Atheists discriminated against

[Booz]

Bless her hooves!!!


Booz
EAC #1137 department head, department of department departmentalizing

[lazs2]

this is so funny to me...  RTR you claim that even tho the best minds in the history of mankind have not been able to disprove the eixistence of god.... You have FAITH that there is none?   You "believe" in a form of creation that can not have anthing to do with god simply because of your faith?

If you consider those who believe in god fanatics then by any defenition... you are a fanatic.  You will not take a sensible outlook and be an agnostic because you wish to make a statement.... A statement of your belief.

whoever said that they simply believe in one less god than me is wrong too.... I have no idea how many gods or what type their are...  I believe there probly is one...  It does not impact my life in any negative way tho.   I feel that whatever is out there I am willing to wait and find out.

crowmaw..and.... so far as "in god we trust"   It is history and looks good on the money..  No matter what.   It has been their a lot longer than those who would remove it.   I say that it is something that can be put to a vote tho...  It is not protectect under the constitution.... This is completely different than the second amendment which really is protected under the bill of rights.   Why anyone would care about a generic god being mentioned is beyond me unless...

their fanatic belief in atheism was driving them to make themselves heard or... more importantly... to stop others from being heard.

lazs

[*NDM*JohnnyX]

I'm an atheist, but I could care less what other people believe in. I have no problem with "God" being on our money, it's inconsequential to my day to day life. I don't believe in said God so why should I be offended?

If there was no offended parties from all religions in respect to other beliefs, most wars wouldn't have been fought. On the flip side, belief in religion has given people strength in situations where the only thing that kept them alive was a belief in a greater power.

It's not for me, and as long as you aren't telling me I'm evil and going to some sort of "hell", you can worship the flying spaghetti monster for all I care.

[lazs2]

and thrawn... the burden of proof often rests on a negative.   Those who say evolution is the only thing for instance...  Those who say it does not exist at all...  I am agnostic on the situation... I believe that some aspects of it probly do exist but doubt that any man has it all figured out.  

those who believe in evolution ask that those who don't prove that it doesn't exist.   Religion and more importantly god or gods have been around forever.   No civilization is devoid of them.   Many have claimed to speak with them or even be them.    No.... not just many.... millions upon millions...  that is important enough that if you wish to discount what they say then you need some proof that it is not possible.

I know people that have seen auras and spaceships.  I am sceptical.   I am not gonna preach to you that these people are wrong or mock them to make myself look wise.   I think that is what athiests are doing tho..

I also think that to profess a believf and faith in athiesm shows one to be a fantatic and a simple minded and close minded person.

either way.... I don't worry about it.  If there are spacemen or auras... When it looks like they can benifiet or harm me.... I will worry about it then...I am agnostic on the subjects..... Like global warming... no sense letting chicken littles ruin my life just yet.    I am an agnostic on global warming.

All of you young and sure and stuborn fanatics crack me up.

lazs

[lazs2]

and johny... I think you are the perfect example of an athiest... You are a very tollerant example tho... sort of a blend of "live and let live" and crusader for good.

How so?   You seem to base your faith (or hope) in a lack of god in that you blame a god for all wars and evil.   You reason that if there were no god and people did not believe in one (or more) then....  viola!   No more evil!

Or, at least... a bunch less.  Your statement is that of the disciple... you preach the word of athiesm in order to improve the world.  You are not happy with being agnostic because an agnostic will not rid the world of the evil supreme being.   Yet.... you can't reconcile the suppression of peoples minor comforts (saying god bless or in god we trust) with being tollerant.  

Your tollerance and your belifefs are in coflict in my opinion.

lazs

[lazs2]

And, if anyone wonders.  I believe that there is a god or gods unknown.  I believe that there is a power greater than man.

I do not even try to define it.  I am pretty sure tho that it is not like any of the religions we know say it is.  I am pretty sure tho that god doesn't hand down rules to every televangilist or suicide bomber on the planet.  

I am happy with everyone having as much or little religion as they want so long as they don't try to run my life with it.

lazs

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by lazs2
crowmaw..and.... so far as "in god we trust"   It is history and looks good on the money..  No matter what.   It has been their a lot longer than those who would remove it.   I say that it is something that can be put to a vote tho...  It is not protectect under the constitution.... This is completely different than the second amendment which really is protected under the bill of rights.   Why anyone would care about a generic god being mentioned is beyond me unless...

To me there is just as bright a line drawn in both the Establishment Clause and the Freedom to Bear Arms Clause.  It is all about interpretation.  

