Do you know what Islam means? - Page 3

"When you question a definition MAKE IT CLEAR. IE, when you say "Christianity is great" that *usually* also implies Orthodox and Catholics in common terminology. Since its evident you didn't mean that, make it clear from the start so you can actually express yourself."

Point taken.

"Um. To be frank not that much impact. Perhaps it was a first step in the right direction. I think what was far more important was the rediscovery pre-Christian Roman and Greek ideas and philosophies as well as the following Enlightement. The Enlightenment, though often rejecting of religion altogether, was centred mostly in Catholic France (though there were important Scottish contributions) and I really don't think the Reformation was all that important. I mean, a step in the right direction, still wrong."

Wow - I think it far exceeded the Enlightenment which truly only affected the thinking of the elites but caused great bloodshed in the French Revolution. Yes Humanism was an effective pre-Reformation occurrence but I the Reformation destroyed the authority of Rome and ended their iron rule - it also lead to the writing of the Bible in local languages which vastly spread education amongst commoners. It lead to the end of monarchies, the establishment of liberal republicanism and so many moral movements like equal rights and the abolition of slavery. I took a class on the Reformation last semester - the prof. wasn't a Christian but she was extremely good and she believed it to be one of the most important eras in history. It is very possible that had it not been for Luther so much of the world today we be similar to in its political nature to what it was in the 16th century.

"You really believe that I believe absolutely that we shouldn't believe anything absolutely? "

Yes

"The only thing I am certain of are the sensations and memories I have at a particular instant, these don't derive from thought, that's all. "

No you are certain of so many other things even subjective things. When you write your certainty comes through crystal clear.

"Just because I said you shouldn't believe ABSOLUTELY doesn't mean you can't believe at all. Stop twisting my words."

Come on now - I am not twisting your words - I said that your statement if believed to be absolutely true proves that it is not wrong to hold absolute truths thus contradicting your statement. There are things we can know absolutely - that however does not mean that everything we know is known absolutely. Many things we think we know are false.

"And how do we determine what is absolute truth and what unknowable?"

Now that's a good question. Well for observable things we use the scientific method - for the unobservable we use logic. Yes there is doubt for the unobservable but that doesn't necessarily mean that our deductions are off the mark. Einstein said he simply knew the nature of space and set out to prove what he knew to be true. Much of his theories as time past were later shown to be correct as our observation skills improved.

"But you certainly act like you do."

I admit to speaking with a certain amount of authority on some subjects but so do you. Like I said we shouldn't have to apologize for it either. I am not ashamed of my own confidence level in what I know nor should you be.

" And my point stands: those who believe in absolute truth and righteousness (lets assume, for none-mathematical things) are believe in their own infallibilty to a dangerous degree."

I do not believe that I am righteous - I believe that Christ is righteous, the only righteous man to ever live. I do believe in absolute truths but I would never believe that I am infallible.

"All extremists, Hitler and Stalin, to the terrorists that knocked over the twin towers ultimately believed that their own beliefs were infallibly correct. "

I'm sure you are right but many great men also believed that their ideas where absolutely true and their confidence in their beliefs led to much good being done.

"My arguments are "maybe-arguments" as in, this is likely or that is possible given what we know. They are not absolutist."

Yes you are very good at the maybe-argument but those are more pertinent when we are discussing future outcomes. When discussing the past I think we can have a degree of certainty and do have a degree of certainty about what we have absolutely concluded.

"They're not disposed, they are put back in their place. If I do not trust my mere human mind to give absolute truth. If I believe that its because I used to trust my mind, and it failed me completely, I had to understand that everyday life is not rational and that logic is tiring and won't make you happy. "

But we are discussing whether we can know absolute truths not if we are infallible. Just because you learned you are fallible does not mean you should cease trusting your ability to determine absolutes.

"We just have little monkey minds, we're just naked apes, I really don't think our tiny brains can really comprehend the immensely complex universe absolutely. There are always unknown variables that could changes everything.

