Author Topic: And Now From Our What Were They Thinking Department  (Read 2648 times)

Offline SkyTex

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 78
And Now From Our What Were They Thinking Department
« Reply #135 on: September 18, 2005, 01:15:30 AM »
I just wish people would quit sueing for stupid crap. who freaking cares? get this stupid crap out of our legal system, get it off of our media! damnit i wanna watch flipper and don't really give a crap about politics. I wanna watch my TV, play on my PC, and not be bothered with stupid crap! I don't wanna pay for the stupid crap that always seems to appear...

"God shouldn't be in the pledge of allegiance"
"I got fat from eating *insert fast food company*"
"I spilt hot coffee on myself without a warning"

ALL STUPID LAWSUITES! PACK ALL OF YOUR CRAP UP AND GO HOME! SHEESH!

Lets spend all of those tax dollars paying those judges and lawyers prosocuting those child molesters, murderers, and rapists! what's left over could build new prisions to house these new offenders!

Better yet! lets just shoot em all and be done with it! give those tax dollars back!

Offline SaburoS

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2986
And Now From Our What Were They Thinking Department
« Reply #136 on: September 18, 2005, 01:19:04 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Widewing
Thanks, but I'm aware of what an atheist is.

My problem with atheists is the logic they use to support their claim that God doesn't exist. Of course, they actually have less evidence that there is no God than people who do believe in God have. Fervent believers almost always have had some experience that reinforces their faith. It may be a spiritual experience or an actual physical experience. Atheists have no experiences. They base their faith on trying to prove a negative, that something does not exist simply because they haven't seen it.

Have you seen George Washington? No, but I'll wager you believe he existed. To have that belief, you must put your faith in the someone else's experience. Isn't that essentially the same as the various faiths? Believers are, at a bare minmum, trusting in someone else's experiences. To that, they add their own experiences and form the basis of their faith.

Do you believe in spirituality? Do you believe that there are things beyond the comprehension of humans?

My regards,

Widewing


The burdon of proof lies with those that say something does exist, not the other way around.

So prove to me that God exists.
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. ... Bertrand Russell

Offline DREDIOCK

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17775
And Now From Our What Were They Thinking Department
« Reply #137 on: September 18, 2005, 01:44:25 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by SaburoS
DREDIOCK,



 

No, YOU can conclude that, some others may conclude that, but still some others, and I do not.



and YOU would be wrong.

"In response to widespread sentiment that to survive the United States needed a stronger federal government, a convention met in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 and on September 17 adopted the Constitution of the United States. Aside from Article VI, which stated that "no religious Test shall ever be required as Qualification" for federal office holders, the Constitution said little about religion. Its reserve troubled two groups of Americans--those who wanted the new instrument of government to give faith a larger role and those who feared that it would do so. This latter group, worried that the Constitution did not prohibit the kind of state-supported religion that had flourished in some colonies, exerted pressure on the members of the First Federal Congress. In September 1789 the Congress adopted the First Amendment to the Constitution, which, when ratified by the required number of states in December 1791, forbade Congress to make any law "respecting an establishment of religion."

The first two Presidents of the United States were patrons of religion--George Washington was an Episcopal vestryman, and John Adams described himself as "a church going animal." Both offered strong rhetorical support for religion. In his Farewell Address of September 1796, Washington called religion, as the source of morality, "a necessary spring of popular government," while Adams claimed that statesmen "may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand." Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the third and fourth Presidents, are generally considered less hospitable to religion than their predecessors, but evidence presented in this section shows that, while in office, both offered religion powerful symbolic support.

Many Americans were disappointed that the Constitution did not contain a bill of rights that would explicitly enumerate the rights of American citizens and enable courts and public opinion to protect these rights from an oppressive government. Supporters of a bill of rights permitted the Constitution to be adopted with the understanding that the first Congress under the new government would attempt to add a bill of rights.
James Madison took the lead in steering such a bill through the First Federal Congress, which convened in the spring of 1789. The Virginia Ratifying Convention and Madison's constituents, among whom were large numbers of Baptists who wanted freedom of religion secured, expected him to push for a bill of rights. On September 28, 1789, both houses of Congress voted to send twelve amendments to the states. In December 1791, those ratified by the requisite three fourths of the states became the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Religion was addressed in the First Amendment in the following familiar words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In notes for his June 8, 1789, speech introducing the Bill of Rights, Madison indicated his opposition to a "national " religion. Most Americans agreed that the federal government must not pick out ONE religion  and give it exclusive financial and legal support. "

"
The first national government of the United States, was convinced that the "public prosperity" of a society depended on the vitality of its religion. Nothing less than a "spirit of universal reformation among all ranks and degrees of our citizens," Congress declared to the American people, would "make us a holy, that so we may be a happy people"

"Another Thanksgiving Day Proclamation
Congress set November 28, 1782, as a day of thanksgiving on which Americans were "to testify their gratitude to God for his goodness, by a cheerful obedience to his laws, and by promoting, each in his station, and by his influence, the practice of true and undefiled religion, which is the great foundation of public prosperity and national happiness."


