Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Chairboy on December 29, 2005, 09:10:10 PM
-
I know that there's a lot of people here on the board that disagree with me on religious issues, but I'm hoping y'all will acknowledge that this situation is just not right:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/texas.htm
7 states prohibit atheists from holding political office. How would you like a law that said christians couldn't hold office?
This is balderdash. If anyone out there disagrees, let's have a discussion.
-
that's bad
-
LOL! :aok
-
acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.
Accept my existance chairboy and they'll let you in ;)
-
Looks about par for the course nowdays. There is no darker closet then the one most Atheists live in today. Matter of fact atheists refer to telling folks about there beliefs as 'coming out'. To think I spent 25 years of my life defending this sort of nonsense. Australia's looking better all the time.
-
Nothing to discuss. Other than the fact that the site you linked attempts to embellish the establishment clause to suit its own agenda, and quotes the "wall of separation" paragraph which DOES NOT exist in the Constitution, but rather in a series of letters by Thomas Jefferson.
I am tolerant of your desire and wish to practice Atheism. I do not wish to see you or other Atheists excluded from any part of your rights.
I am however very INTOLERANT of the attempts by organized Atheists to remove God and the Judeo-Christain principles from the government that has served us quite well for 200 years. So, if you want to quote Jefferson and the rest of the founding fathers, remember it was they who put GOD in about 90% of the documents founding this nation, and there is little if any doubt as to their intentions or to which God they referred.
-
So Virgil, are you saying that you think it's fine that atheists are not allowed to serve in public office in those states?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
So Virgil, are you saying that you think it's fine that atheists are not allowed to serve in public office in those states?
Hell yes! You godless heathens will be trucked off to the camps with the rest of the hippies! ;)
-
just how old are those laws?
besides all politicians have at least 2 gods, money and power - regardless of their professed religious belief.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
So, if you want to quote Jefferson and the rest of the founding fathers, remember it was they who put GOD in about 90% of the documents founding this nation, and there is little if any doubt as to their intentions or to which God they referred.
This was written a few years ago:
John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States, recently repeated an old chestnut about America being a Christian nation whose founders were Christian gentlemen.
The claim is common among the country's fundamentalist Christians, but it is so ignorant of actual history one wonders whether it should not be taken as another serious indictment of American public education. Some readers may not be aware that Mr. Ashcroft's background includes familiarity with such arcane subjects as speaking in tongues. As for Mr. Bush, who touched the same theme in China, perhaps no comment on his grasp of history is required.
The late eighteenth century, following on the Enlightenment and waves of reaction to the violent excesses of the Reformation and counter-Reformation over the previous two centuries, was perhaps the lowest point for Christian influence ever. Virtually all educated people in Europe were deists and many were open skeptics.
America was not free of this influence despite its many Puritan immigrants. Indeed, many of the best educated citizens at this time were educated in Europe, and the small number of good libraries owned by educated people often contained the works of Enlightenment authors. Virtually all the ideas in the Declaration of Independence and even some of the words of the Constitution derive from these European sources. It is due precisely to the unique qualities of the period that we owe America's early embrace of religious tolerance. The immigrant Puritans had displayed no religious tolerance, and in fact were some of the worst fanatics from Europe.
George Washington was a deist. He was a member of the Masons, a then comparatively-new, secretive fraternal organization widely regarded as unfriendly to traditional Christianity and reflecting European secular attitudes. He did attend church regularly, but this was done with the aristocratic notion that it set an example for the lower classes, Washington being very much a planter-aristocrat (he used to refer to the independent-minded Yankee recruits in the revolution, who had had the practice of electing their officers before he was appointed as commander, as "a dirty and nasty people."). This was a time when there was an established church in Virginia, and it functioned as an important quasi-political organization.
Washington always used deistic terms like Great Providence. His writings, other than one brief note as a very young man, do not speak of Jesus, and he died, knowing he was dying, without ever calling for prayer, Bible, or minister. There is a story given by some of his best biographers shedding light on his church-going. He apparently never kneeled for prayer nor would he take communion. When one parson brought this to his attention after the service, Washington gave him the icy stare for which this aloof, emotionally-cold man was famous and never returned to that church.