No we don't have monkey brains we are the children of God who created us in his likeness. No our finite brains will never fully comprehend the infinite and yes there will always be unknown variables. However none of this negates our ability to determine absolutes - just look what our minds can know in mathematics. Just look at all the inventions we have created in the last hundred years because of accumulated knowledge. When you get on an airplane do you really believe that monkey minds came up with the plans for the jet or determined the science behind flying?

"Wow - I think it far exceeded the Enlightenment which truly only affected the thinking of the elites but caused great bloodshed in the French Revolution."
And protestantism caused the Hussite Wars and the 30 years' war (1/3 of Central Europe died). Without the Enlightenment, there would be no US of A as we know it. There might be a "Protestant Republic of America", but that's it. Ideas like the seperation of powers, democracy and liberalism came from thinkers like Montesquieu and Rousseau not from Luther and Calvin.

"No you are certain of so many other things even subjective things. When you write your certainty comes through crystal clear."
Believe what you will.

"I'm sure you are right but many great men also believed that their ideas where absolutely true and their confidence in their beliefs led to much good being done."
What, like a Napoleon, a Lenin or a Komeini? Men who had good intentions, powerful beliefs but ultimately spectacularily failed? I prefer moderates, a Pitt, a FDR, a Bismarck or an Attlee any day. The ones who believe too hard in fact only believe in their own righteousness, they're crazy.

"Yes you are very good at the maybe-argument but those are more pertinent when we are discussing future outcomes. When discussing the past I think we can have a degree of certainty and do have a degree of certainty about what we have absolutely concluded."
Perhaps. Even then it is difficult. We can never be certain of the evidence, our senses and prejudices can always deceive us. And the world is so complex, especially history and society, that I don't think we can ever know absolutely. We can make good guesses.

"But we are discussing whether we can know absolute truths not if we are infallible. Just because you learned you are fallible does not mean you should cease trusting your ability to determine absolutes."
I think it should. Because we have absolutely no way of determining if something we believe is an "absolute truth" or an "opinion". And yes that's an opinion.

"No we don't have monkey brains we are the children of God who created us in his likeness."
Well if you want to deny the scientific evidence. That's fine, our genes are 98.7% chimp. Human irrationality is so evident everyday that I find the thought that we're just misplaced monkeys incredibly convincing.

" No our finite brains will never fully comprehend the infinite and yes there will always be unknown variables. However none of this negates our ability to determine absolutes - just look what our minds can know in mathematics. Just look at all the inventions we have created in the last hundred years because of accumulated knowledge. When you get on an airplane do you really believe that monkey minds came up with the plans for the jet or determined the science behind flying?"
There is a difference. Scientific knowledge *never* claims to be true. It only claims to be temporarily true, true until it is disproved by new evidence and a new theory. Popper argued that was the definition of a scientific theory: It is always falsifiable and therefore never absolutely true.

"1/3 of Central Europe died"

I'm not saying you are wrong but I think you need to check those numbers again. That sounds way huge.

"out the Enlightenment, there would be no US of A as we know it. There might be a "Protestant Republic of America", but that's it. Ideas like the seperation of powers, democracy and liberalism came from thinkers like Montesquieu and Rousseau not from Luther and Calvin.

And without the Reformation there would have been no Enlightenment and thus no USA . Also, the USA was, in essence for its first 180 years, a Protestant Republic (just ask the Irish). I acknowledge the influence of Montesquieu and Rousseau however there are many more in which the Founders relied upon and not all of them were of the Enlightenment - certainly not Hobbes or Descartes. I cant remember about Locke's religious views. The founders were extremely well read and many could write out large portions of the NT in both Geek and Latin. I believe 1/3 of the members to the Continental Congress were ordained ministers. The first Great Awakening, which was extremely Calvinistic, was very influential as well.

Regarding Montesquieu I think you are confusing his anti-Catholicism with anti-religion. Actually he wasn't anti-religion and favored Protestantism.

-"Something must be fixed and permanent, and religion is that something."

-"What a wonderful thing is the Christian religion! it seems to aim only at happiness in a future life, and yet it secures our happiness in this life also."

- "I have never claimed that the interests of religion should give way to those of the State, but that they should go hand in hand."
-----------Montesquieu

"What, like a Napoleon, a Lenin or a Komeini?"

