Do you believe in TRUE separation from church and state?

Your question is worded wrong. It should read

Do you believe in the true and complete separaton of churh and state.

hmmm

100%

I was going to ask this question myself. I think the French system is the best example of separating state and religion.

The church shouldn't be able to get involved in political processes, neither should corporations, and marriage should not be recognised by the government and should be purely religious. Civil relationships should be distinct from marriage and should be the joining of two or more adults together in the eyes of the law and the government.

I believe there shouldn't be a state. Is that separate enough?

I believe in religious freedom, but not separation of state from religious principles. Clearly, neither did our founders.

Our inalienable human rights and liberties are based in God, (Declaration of Independence).
We have National holidays of Christmas, Easter and Thanksgiving.
We have chaplains in the US government.
We have the Ten commandments engraved in marble in the Supreme Court.
Our founders were overwhelmingly Christian.

There are no human rights apart from God.

There can be no moral reality unless God exists.

There is nothing inherently sacred about moral codes. Like the wooden idols of long ago, they are the work of human hands, and what man has made, man can destroy. Morality exists outside of Christianity. And also other rekigious holidays like Halloween are celebrated and that was originally Pagan, I believe. And the birthday of yourself is celebrated as a holiday for LaVeyan Satanists. Just to put that out there.

Yes. Even raping children is not wrong to some people. They are entitled to their moral codes - and there is no objective difference between a child rapist or NAZI moral code and any other moral code. Right?
If you don't agree, then provide the OBJECTIVE BASIS to ground a realm of moral values and duties other than God. Without any objective basis, there is no actual moral difference between raping children and caring for children - just subjective opinions.

I can't talk about this subject. Please go. I told you before dont talk about rape, I even told you why. Why do you keep bringing it up? What kind of sick bastard are you?

This isn't 'talking about rape'. It's about the fact that you KNOW a moral reality exists - a reality you cannot ground if God does not exist. You simply wan't an excuse to avoid the logic.

Morality exists without god. Do you think buddhists have no morals, pagans, shinto's, Muslims, or Jains have no morals? Satanists? We have morals. Morals are learned naturally.

"Morality exists without god."

No, morality cannot possibly exist unless God exists. There is no other possible objective basis. NO ATHEIST OR ANYONE ELSE CAN PROVIDE ANY OTHER PLAUSIBLE OBJECTIVE BASIS - because there is none. Why don't you stop trying to ignore the logic and think honestly?

The fact that other religions and Atheists recognize a moral reality is just more evidence that a moral reality exists. There is no possible objective BASIS / GROUNDING for that moral reality unless God's moral nature is the grounding. Otherwise, all you have is 7 Billion subjective moral illusions that have no objective reality. There is no objective difference between a NAZI's opinion and yours.

"Morals are learned naturally"

Morals must exist to be learned. You cannot learn something that has no reality. Morality (a real moral dimension that we apprehend/learn) has no reality unless God exists as the basis for that moral dimension.

In case you are interested in philosophy, are making the mistake of conflating Ontology (what is real?) with Epistemology (how do we know?)

Morality must have an established ontology (reality) before we can ask the epistemic question "how do we know which morality?".

Yeah, yeah, yeah. You keep believing that.

You don't believe something must be real to be learned?

You seriously believe you can learn morals that have no objective reality?

Yes. I've witnessed it.

You witnessed morals that had no reality?

You witnessed learning something that wasn't anything?

Tell me how that works?

Good grief.

Things can be right or wrong on their face, without your or any other mythology. If you can't understand that then that is your failure. Leave this person alone.

Good grief

Then provide the objective basis for moral right and wrong? You can't.
Tell us why a rapist's subjective opinion is any less valid than any other?
You can't.
Instead, you stick your head in the sand and refuse to face the logic.

Because it's natural to feel it hurts others. Those people are the minority. Morality is determined by the majority. The majority can feel naturally it hurts others. That's how it immoral. It's called using your natural emotions. That's how morality is formed. You know, as much as you question me, I never question you. Your turn to define morality.