One interpretation of the Freedom to Bear Arms Clause says that the freedom of the people to keep and bear arms is for those people who are members of a well regulated malitia.  I disagree with that interpretation.

One interpretation of the Establishment Clause would be that "under God" and "In God We Trust" were unconstitutionally added by act of Congress because it establishes mono-theism as the religion of the country, ie we are under God...not under Zues/Apollo/Hera, etc.  So it rejects paganism or atheism for mono-theism.

[*NDM*JohnnyX]

If there was no offended parties from all religions in respect to other beliefs, most wars wouldn't have been fought.

More blaming religion than any God there. There may be a God, but religion is man made.

My belief is science. I don't know what created everything, but I believe sooner or later we will come to a scientific conclusion. It's a pretty straightforward belief. Who knows maybe oneday a star cruiser will meet God. I don't believe in that but if we do, he will be scientifically proven to me, not just written about. I know it sounds crazy, but I am a little nuts.

[lazs2]

crow... clutching at straws.   for what purpose?

Ok... let's say that the guys who say that the second allows the government to have armed troops have some sort of point....  

What would be the point?   Of course the government is allowed to arm its military.   This can't be the point of the amendment.   It is logical to conclude that "people" means "people" just like it does in the rest of the bill of rights and constitution.   Why would you have an amendment that allowed the government to arm it's troops?   The second obviously (even to the department of justice) means what it says.... If you want to have a militia then you better not infringe on the peoples rights to keep and bear arms.

as for the religion part... It is obvious to me that until a the government tries to "establish" a religion then there is no breech.   Merely professing a belief in a generic god is no such violation.  Everyone is free to interpret "god" in their own way.... you could call "god" science if you want.

The spirt of the seperation of church and state to me is.... that the state does not force any specific religion with all it's laws and rules on the body of the people.  There is ample evidence that the point was to avoid something like the church of england rather than to make every human avoid the mere mention of a supreme being.

In god we trust poses no political threat to anyone therefore.... those who oppose it do so out of fanatic belief....

I have no problem with the matter being voted on.... how bout you?

lazs

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Vulcan
Well I think deep down you do, as shown by your personal definitions. You answered neither of my questions as well.

I am an unbeliever, as all those who hold truely hold evidence and logic above faith are.

Those who need evidence are by definition without faith. (At least on that which they require evidence)

Logically one cannot prove a negative and you fault me for that,

Your fallacy is that you are charging an athiest to prove a negative, when the the burden lies with proving the implied positive assertion that there is a god.

While the fallacy of proving a negative is the foundation on which Atheism becomes illogical.  The fault of believing the existance of God, (or Gods) is an illogical conclusion as well.

The reason I sidestepped your question is that your premise (at least to me) was unfounded, as you have the mistaken though that I am a believer.

Faith (at least by the Christian definition and as I understand it this is required) is illogical, without reason.  

Your example of the guy on the island shows that the native required some evidence before he accepted existance.  This shows that he has no faith (in the ideas of the missionary at least)

In your example of the purple monster who sits beside you, you say it has no measureable effects, therefore it does not exist.  This is a logical fallacy, as X-rays did not spring into existance only with our ability to measure them. (Or perhaps with some bizzare quantum theory they did)  Lack of measureable influence proves nothing other than there is lack of measureable influence.

The logical fallacy of proving a negative due to the absence of measureable evidence is the foundation of the argument that Atheism takes as much a leap of faith as the belief in God.

Both beliefs are outside of that which logic can provide. The only logical conclusion is that existance of a diety is unresolved, hence agnosticism.

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Your example of the guy on the island shows that the native required some evidence before he accepted existance.  This shows that he has no faith (in the ideas of the missionary at least)

In your example of the purple monster who sits beside you, you say it has no measureable effects, therefore it does not exist.  This is a logical fallacy, as X-rays did not spring into existance only with our ability to measure them. (Or perhaps with some bizzare quantum theory they did)  Lack of measureable influence proves nothing other than there is lack of measureable influence.

The logical fallacy of proving a negative due to the absence of measureable evidence is the foundation of the argument that Atheism takes as much a leap of faith as the belief in God.

Both beliefs are outside of that which logic can provide. The only logical conclusion is that existance of a diety is unresolved, hence agnosticism.

So you see how your definition leans on the christian definition?

How about if I told you the purple monster created grapes and you should worship him as such? Would you say I'm nuts, or would I say you lack faith in the purple grape-creating monster?

