This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

"Fear of Death Makes People Into Believers (of Science)"

#51Far421Posted 6/12/2013 1:25:09 PM
I don't know what you mean by "ought" and "should".
---
Pokemon White FC: 4341 2165 1292
#52kozlo100Posted 6/12/2013 1:48:12 PM
I'm using them in their normal senses, at least as far as I know. I don't know what you're getting at.
---
Time flies like the wind,
and fruit flies like a banana.
#53Far421Posted 6/12/2013 3:17:28 PM
There is no "normal sense". To have a "should" you need some source of "betterness". What is your source?
---
Pokemon White FC: 4341 2165 1292
#54Hustle KongPosted 6/12/2013 3:18:37 PM
*Larry David stare*
---
Shooting Game never die.
It prays that the clover of luck be always in your mind.
#55kozlo100Posted 6/12/2013 3:19:36 PM
The principles behind separation of church and state? I'm really not understanding what you're confused about here.
---
Time flies like the wind,
and fruit flies like a banana.
#56Far421Posted 6/12/2013 4:42:32 PM
What grounds do you have to say that something :"should" be a certain way?
---
Pokemon White FC: 4341 2165 1292
#57kozlo100Posted 6/12/2013 4:50:29 PM
In this case, the US constitution generally. Specifically the 1st amendment, and in particular the establishment clause as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
---
Time flies like the wind,
and fruit flies like a banana.
#58bratt100Posted 6/12/2013 5:30:54 PM
kozlo100 posted...
Yea, ok. I'm on board with all of that.

Home education standards should not be based on anti-theist principles, and should solely use academic justification. That's pretty straightforward.

Clubs focusing on atheism ought be on the same legal footing as religious organizations for the purposes of funding and taxation. Again pretty straightforward.

Use of public facilities seems to fall under the same concept.

Yea, I guess I'm with you on this. Anybody else want to try to argue the other side?


I believe he said home education should be secular not anti-theist. I don't see any issue with teaching children about religion. Provided its being taught as mythology on the same grounds as the Greek gods.

The main issue with the argument is that atheism still can't be called a religion. It's closer to a political party then a religion and the vast majority of atheists I've met would never say that a god can't exist, just that there is nothing to suggest that one does.

It's a fair and accurate assessment given our current understanding of the world. The most likely outcome is a natural one as we have never verified anything supernatural.

A secular charity doesn't need to waste time on teaching kids the bible when that time and money can go towards feeding even more children. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what he was saying but to me they are not on the same grounds and if they were no companies would ever have to pay taxes.
#59Far421Posted 6/12/2013 6:14:03 PM(edited)
kozlo100 posted...
In this case, the US constitution generally. Specifically the 1st amendment, and in particular the establishment clause as interpreted by the Supreme Court.


So everything that "should" be law is law.

Yet the things you said "ought" to be don't all hold! For example, anti-theist organizations don't automatically get tax exempt status the way churches do.
---
Pokemon White FC: 4341 2165 1292
#60kozlo100Posted 6/12/2013 6:18:52 PM(edited)
Perhaps you misunderstood what kts and I were talking about. I'm not looking at what should be law, but rather how current laws apply in certain circumstances. What should happen if we apply those laws in these circumstances.

I don't off hand know if there's an anti-theist organization that wants tax-exempt status and doesn't have it, but if you found one, I'd agree with you that proper application of current law states that they should get it. Subject, of course, to the same restrictions churches are.
---
Time flies like the wind,
and fruit flies like a banana.