involvement. Not necessarily whether God exists or not, even if Christianity is what we mean by Church and State.

The Creepy Pasta Horror Show : No Doctor Frankenfurter

Jason looked down for a second and then looked at her face. "Please sit down Sony. There's no way to make this feel good." He stated.

State-Church Separation

So Boerd said
The burden of proof is on whomever is making the statement. I can say green swans exist. You cannot prove they don't. Therefore you can only say you don't know. By making the assertion that they don't, the burden is on you to prove it. Green swans exist is an verifiable, unfalsifiable statement. The opposite is unverifiable and falsifiable. Making a definitive statement which is unverifiable is silly, don't you think?The burden is on the atheist and the theist both. It is not on the agnostic.

In a legal case it's on both. I've more or less thought that in a debate that isn't in a court setting that it depends on someone making an assertion. While the faithful/theists, have an assertion for of course, that, for lack of a better word, "Church" involvement, is not just okay, but beneficial, to society and even politics in general, the fact is that it isn't really all that hard to make an observation of many benefits that have come from Christian contributions to the culture in Western societies.

The burden is on others to prove that, in summary, that proper involvement of religious thought in the Government and public life, is as negative to Society in general, if it's negative AT ALL, as they say it is.

The Creepy Pasta Horror Show : No Doctor Frankenfurter

"Mmkay. . ." Jason stated. In around an hour they had reached Sony. After Jason got out of the car he walked up with the detective to her door. "Before we do this, I don't think I even got your name yet." Jason stated. He brought up his water bottle and drank a few sips of it's cool, refreshing liquid. "I hope that she doesn't break down. I think that's exactly what's going to happen."

The Creepy Pasta Horror Show : No Doctor Frankenfurter

"She's a friend of mine. Ted, was her fucking boyfriend. I think someone's just making us suffer. I'm Sony and Ted's friend. . . and protective custody. . . you mean you're going to protect us?" Jake asked. He hugged the detective and pulled back. "I'm sorry I just don't know what to do."

State-Church Separation

Alkeni Synair said
Its nice and easy to sit there and say that because there is no way to know either way it is impossible to make a definitive statement about the existence of god. Except for the fact that that is nonsense. If I say that I have a baseball in my left hand right now, there is no way anyone can tell, because there is no one in this room I'm in right now. You have no way of knowing. Granted. you are under no obligation to believe that I have baseball in my left hand, nor act as though such is the case, unless I provide proof. I am the one making the claim. Therefore, the burden of proof is on me, and effectively, in the minds of everyone else (or at least, people who like proof), I'm not holding a baseball in my left hand.The 'God' and 'Not-God' propositions are not two sides of the same coin, propositions that can be equally proven. First of all, it is impossible to prove a negative. You cannot prove that something does not exist, because it would have left no indication of its existence (since it didn't exist). Things that do not exist cannot provide data. Proving a negative is impossible. All that can be done in support of the negative proposition is to disproven given evidence that is in support of the positive proposition. The burden of proof is not on the atheist. The burden of proof is on the theist, the person making the claim. If the positive claim (God exists) has insufficient evidence to establish it, then we can actually say that God doesn't exist - because there is yet no proof for his existence.

The burden of proof is one whomever there is more evidence against. There is yet no proof that there is more evidence against theists. If you think there is no evidence against athiests or agnostics, etcetera, then leave theists alone and let them believe what they want. Hands off their freedom of belief. Agree to disagree and be civilized.