If you believe that, then you should also keep other unproven worldviews out of politics... correct? Or do you select the worldviews you are willing to allow in? You see I let them all in... I let the majority rule... as long as they don't infring on my Creator given constitutional rights... as written the constitution. So stu can bring his atheism in and a muslim can bring in their Islam.. What i do not like is when courts choose a winner and a loser by in some tortured inconsistent non constitutional manner. For instance changing Obama's constitutional violation into a Tax so the court did not have a showdown with the executive branch.
lol. exhibit 1 "Can you imagine the ignorance level of someone who asks you to provide a formal proof for a negative?"
Wow, you are like a junior high school level liberal debater... you fell back on an old saw... only it does not apply at all. If you wish to challenge the fine tunings... challenge Hawking and all the scientists who tell you if there is one universe our universe appears fine tuned.
i dont have to. i listened to what they said when they said some things may seem fine tuned to the untrained eye but THEN WENT ON TO EXPLAIN IN DETAIL WHY THEY ARE NOT.
This gets down to the definition of unproven worldviews I guess. Just as you cannot prove the existence of God, nor can I disprove His existence, we should keep Him out of politics IMO. Notice that I still capitalize Him, and do respect those who are more involved in their particular faith's. Are you referring to the Bush win over Kerry above? Of course you're not, no mention of the SCOTUS taking care of that one, right? You're stating that something the SCOTUS upheld was a constitutional violation, but yet proven untrue. I am of the belief that the lack of Religiosity, for lack of a better term, is Atheism, and that Atheism is not a Religion. Nice, civil discussion. Good.
I'm assuming that you are a person with strong Religious views. And, fwiw, I applaud you for that. You are aware that you won't be able to persuade many to join you of course. Those who believe, will believe, those who don't, won't. I'm truly agnostic, I would love nothing more than to believe in life after death.
ok without resorting to having faith in almost infinite other universes what have they explained in detail.
but believing there are no consequences in an after life and therefore the equivalency of cultures and for that matter actions is a world view. It is far easier to say that society should impose its will with respect to abortifacients on a church when it is your belief there is no creator. It is far easier to use the peoples tax money to pay for abortions of breathing babies with a toe in the mom... when you believe there is no after creator or after life. Why should we allow atheists to bring thier beliefs in to poltics but not those who believe in a Creator... you are just playing favorites and it is obvious not what the founding fathers set up.
take off your god glasses and go back and listen to them. stop getting your science from apologist sites. they are motivated to make shit up. i will give you this. you keep this place from getting boring.
you not only lie... you now refuse to even support your b.s. statement... but I will support my statement... for the 50th time there it is... Hawking and Hartle full 2006 paper link from the archives... no webpages involved. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf ... In fact if one does adopt a bottom-up approach to cosmology, one is immediately led to an essentially classical framework, in which one loses all ability to explain cosmologyâs central question - why our universe is the way it is. In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully fine-tuned [10] - as if prescribed by an outside agency or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation [11], which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see.