[weaselsan]

Originally posted by crowMAW
You know better than that...unconstitutional laws do get passed and that is why the SCOTUS exists: to ultimately determine the constitutionality of actions by the Legislative and Executive branches.  That's balance of power.

So if the SCOTUS were, sometime in the future,  to rule that freedom of speech is limited to speech non critical of the government during times of war or national emergency thats balance of power. I'd say that goes beyond balance of power and closer to dictatorship. The left's problem over the last few decades has been attempting to use the SCOTUS to take power where they have failed at the ballot box. Notice the abject fear of Alito on the Court. Hey relax, it is only balance of power. I beg to differ. It is the use of the SCOTUS to legislate.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Vulcan
So you see how your definition leans on the christian definition?

How about if I told you the purple monster created grapes and you should worship him as such? Would you say I'm nuts, or would I say you lack faith in the purple grape-creating monster?

I am familiar with the Christian definition, the Zoroastrian definition is somewhat less familiar.

I would say show me some evidence of your assertion of the origin of grapes.  As my beliefs are based on verifiable evidence, yes I lack faith in your monster.

Issac Newton was not insane for having an illogical belief in God. He was, in that facet of his life, merely illogical.

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by weaselsan
So if the SCOTUS were, sometime in the future,  to rule that freedom of speech is limited to speech non critical of the government during times of war or national emergency thats balance of power. I'd say that goes beyond balance of power and closer to dictatorship. The left's problem over the last few decades has been attempting to use the SCOTUS to take power where they have failed at the ballot box. Notice the abject fear of Alito on the Court. Hey relax, it is only balance of power. I beg to differ. It is the use of the SCOTUS to legislate.

I do see your point...and yes, the situation you describe is in the realm of possibility.  However, the balance is still there...the Legislative Branch can initiate an amendment that clarifies the intent.  As you said before...it appears that gay marriages must be recognized in all 50 states.  Should the SCOTUS rule that that is the case, then the Congress and the States can amend the Constitution defining marriage.

Also understand that the SCOTUS does not send out proclomations from the bench whenever it feels like it.  It rules based on a pleading that requires both an act and an injured party.  The situation you describe above would only come about should the Executive or Legislative Branch inact a policy or law that curbs freedom of speech and someone sued to have their full freedom's restored.

BTW...are you ever going to answer my question?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by weaselsan
We need it to remind us where are inaliable rights come from.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why? The national motto and the Pledge did not include it before...why do we need to be reminded now?

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by lazs2
What would be the point?   Of course the government is allowed to arm its military.   This can't be the point of the amendment.  

And I totally agree with that interpretation.  But you do understand that some do not, and it may be the case someday that a law banning privately owned guns will be upheld by the SCOTUS based on the other interpretation.

Originally posted by lazs2
as for the religion part... It is obvious to me that until a the government tries to "establish" a religion then there is no breech.   Merely professing a belief in a generic god is no such violation.  Everyone is free to interpret "god" in their own way.... you could call "god" science if you want.

Well, I don't call science "god", nor myself...I don't call anything "god".  So how am I to interpret that new citizens of this country are sworn in and instructed to recite the Pledge so that it appears that their citizenship is incumbent upon making a declaration that this is a nation under God...which means to me that you must submit to believing in that God or lie.

Originally posted by lazs2
The spirt of the seperation of church and state to me is.... that the state does not force any specific religion with all it's laws and rules on the body of the people.  There is ample evidence that the point was to avoid something like the church of england rather than to make every human avoid the mere mention of a supreme being.

There is also ample evidence that the intent was more than just that.  Specifically, that the Federal government should stay out of religion entirely (one of the earlier revisions of the Establishment Clause stated, "Congress shall make no law touching religion").

The Complete Bill of Rights is an excellent book.  It is ONLY a compilation of the Congressional Record of the Continental Congress...there is no commentary at all.  But it gives you the flavor of what the Founders were really thinking.

Originally posted by lazs2
In god we trust poses no political threat to anyone therefore.... those who oppose it do so out of fanatic belief....

That may be...but it does not negate the fact that if someone feels that it injures them, then they have the right to redress those grievences and have due process to determine if the law is unconstitutional.

Originally posted by lazs2
I have no problem with the matter being voted on.... how bout you?

I have no problem with anything being voted on...but no matter what, I do have a problem with unconstitutional laws regardless of how they occur.  And I know you agree because I know that you would not want an unconstitutional law that would ban gun ownership, even if the majority someday decides to do that.