Source Library of Congress

I can go on,and on and on and on
« Last Edit: September 18, 2005, 01:47:55 AM by DREDIOCK »
Death is no easy answer
For those who wish to know
Ask those who have been before you
What fate the future holds
It ain't pretty

Offline Leslie

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2212
And Now From Our What Were They Thinking Department
« Reply #138 on: September 18, 2005, 03:54:31 AM »
How is the pledge "trite?"  Trite is a term best applied in the arts or academia.  It is not mainstream vocabulary and I believe it is a disservice to school children to not learn the pledge and everything it stands for.  Imo saying the pledge is part of confirmimg we are in the United States of America, the only place on Earth where there is freedom.

I'm apalled the 9th Court judges feel the way they do about the pledge.  My question is, do these judges take any kind of oath/pledge whatsoever, and if they do, what is it?  





Les
« Last Edit: September 18, 2005, 04:14:58 AM by Leslie »

Offline SaburoS

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2986
And Now From Our What Were They Thinking Department
« Reply #139 on: September 18, 2005, 04:58:51 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
and YOU would be wrong.
No, I am not wrong. I do not come to the same conclusion as you. We interpret the issue differently. So your earlier statement of "We can ONLY conclude..." is false. The fact that I and some others do not interpret it the same as you proves me right. Had you stated instead "I can only conclude...." then you and I would not be having this further discussion. Like I said, it's about symantics.
 We can go around in circles if you wish.
Quote
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
"Snip~Its reserve troubled two groups of Americans--those who wanted the new instrument of government to give faith a larger role and those who feared that it would do so. This latter group, worried that the Constitution did not prohibit the kind of state-supported religion that had flourished in some colonies, exerted pressure on the members of the First Federal Congress. In September 1789 the Congress adopted the First Amendment to the Constitution, which, when ratified by the required number of states in December 1791, forbade Congress to make any law "respecting an establishment of religion."

~snip

Many Americans were disappointed that the Constitution did not contain a bill of rights that would explicitly enumerate the rights of American citizens and enable courts and public opinion to protect these rights from an oppressive government. Supporters of a bill of rights permitted the Constitution to be adopted with the understanding that the first Congress under the new government would attempt to add a bill of rights.
James Madison took the lead in steering such a bill through the First Federal Congress, which convened in the spring of 1789. The Virginia Ratifying Convention and Madison's constituents, among whom were large numbers of Baptists who wanted freedom of religion secured, expected him to push for a bill of rights. On September 28, 1789, both houses of Congress voted to send twelve amendments to the states. In December 1791, those ratified by the requisite three fourths of the states became the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Religion was addressed in the First Amendment in the following familiar words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In notes for his June 8, 1789, speech introducing the Bill of Rights, Madison indicated his opposition to a "national" religion. Most Americans agreed that the federal government must not pick out one religion and give it exclusive financial and legal support. "

~snip

I can go on,and on and on and on
 

I added bold to the part of interest that I see.
The funny thing about political and religious arguments is that no one will really slap their forehead in a moment of epifany and proclaim "My goodness, he's right!" We have our beliefs that are deeply ingrained to our core. No matter what I say, or what you say will change our minds.
You have your way of thinking and it is the best way....for you, but not for me.
Do you believe you're right, of course, but so do I in my beliefs.

Yes, I know you can continue ad nauseum. I will not.

So can we call you the Energizer DREDIOCK?  ;D

Respectfully Sir, I turn the thread over to you for the last word.
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. ... Bertrand Russell

Offline SaburoS

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2986
And Now From Our What Were They Thinking Department
« Reply #140 on: September 18, 2005, 05:10:10 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Leslie
How is the pledge "trite?"  Trite is a term best applied in the arts or academia.  It is not mainstream vocabulary and I believe it is a disservice to school children to not learn the pledge and everything it stands for.  Imo saying the pledge is part of confirmimg we are in the United States of America, the only place on Earth where there is freedom.

I'm apalled the 9th Court judges feel the way they do about the pledge.  My question is, do these judges take any kind of oath/pledge whatsoever, and if they do, what is it?  

Les


Ask a group of ten year olds what the pledge really means. Do they even understand what the words in them mean?

Many spies have taken pledges, lying through their teeth.

I'd rather our patriotism be judged by actions rather than words.