No men like Adams, Hamilton, Madison and Lincoln.

"I prefer moderates, a Pitt, a FDR, a Bismarck or an Attlee any day. The ones who believe too hard in fact only believe in their own righteousness, they're crazy."

FDR was a moderate? That's a new one to me...lol. FDR was a radical that greatly altered domestic policy and who had 70% of his legislation over-turned by the Supreme Court. Nixon was a moderate and I doubt he makes your list.

"The ones who believe too hard in fact only believe in their own righteousness, they're crazy. "

So Adams, Hamilton, Madison and Lincoln were all self-righteous nutcases?

"Perhaps. Even then it is difficult. We can never be certain of the evidence, our senses and prejudices can always deceive us. And the world is so complex, especially history and society, that I don't think we can ever know absolutely. We can make good guesses. "

I agree but I don't think its always a matter of guessing - we do have enough primary source materials on some subjects that allows enough certainty to reach solid conclusions.

"I think it should. Because we have absolutely no way of determining if something we believe is an "absolute truth" or an "opinion". And yes that's an opinion. "

Sure we do - its called logic. We can apply the laws of logic to certain beliefs and determine their validity. For example - we can absolutely know that absolute truths exist because the denial of their existence proves their existence.

Now look at the fact that you felt the need to add that it was an opinion. You did so because you realized that if it was more than an opinion but an actual fact that it would then disprove your hypothesis. Thus logic reveals that if it is true it disproves its own claims. Therefore, you should reject believing in it because it cant past the test of logic.

"Well if you want to deny the scientific evidence. That's fine, our genes are 98.7% chimp. Human irrationality is so evident everyday that I find the thought that we're just misplaced monkeys incredibly convincing. "

I am not denying any scientific evidence - what percentage of your genes is lettuce? 97.9? The fact that all life shares this commonality is more conclusive of a Designer than some dumb chance, scientifically speaking.

"There is a difference. Scientific knowledge *never* claims to be true. It only claims to be temporarily true, true until it is disproved by new evidence and a new theory. Popper argued that was the definition of a scientific theory: It is always falsifiable and therefore never absolutely true."

Ok this is where I depart from the new age modern definitions of what science is. Science did and has historically claimed truths. In fact it still does, have you heard of the laws of thermodynamics? They are still called laws. A scientific law was an unchangeable truth. Yes it is true that very few scientific theories become scientific laws and this is most proper for the very reasons you mentioned. However I do not believe that this means that there can never be a scientific law. I think Montesquieu would agree...? lol

Wouldn't the theory that there can be no scientific laws be a scientific law?

Islam means peaceful submission to God

"And without the Reformation there would have been no Enlightenment and thus no USA."
Well I don't know, the reformation was a start, a step in the right direction like I said. But I hardly think it was crucial to the Enlightenment. I mean, most thinkers of the Englightenment were in catholic countries and many were secularists anyway.

"Regarding Montesquieu I think you are confusing his anti-Catholicism with anti-religion. Actually he wasn't anti-religion and favored Protestantism."
He was a secularist from what I understand, and wanted the Church to have no part of the 3 branches of government. More importantly the US constitution followed very closely his model of the seperation of powers, in fact, I think no Constitution tried as hard as the US one to have clear seperation of powers.

-"Something must be fixed and permanent, and religion is that something."
Well now we have something. Yes, Conservatism (in the philosophical sense) is desirable. And by that I mean, we should never change our societies too fast, we should always remember our previous ways (the argument being, if you change something you might break it, if you stay the same at least things don't get worse).

However, Conservatism as I have defined it doesn't necessarily endorse religion. Anything that has been around long enough should not be abandoned too quickly, though we can argue about how long is "long enough" to be conserved and how long is long enough to be thrown away.

"FDR was a moderate?"
By Western standards, yes.

"Nixon was a moderate and I doubt he makes your list."
Put it this way, 90% of moderates don't accomplish much. 90% of radicals fuckup.

By moderate I don't mean stagnation, I mean slow change and reasonableness. A moderate has some respect for the old order, moderate are Conservatives.

