Societies don't have to be secular to be modern

[Viking]

If you argue from ignorance don't make any positive claims.

The only positive claim I have made is about what I believe.

Well, you claim there is objective morality, presumably gotten from God and you claim that you can understand this morality through the bible (and presumably prayer).

[Martinus]

So a country with an overwhelmingly muslim populace, where the democratically elected representatives of the people pass laws that penalize apostasy, adultery and homosexuality with death, and forbid drinking wine and eating pork, would be "secular" to you? 

Seriously, you are the best example of the GIGO principle. You are a smart and decent guy, who has right ideas on most of things, but because your reasoning process is contaminated with religious falsehoods, you end up saying things like that.

Well I consider freedom of religion a basis for a secular state so I would probably nix the apostasy part...but how can you reasonably propose that a society is secular because it has no laws based on religion?

How is outlawing eating pork different from outlawing anything else if done via a legal and democratic process?  The motivations of the voters is not what makes a secular state.  If the voters voted for things based on Astrology or the belief that the world is going to end in 2012 that would be just as 'secular'.

Because in a secular state, rules are based on reason, not on revelation. Again, you are confusing democratic with secular. You can have a theocratic democracy. Democracy is a form. Theocracy (or secularism) is the content.

[Martinus]

I am not saying you have to ban religious thinking but yes, you have to ban religious politics. This is how the separation of church and state is perceived in many European countries, for example France.

Religion is a private thing. It should be kept to homes and churches. It has no place in the public sphere.

Yet France is not a secular state by your definition because there is nothing preventing people from voting for or against things based on their religious convictions.  In fact many people in France do just that.  Ergo according to you: not secular.

And religion is a private thing in the United States.  I am free to believe in and worship however I want.  There is no government agent around telling me what the acceptable dogma is.

I don't think secularism is a binary state. It's more of a continuum.

France is more secular than the US. The US are more secular than Saudi Arabia.

[Viking]

Edit: And since when is uncertainty and doubt the same as ignorance?  I'm pretty much of the view that anyone who doesn't acknowledge some level of either when discussing religion is somebody whose opinion isn't all that important.

Uncertainty is the core of science and the antethisis of faith. The only certainty that has been expressed so far in this thread by us non-theists is that of mathematical proofs. You were the one expressing certainty in the efficacy of drugs and nuclear bombs. I presume you are sure of gods existence as well.   

[Pat]

I am not saying you have to ban religious thinking but yes, you have to ban religious politics. This is how the separation of church and state is perceived in many European countries, for example France.

Religion is a private thing. It should be kept to homes and churches. It has no place in the public sphere.

Yet France is not a secular state by your definition because there is nothing preventing people from voting for or against things based on their religious convictions.  In fact many people in France do just that.  Ergo according to you: not secular.

And religion is a private thing in the United States.  I am free to believe in and worship however I want.  There is no government agent around telling me what the acceptable dogma is.

I don't think secularism is a binary state. It's more of a continuum.

France is more secular than the US. The US are more secular than Saudi Arabia.

"Is", after the Civil War

[Barrister]

If you argue from ignorance don't make any positive claims.

The only positive claim I have made is about what I believe.

Do you not care whether what you believe to be true corresponds with that which is true?

Of course I do.   

I just don't claim to have absolute proof.  What I am left with is faith.

[Barrister]

Uncertainty is the core of science and the antethisis of faith.

Since when?

Uncertainty gnaws at the very core of faith.  You'll be hard-pressed to find any person of any faith that doesn't admit to some doubt at one time or another.

Again, you're argueing a caricature of religion, not religion as it is.

[Martinus]

While there's quite a bit of evidence showing that the earth is not 6000 years old, I would challenge you to show any evidence  that proves Jesus was not resurrected, or that we do not go to heaven.

Most atheists would only argue there's no proof either way on those points.  But you went the extra difference to say that things like heaven and the resurrections aren't just unknown, but false.  Which must means you think you have some evidence on those points...

You have a funny idea of proof for a trial lawyer. 

Anyway, since you consider these ideas non-falsified, and from this derive that they have to be allowed as true (i.e. you lead your life as if resurrection happened and if people were going to heaven), I cannot but marvel at your selectiveness. 

When was the last time you sacrificed a young male goat to Zeus? Or made auguries to Janus before embarking on a new venture? I will not even suggest going to your neighbouring village and kidnapping their young men to tear their hearts out on the altar of Huitzilopochtli.