I feel that way for most everything. Actions speak louder than words.

Believing that a pledge will somehow turn the unpatriotic into patriots is false security.

Continued discussion in this matter is fruitless. I strongly believe what I do. Tired of hearing the same old arguments as no one really changes. I won't, you wont, "they" won't  ;)

I will withdraw from this thread, Sir.
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. ... Bertrand Russell

Offline Leslie

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2212
And Now From Our What Were They Thinking Department
« Reply #141 on: September 18, 2005, 05:32:51 AM »
I didn't think I was THAT tough.  But thanks anyway.  











Les:cool:

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
And Now From Our What Were They Thinking Department
« Reply #142 on: September 18, 2005, 07:01:08 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by SaburoS
I don't see other groups trying to force as policy their views on our US tax funded, govt-run public schools.


Come now, surely you jest.

Other "special interest" groups don't try to force as policy their views?

On the one hand "homosexuality is OK" MUST be taught because the schools much teach a diversity of views on human sexuality.

On the other hand "intelligent designe" MUST NOT be taught because there can be no diversity taught. about the origin of the species.

Yah, you're right. ;)
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
And Now From Our What Were They Thinking Department
« Reply #143 on: September 18, 2005, 07:02:21 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by SaburoS
Re-read what I actually said. Show me how  as meaning that it is being practised now?



So if it's not happening now... what's the big deal?
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8804
And Now From Our What Were They Thinking Department
« Reply #144 on: September 18, 2005, 10:57:55 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by SaburoS
The burdon of proof lies with those that say something does exist, not the other way around.

So prove to me that God exists.



You've missed the entire point....

No one cannot prove God doesn't exist. In fact, you have zero evidence to support an opinion that there's no God, no evidence, none, zippo.  

The whole point is that one must employ faulty logic to dismiss something simply because one has not actually seen it.

We can certainly establish that the limits of your knowledge and understanding is absolutely finite. Therefore, just because something falls outside your (or my) limited understanding, that does not mean that it does not exist. To argue that the universe is limited to your (or my) limited comprehension is illogical and foolish.

If I could prove God exists by pointing to him and saying, "there he is", then there would be no need for faith.

As it is written; "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".

My regards,

Widewing
« Last Edit: September 18, 2005, 11:37:13 AM by Widewing »
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
And Now From Our What Were They Thinking Department
« Reply #145 on: September 18, 2005, 11:12:34 AM »
atheists show a huge amount of faith in thier belief.

lazs

Offline Chairboy

  • Probation
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8221
      • hallert.net
And Now From Our What Were They Thinking Department
« Reply #146 on: September 18, 2005, 11:18:47 AM »
No more than christians.
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

Offline Holden McGroin

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8591
And Now From Our What Were They Thinking Department
« Reply #147 on: September 18, 2005, 11:32:09 AM »
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Chairboy, someone who does not believe that 'God' exists is an agnostic.

An Atheist is a believer... a believer in the non-existance of God.

An Agnostic is a non-believer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote
Originally posted by Chairboy
You might want to freshen up on your english:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=agnostic

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atheist

The agnostic doesn't profess to know whether there is or isn't a God.  The atheist believes there is no diety.


So your saying I am wrong by saying an Atheist is a beliver in the non existance of God and say instead, " The atheist believes there is no diety."  

Check...  

And your saying I am wrong by saying an Agnostic is a non-beliver in the existance of God and say instead, "The agnostic doesn't profess to know whether there is or isn't a God."

Check...

I guess I was way off base.  :huh
Holden McGroin LLC makes every effort to provide accurate and complete information. Since humor, irony, and keen insight may be foreign to some readers, no warranty, expressed or implied is offered. Re-writing this disclaimer cost me big bucks at the lawyer’s office!

Offline Chairboy

  • Probation
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8221
      • hallert.net
And Now From Our What Were They Thinking Department
« Reply #148 on: September 18, 2005, 11:33:13 AM »
You might want to re-read the agnostic definition.  You really pooched it.
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

Offline Holden McGroin

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8591
And Now From Our What Were They Thinking Department
« Reply #149 on: September 18, 2005, 11:37:19 AM »
From Dictionary.com,

a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

If one is skeptical about the existance of God and thinks it is impossible to know whether there is a God, is this person a non-believer or a believer in the answer to the question of the existance of God?  An Atheist and a God Believer are not skeptical.

I got the definition spot on.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2005, 01:19:08 PM by Holden McGroin »
Holden McGroin LLC makes every effort to provide accurate and complete information. Since humor, irony, and keen insight may be foreign to some readers, no warranty, expressed or implied is offered. Re-writing this disclaimer cost me big bucks at the lawyer’s office!