"So Adams, Hamilton, Madison and Lincoln were all self-righteous nutcases?"
That depends how much they believed in themselves. If they believe so much in themselves that they disregard others' opinions (like a Hitler, a Trotsky or a Napoleon) and always think they are right, yes then they are crazy.

"I agree but I don't think its always a matter of guessing - we do have enough primary source materials on some subjects that allows enough certainty to reach solid conclusions."
Well it depends what you mean. If you mean answering a question like: "Were Cleopatra and Marc-Anthony murdered?", then yes we can find a decent answer.

If its a question like "What caused the Russian Revolution?" We can only make guesses.

"Sure we do - its called logic. We can apply the laws of logic to certain beliefs and determine their validity. For example - we can absolutely know that absolute truths exist because the denial of their existence proves their existence."
The denial of something's existence proves something's existence?

"Therefore, you should reject believing in it because it cant past the test of logic."
Only if the statement is taken to the absolutist extremes which it is denouncing.

"The fact that all life shares this commonality is more conclusive of a Designer than some dumb chance, scientifically speaking."
What trash! Its means that we're all RELATED, which is the exact opposite of what a Designer would mean. If it was a Designer, we might all have had completely different genomes.

"Ok this is where I depart from the new age modern definitions of what science is. Science did and has historically claimed truths."
De facto, yes, but a true scientific theory is disprovable and only waits to be disproved. That's why Freud's theories and Marx's theories were not scientific.

If science starts claiming to be "truth" then it is no better than any other opinion.

"Wouldn't the theory that there can be no scientific laws be a scientific law?"
No, because we're talking about epystemology. Its metaphysical.

Re: the Reformation I don't think you realize the impact it had in destroying the authority of the Roman church to control and supress ideas.

"He was a secularist from what I understand"

I am no longer sure by what you mean by secularist. A Christian can believe in secular gov't. And that was a pretty strong endorsement of Christianity on his part, wouldn't you say?

"By Western standards, yes"

I am not sure I follow unless if you mean anyone is a moderate who is willing to compromise.

"By moderate I don't mean stagnation, I mean slow change and reasonableness. A moderate has some respect for the old order, moderate are Conservatives. "

By that standard I wouldn't call FDR a moderate - what he proposed was dramatic and extremely rapid.

"If they believe so much in themselves that they disregard others' opinions (like a Hitler, a Trotsky or a Napoleon) and always think they are right, yes then they are crazy."

Ok I agree that this definition defines a nutcase.

"The denial of something's existence proves something's existence?"

No, the denial of absolutes is by definition an absolute and thus proves the existence of absolutes.

"What trash! Its means that we're all RELATED, which is the exact opposite of what a Designer would mean. If it was a Designer, we might all have had completely different genomes. "

Why is that trash? I think the idea that random chance caused life to be far closer to trash.

"Its means that we're all RELATED, which is the exact opposite of what a Designer would mean. If it was a Designer, we might all have had completely different genomes."

We might, me may have even a greater chance if it were multiple designers but if it was one designer I think it is more commonsensical to assume a commonality between all life especially if that one designer designed all life.

"but a true scientific theory is disprovable and only waits to be disproved."

You assume that they all will eventually be disproved and discount the possibility that some may be validated.

"Re: the Reformation I don't think you realize the impact it had in destroying the authority of the Roman church to control and supress ideas."
Look, I've said it was a step in the right direction. Does that mean protestantism was all good? No it doesn't. Calvin's Geneva was just as bad as Komeini's Iran.

"I am no longer sure by what you mean by secularist. A Christian can believe in secular gov't."
Secular government is when church and state are seperate. It is when the church, priests, do not dictate policy. Montesquieu did not want the church to be part of any branch of government. A secularist can still endorse a religion while still wanting church and state to be seperate. Its *not* the same as atheism (in fact, atheists who want to teach the non-existence of God in schools for example or not secular).

"I am not sure I follow unless if you mean anyone is a moderate who is willing to compromise."
For his day and age he was very moderate. Remember, this is the time of Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin. FDR was non-revolutionary, he did not want any revolution, he did not want to abolish the capitalist system. Compared to the Founding Fathers of the USA, he was a moderate, for example.

