Go back and reread that exchange. I said that relying on social survival as a criteria for determining morality is Darwinism of the sort that the Nazis preached. (And, with all fairness to Darwin, even he did not invent that idea.)You cannot back that up, as you proved in our earlier debate. You back this up by claiming that people who utilize historical precedent are neo-nazi Darwinists.
See above.I acknowledge you don’t know of any cases where non-compliance with religion was grounds for outlawing behavior.
And, I was saying that this was used to determine legality not morality. You are the one who refuses to admit that natural processes of logic and discernment can arrive at the same conclusion as religion without being religious. To do this you insist that what may simply be logical cannot be arrived at without a moral backing. This is simply a flawed principle.Go back and reread that exchange. I said that relying on social survival as a criteria for determining morality is Darwinism of the sort that the Nazis preached. (And, with all fairness to Darwin, even he did not invent that idea.)
Nope, I said that all logical arguments have at their root unsupported assumptions, i.e. religious faith. You proceeded to offer your Darwinian theory and I pointed out several holes in your argument and, additionally, the fact that it was the same criteria that the Nazis used.You are the one who refuses to admit that natural processes of logic and discernment can arrive at the same conclusion as religion without being religious. To do this you insist that what may simply be logical cannot be arrived at without a moral backing.
Unsupported assumptions are religion.Religion is unnecessary for an unsupported assumption.
Let’s assume Iran will build a new mens room in the main airport terminal in Tehran. Religion?Unsupported assumptions are religion.
Do you lack evidence or logic to support this claim but believe it to be true nonetheless? Is it a matter of faith to you? If so, you are engaging in religious thinking, albeit on a trivial matter.Let’s assume Iran will build a new mens room in the main airport terminal in Tehran. Religion?
I am no longer going to discuss issues with you because you refuse to approach them from a logical stand point. Enjoy your life.Nope, I said that all logical arguments have at their root unsupported assumptions, i.e. religious faith. You proceeded to offer your Darwinian theory and I pointed out several holes in your argument and, additionally, the fact that it was the same criteria that the Nazis used.
Reason and logic are fine, as far as they can go, but religious thinking is unavoidable which is why it is endemic to human society.
Been nice talking to you.Do you lack evidence or logic to support this claim but believe it to be true nonetheless? Is it a matter of faith to you? If so, you are engaging in religious thinking, albeit on a trivial matter.
I don’t know what any of this has to do with Congress, the 1st Amendment, or establishment of a state-preferred religious denomination.Every non-profit is established. It must exist prior to filing as a non-profit.
Is response by the fire department when a church is on fire establishment? Allowing hookup to city water? Police stopping satanists from desecrating altars in Catholic churches? Blocking traffic for parish block parties? Issuing a building permit for a church? Licensing the bishop’s official car? Protecting the pope when he comes to the US?
Are churches to be exiled from society?
Note churches and religious organizations that do not meet non-profit requirements do pay taxes.
OK.I don’t know what any of this has to do with Congress, the 1st Amendment, or establishment of a state-preferred religious denomination.