Of the countless thousands of gods, goddesses, half-gods and heroes, you ignore and consider false all but one. At least I am consequent in what I do - I extend the same treatment to all of them.

That is where you are mistaken.  I consider heaven and the resurrection as non-falsified, then through faith accept them as true.  I have never claimed that my faith is proven.

But you didn't actually answer my question - instead you just turned around and attacked me.  What basis do you have for saying that heaven is proven to be false?  Or did you (as I think you did) over-reach in your statement?

My point is that there is a countless number of non-falsified statements about reality, on which nonetheless there is no proof that they are true. While of course we could adopt an agnostic stance on each and every one of them, a reasonable and practical solution is to consider them untrue until some evidence presents itself.

This reasoning - I freely admit - is fallible, but nonetheless we consider it necessary. There might be an invisible alien fleet waiting on the dark side of the moon for a moment to invade us. There might be invisible faearies living under your bed and waiting for a moment to suck the living energy out of you. There might be a bearded, thunderbolt-throwing god residing in the cloud over the Mount Olympus, who will eventually throw a thunder at you if you don't sacrifice a goat in his name. This reality might be a lie, while we are in fact trapped inside virtual reality shells, while our bodily fluids are harvested by a race of malicious robots. And there might be a resurrected Jesus waiting to judge you after you die.

Each of these statements is equally non-falsified and each is equally presented with no proof whatsoever offered. Why do you choose to believe in one but not in the others? Clearly this is an unreasonable approach.

Sure, I may be wrong - perhaps I should stock up water and bread for the upcoming alien invasion - yet I consider this statement as if it was untrue, just like all the others.

[Viking]

Uncertainty is the core of science and the antethisis of faith.

Since when?

Uncertainty gnaws at the very core of faith.  You'll be hard-pressed to find any person of any faith that doesn't admit to some doubt at one time or another.

Again, you're argueing a caricature of religion, not religion as it is.

Since you accept a proposition without evidence. The only way such a proposition survives in the face of evidence is absolute certainty. And to make my point.

Is there any evidence I can show you which proves to you that God, in fact, does not exist?

[PDH]

Whew, I am glad I missed out all this.

Were there any shots of tits?

[Barrister]

Each of these statements is equally non-falsified and each is equally presented with no proof whatsoever offered. Why do you choose to believe in one but not in the others? Clearly this is an unreasonable approach.

I keep repeating myself on this, but...

There is no "proof" of God and the afterlife, but there is evidence.  The Bible, prayer, various reported miracles, etc.

Contrast that with yout invisible alien fleet.  There is absolutely zero evidence of it.

This is why such "flying spaghetti monster" arguments are uncompelling.

[Barrister]

Since you accept a proposition without evidence. The only way such a proposition survives in the face of evidence is absolute certainty. And to make my point.

Is there any evidence I can show you which proves to you that God, in fact, does not exist?

As I have pointed out, there is evidence.  Your argument that "The only way such a proposition survives in the face of evidence is absolute certainty" flies in the face of all available evidence, which is that most religious people do not claim to have absolute certainty.

Is there any evidence you could show me?  I dunno - what do you have?  I'll certainly consider it. 

[Berkut]

Is there any evidence you could show me?  I dunno - what do you have?  I'll certainly consider it. 

That isn't answering the question.

[PDH]

I really think that having Marty on a side invalidates that side.

[Viking]

Since you accept a proposition without evidence. The only way such a proposition survives in the face of evidence is absolute certainty. And to make my point.

Is there any evidence I can show you which proves to you that God, in fact, does not exist?

As I have pointed out, there is evidence.  Your argument that "The only way such a proposition survives in the face of evidence is absolute certainty" flies in the face of all available evidence, which is that most religious people do not claim to have absolute certainty.

Is there any evidence you could show me?  I dunno - what do you have?  I'll certainly consider it. 

Regarding the evidence for god. You say there is evidence, yet you don't present any of it as proof of your faith. You just claim faith. No "this is why I believe". You don't even have a nice non-falsifiable personal experience.

Evidence for the non existence of god, just off the top of my head.

The Bible - it's contradictions, falsehoods, banalities and plagarisms
The claims of the faiths - the lack of effect of prayer, lack of punishment of the jews for the transgressions of the covenants, plus the broken promises of the new testament (vis the wandering jew)
Theodesy - why bad things happen to good people
The Universe - how it works without any intervention from god and how reality is inconsistent with both a perfect creator and genesis