"By that standard I wouldn't call FDR a moderate - what he proposed was dramatic and extremely rapid."
Did he abolish the old order? He largely kept the USA's old institutions. All he did was make government bigger, through reform not revolution (revolution as defined as destroying the old order, what the founding fathers or Hitler did).

"No, the denial of absolutes is by definition an absolute and thus proves the existence of absolutes."
Unless my denial of absolutes is not absolutely certain.

Which is what I have been saying since the beginning.

"Why is that trash? I think the idea that random chance caused life to be far closer to trash."
Life was not random per se. There's a philosophical argument I find very convincing but I don't have time to describe right now. Its called the anthropic principle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_Principle#Anthropic_bias_and_anth
ropic_reasoning

Essentially it recognises that a randomly created universe is unlikely to be able to give life. However, it argues that a lifeless universe can never be observed because life is the only form of observer. Hence, a universe with life no longer becomes unlikely, but inevitable.

"We might, me may have even a greater chance if it were multiple designers but if it was one designer I think it is more commonsensical to assume a commonality between all life especially if that one designer designed all life."
It depends what the designer wants really.

Suppose we found another planet with life, which (presumably) developed independently from us. If they have similar genes, that would prove they have the same Designer (or that we have the same ancestor, which would be difficult), if they have different genes that would mean that the random-life hypothesis is accurate.

"You assume that they all will eventually be disproved and discount the possibility that some may be validated."
When is something validated? There is *always* the possibility of nature being arbitrary, or that we haven't observed enough to know the law that applies to it.

This is the definition of a scientific law, that's why its better than religious or other opinion, because it is humble and it doesn't pretend to know more than it does.

All scientific theories are innacurate at best, they only await a new observation for a more accurate theory to replace them.

My, my, this is certainly a rousing and stimulating debate! And keep to your faith Xris, the world needs more tolerant Christians, and less Fallwell, Robertson, and their ilk.

Just to add my two cents...

If Christianity was 'responsible' for abolition and women's equality, why then was the War Between the States, and the suffragette movement needed to procure freedoms for women and blacks? Those occurred within the last 150 years of an almost two thousand year existence.

Concerning the missionaries in my beloved Ireland, home of my ancestors, and the women of the Emerald Isle. One will notice how those same missionaries had to 'adjust' Christianity to get the ancient Irish to accept Christianity. The Green Man, an arguably alternant depiction of my patron, still adorns Christian Churches today, and Saint Brigit is in fact the Goddess Brigid, just to name a few examples. I will have to agree that women in ancient Ireland had unique rights, as compared to others around the world, but I would suggest this is in fact to the older pagan ways of viewing women. During pre-Christian times in Ireland, women could hold all levels of offices in the civic and religious sectors. There were also very able warriors as well. The latter demonstrates perfectly their elevation in Irish Christian society, as opposed to those poor feminine souls in the Mediterranean and European lands. It is difficult to subjegate someone when they are holding a claíomh (sword).

And excerpt of an Elizabeth Clark article found at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/roles.html

quote:

---

We have information from about the end of the second century that whatever roles women may have had earlier, leaders of the church were beginning to clarify the fact that women should have no official position in the church as they were establishing it. And that was seen as a characteristic of heretical groups. The orthodox church would have none of that, and did not, so far as we can tell, from about the second century on. Where women distinguished themselves in the orthodox community were as martyrs.... And there are famous women who are martyrs. There was a famous holy woman, Thecla, whose story describes enormous opposition. There's not a single woman of renown in the ancient church whose story does not show enormous opposition from some of the men in the group.

---

"Does that mean protestantism was all good? No it doesn't. Calvin's Geneva was just as bad as Komeini's Iran."

No you are right - it wasn't all good - but lets not exaggerate about Geneva..

"Secular government is when church and state are seperate. It is when the church, priests, do not dictate policy. Montesquieu did not want the church to be part of any branch of government. A secularist can still endorse a religion while still wanting church and state to be seperate. Its *not* the same as atheism (in fact, atheists who want to teach the non-existence of God in schools for example or not secular).