"Because it's natural to feel it hurts others."

So what? You just beg the question. Stalin didn't care about starving 11 million Ukranians to death. Why is he actually wrong - when there is no objective wrong? You simply can't answer.

I never asked you to define morality. I asked you to ground morality as real - without God. You failed.

I just did. What about the Pope raping little kids? How about the Crusades? The killing of Pagans or Jews? Christians did that under the "morality" of your "god".

No you obviously didn't provide any OBJECTIVE Basis that makes a moral reality possible.

You offer distractions.

Stop denying the fact that I said what morality was without god.

I didn't ask you 'what morality was' without God. I already know that. I asked you to provide an OBJECTIVE BASIS to ground a moral reality (true irrespective of what the child rapist or NAZI thinks). You simply cannot and have not done that. You have offered your subjective opinion - an opinion that binds no moral values or duties on anyone who disagrees.

You keep believing that.

You keep ignoring the logic and I'll keep telling the truth.

You're telling your OPINION. There's a difference from opinion and truth.

Nope. it's logical fact. That's why you (and all Atheists) fail to provide any POSSIBLE objective basis to ground a moral realm other than God.

You just refuse to think about it.

I do, honey. But you ignore me too much to listen. I did it before and you ignored it and made excuses to save your ass.

Nope, then provide it.
Tell us how your supposed objective basis is morally (not legally) binding upon the NAZI or child rapist who disagrees?

Fact is, you can't - and you know it.

Define objective basis, I'm sorry but I don't know what exactly you mean by that.

Objective basis means a grounding that holds true even if someone disagrees. Real. Actual.

For example, frying Jews is wrong even if the NAZI's thought it was good to fry Jews.

Raping and murdering is objectively wrong - even if a rapist/ thinks it's (subjectively) good for him..

Or, there is an objective (actual) moral difference between slicing up children with a knife and caring and feeding children - not just a matter of subjective preference.

We know that this objective moral reality exists. The only way it can be objectively real is if it is grounded in God's moral nature, Nothing else could possibly ground the objective moral reality that we know exists. God exists.

If God doesn't exist, there is no actual moral truth. Morality is nothing more than another subjective chemical delusion that has no reality. In reality, there is no moral difference between slaughtering children or feeding them - just a personal preference. In the end, it makes no difference

Can I use my religion as an example since we are basically Athiestic?

Yes, but it cannot be a religious principle or based on belief in a religion. It must be sufficient to constitute a universal moral reality.

For example God can be the objective basis for a moral reality whether you believe in God or not. If God exists, God's nature is a perfectly sufficient grounding for an objective moral realm that we all apprehend - whether we believe in God or not.

In my belief system we are not allowed to harm little children (such as rape) also we are not allowed to harm animals (unless for food purposes) and we can not hurt anyone (unless in protection of ourselves). We must respect people, only if they respect us and vice versa. Those are some. And like your god for your morality, this is from Anton LaVey which was also influenced by Alesteir (I think I spelled his name wrong, sorry) Crowley.

OK, but why is it wrong for those who don't care what your religion - (or you or I) think?

You need an objective basis to have a reality. You have no objective basis without God.

No dillhole, I'm not playing your game. You refuse to see the validity of anyone else argument. As I said things can be right or wrong on their face without your mythology. That's a period by the way. Your failure to comprehend that in no way obligates me to accept your position. Rape and murder are wrong because they are detrimental to society, I don't need a supernatural entity to tell me that. Another period. If you can't comprehend that then, again, that is your failure. I refuse to discuss this further with you, you have a problem.

Yes, when none of you Godless idiots can provide any objective basis for any moral tight or wrong, your protests are invalid. Why shouldn't I hold you accountable?

Pretending your logical incoherence and failure to provide any objective basis for moral truth is my 'failure to comprehend' is asinine. You're simply dishonest.

BTW. You cannot provide any rational basis for why being 'detrimental to society' is morally wrong - when morality has no basis in objective reality. What is your objective basis to claim anything is morally wrong?

Of course, you have none. That's why you throw a fit to mask your failure.