So everyone but priests can dictate policy? So religious people must have their rights rescinded? And I am not sure that I fully agree with you about Montesquieu. Listen to what he says here:

""I have never claimed that the interests of religion should give way to those of the State, but that they should go hand in hand."

"For his day and age he was very moderate. Remember, this is the time of Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin. FDR was non-revolutionary, he did not want any revolution, he did not want to abolish the capitalist system. Compared to the Founding Fathers of the USA, he was a moderate, for example."

Well you can thank the Supreme Court for that since it ruled so much if his policies unconstitutional. I will acknowledge that FDR wasn't a revolutionary and anti-capitalist.

"Unless my denial of absolutes is not absolutely certain.
Which is what I have been saying since the beginning. "

But I'm sorry such an idea cant be held - either there are absolutes are there are no absolutes. There can be no middle ground. If one says there are no absolutes they just gave an example for an absolute.

"When is something validated? There is *always* the possibility of nature being arbitrary, or that we haven't observed enough to know the law that applies to it. This is the definition of a scientific law, that's why its better than religious or other opinion, because it is humble and it doesn't pretend to know more than it does."

No but it makes an assumption about the nature of the universe that is far from humble and based solely upon people who think they know more than they do.

"All scientific theories are innacurate at best, they only await a new observation for a more accurate theory to replace them."

And if you are wrong then you have incorrectly described the nature of nature and have set back scientific discoveries for generations. I believe Entropy is always right - will always be right and will never change because of some future observation. You do realize that men like Einstein absolutely reject this definition of science?

------------

Thanks TheIrishPagan...

"If Christianity was 'responsible' for abolition and women's equality, why then was the War Between the States, and the suffragette movement needed to procure freedoms for women and blacks? Those occurred within the last 150 years of an almost two thousand year existence."

Well because those institutions and societal norms had been ingrained for centuries and such change will always be resisted. If you are asking why it took Christians so long to usher in such changes then my answer is that, save Ireland, Christians had never achieved the kind of sustained power required to make such changes. You must understand that I do not equate the Roman Catholic Church with Christianity but with political power and empire.

"same missionaries had to 'adjust' Christianity to get the ancient Irish to accept Christianity. "

I'm not sure by what you mean by missionaries. Patrick was the only missionary I know of that is of any importance. And I have studied his ministry and am not sure how Christianity was adjusted at all to make Christianity more pleasing to Irish tastes. My Irish ancestors were a brutal, illiterate, warlike, slave-trading, human sacrificial practicing, polygamous people who within 50 years had completely abandoned the old way of life.

" If one says there are no absolutes they just gave an example for an absolute."
You misunderstand. By absolute I mean being absolutely sure of something. That's absolutist. I don't mean to say you can never say "X is always true" or "Xs are always black'. That's not at all what I'm saying. That an individual's certainty in a statement should NEVER be 100%, to be "absolutely certain" is to be 100% certain.

I oppose absolutism.

"No but it makes an assumption about the nature of the universe that is far from humble and based solely upon people who think they know more than they do."
What priests? Scientists never claim truth, you have a few Freuds and Marxs who argue otherwise, but the vast majority of recognised scientists never claim truth.

That's the point they RECOGNISE THEIR OWN FALLIBILITY. Whereas priests claim to know absolute and unchanging truth. Which relies on a such a powerful faith in one's own knowing abilities that I find it absurd.

"And if you are wrong then you have incorrectly described the nature of nature and have set back scientific discoveries for generations."
Um... They are all *wrong* so to speak. But any theory which replaces an old theory is LESS WRONG than the theory that preceded it.

"You do realize that men like Einstein absolutely reject this definition of science?"
I'm not sure, haven't read on it. Regardless of what Einstein thinks, I think that believing that the human mind by some magic can comprehend anything with absolute certainty is absurd. It INEVITABLY leads to questioning one's own infallibility.

And we are ALL fallible. Its absurd to be absolutely certain on anything which requires thought.

I am saying that absolutes absolutely exist and that we can absolutely know that absolutes exist. Do you disagree?

"What priests? Scientists never claim truth, you have a few Freuds and Marxs who argue otherwise, but the vast majority of recognised scientists never claim truth."

Of course scientists have claimed truth - it is only in the last 50+ years that science has abandoned the idea of the laws of nature.

"That's the point they RECOGNISE THEIR OWN FALLIBILITY. Whereas priests claim to know absolute and unchanging truth. Which relies on a such a powerful faith in one's own knowing abilities that I find it absurd."

Well then you must find Einstein absurd because it was his own faith in knowing the nature of space that led him to originate his theories. Of course scientists and priests should recognize their own fallibility but this does not preclude the possibility that absolutes may be determinable.

"Um... They are all *wrong* so to speak. But any theory which replaces an old theory is LESS WRONG than the theory that preceded it."

Heliocentricity is wrong? Entropy is wrong? Yes I agree that the more our observations reveal the more we are able to better state our theories or correct them but, like I have said, this does not mean that all theories will inevitably be corrected or shown false.

"I think that believing that the human mind by some magic can comprehend anything with absolute certainty is absurd. It INEVITABLY leads to questioning one's own infallibility."

It is amazing how you continuously rely upon an absolutist rejection of what man can absolutely know. I mean - if what you are saying is true it disproves everything you are saying - cant you see that? If its not true then again it disproves what you believe.

Of course the human mind can never absolutely comprehend anything to an infinite degree of understanding but this does not mean that we cant have an absolute degree of certainty about something's existence. Are you saying that you are not absolutely sure that you exist?

"Its absurd to be absolutely certain on anything which requires thought."

So you are not absolutely certain about that? If you were absolutely certain about that you would then be absurd?

Why cant you see that this belief of yours - if true - disproves your belief?

"Why cant you see that this belief of yours - if true - disproves your belief?"
Because I don't adhere to my belief with absolute certainty. Which is what I have been saying since the beginning. Look if you can't understand that that isn't contradictory, well tough, I find very satisfactory. There's no point repeating each.

You trust the human mind because you think you're God's child, divine, I think we're a completely fallible bunch of cells. That's it. I've gotten terribly bored.

A secular government is one that recognizes the opinions and rights of persons of ALL religions or none, not just one particular religion. That statement cannot be construed or twisted to imply that a secular government seeks to eradicate all, or one particular, religion. Many religious/political proponents, ranging from those who propose the 'UberFundie Manifesto', to those tolerant persons who just wish to teach God in schools and keep Christians mottos on our monies, think that we want to total elimination of all religion in the United States. I've been posting to an ultra-conservative blog, who hasn't kicked me off yet though I get the feeling that I am being 'tolerantly' ignored, and this seems to be the ongoing consensus.

I think I can understand their motivations, they feel threatened, as they have enjoyed an obvious majority during most of the US history as a country. Just after the War Between the States, the 'In God We Trust' motto was added to our currency. In 1954, 'Under God' was added to our Pledge of Allegiance. They might feel their 'clear' majority is an attack on their religion as the goal of a secular religion, which in my strongest opinion was the intentions of our founding fathers, seeks to remove evidence of what has been a clear preference and obvious support of one particular religion, as opposed to supporting ALL citizens, regardless of race, gender, or religion.

I cannot understand this mentality among the monotheistic. How many Muslim, pagan, or Atheist television stations and programs are there? Are there not a large population of monotheistic churches in our neighborhoods and towns? Are monotheistic clergy being ostracized and banned from the public view? Will not monotheistic persons and clergy have voting rights, along with those of other religions or non-religions? Do the monotheistic religions NOT have their own schools and institution? And concerning the latter, I feel that forcing religion in public schools, particularly in light of the religious schools, is an obvious case of the persecution of minority religions.

"Because I don't adhere to my belief with absolute certainty. Which is what I have been saying since the beginning. Look if you can't understand that that isn't contradictory, well tough, I find very satisfactory. There's no point repeating each."

All that matters is that if your belief is true you have just proven that it is false. Thus there is no point in you adhering to it period. To continue to do so is logically absurd.

I never said all absolute statements such as "all Xs are Ys" are false.

I said we can never believe in any statement absolutely.

Its completely different, hence none-contradictory. If you can't see that, well tough balls.