Thomas Jefferson was accused publicly of being an atheist. More than any other founder, Jefferson was under the spell of European (and particularly French) thought. His writings, and references to him by friends, certainly make him sound like a private skeptic. He belonged to no church. He explicitly denied the divinity of Jesus, viewing him as a great teacher of human values. At best he was a deist referring in his private writings to God as "our god."
Jefferson who, despite high-sounding words, was something of a hypocrite on many aspects of civil liberties and particularly on slavery, was at his best on the need for religious liberty. Despite his free-thinking reputation, he formed alliances with groups like the Baptists, who deeply resented paying taxes to the established church in Virginia and won a long battle for a statute of religious liberty.
Thomas Paine, whose stirring words in _Common Sense_ contributed greatly to the revolution, was often accused of atheism because of his religious writing, but deism is closer to the truth. His later writing done in Europe, _The Age of Reason_, was regarded as scandalous by establishment-types. France, during the terror under Robespierre, turned to a new kind of state religion. This, the very brave Paine, living in Paris, also rejected, writing,
"I do not believe in the creed professed…by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the protestant church, nor any church that I
know of. My own mind is my own church."
The great Dr. Franklin, who incidentally lived about a quarter of his life on diplomatic missions in Europe and who as a very young man had run away from a home where rigid religious principles were imposed, was a typical deist of the period. He was an active member of the first Masonic temple in America. His attitudes were so amicable to French intellectuals and society, he was embraced, as no other American has ever been, as a national figure in that country.
Alexander Hamilton, undoubtedly the most intellectually gifted of the founders other than Franklin, paid lip service to religion, but he was known during the Revolution as a rake. Later, his distinguished career in Washington's cabinet was marred by a great sexual scandal. Generally, Hamilton used religion to promote his political aims, ignoring it whenever it was convenient. In this respect, perhaps he qualifies as a thoroughly modern American version of a Christian.
Gouveneur Morris, who wrote the draft of the Constitution we all recognize from the notes of others, was an extremely worldly and aristocratic man. He was also one of Washington's most trusted confidants. He was perhaps the most rakish, womanizing diplomat America ever sent to Europe, sharing at one point a mistress with Talleyrand, the most amoral ex-cleric who ever practiced statecraft. In general, Europeans were astonished that a man so worldly and so arrogantly patrician in temperament represented the young republic for a period in France.
Abraham Lincoln, while not a founder, is the most beloved of American presidents. Lincoln's closest friend and most interesting biographer, Herndon, said flatly that Lincoln was a religious skeptic. This has always so upset America's establishment historians that Herndon has been accused of writing a distorted book, a rather ridiculous charge in view of a close friendship with his subject and twenty years spent collecting materials.
Lincoln never attended church and when he refers to god in speeches during the Civil War, it is always with words acceptable to secular, educated people who regarded the King James Bible as an important cultural and literary document apart from any claims for its sacredness.
There is reason to believe that as the bloody war continued, Lincoln, who suffered from severe depressions, turned to the Bible for consolation, especially to the story of the struggle of the Hebrews.
Lincoln was also an extremely astute politician who used every means at his command in the great battle with secession, and his references to the Almighty may well have been part of his psychological artillery. He certainly did not invoke the name of Jesus.
Patrick Henry, who incidentally opposed ratification of the Constitution, was a Christian, but he was once described by Jefferson as "an emotional volcano with little guiding intelligence." Just a little brush up on history…
John Chuckman encourages your comments: jchuckman@YellowTimes.org
[/b]
-
"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
President Bush Sr.
[/b]
When a former president makes that statement, what else could you expect? It's amazing how some in our highest office can be the most idiotic and ignorant of individuals.
ack-ack
-
All those Christians gonna feel silly when they die and meet Budda instead of Jesus.
-
you guys keep chasing off the xtains ...
What am I gonna use to scare my kids with now ?
-
Originally posted by Roscoroo
you guys keep chasing off the xtains ...
What am I gonna use to scare my kids with now ?
:rofl :lol :rofl
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
...and quotes the "wall of separation" paragraph which DOES NOT exist in the Constitution, but rather in a series of letters by Thomas Jefferson.
The letters Jefferson wrote were to clarify the intent of the first amendment to a (Baptist IIRC) congregation. The intent of the writers is important in constitutional law.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The letters Jefferson wrote were to clarify the intent of the first amendment to a (Baptist IIRC) congregation. The intent of the writers is important in constitutional law.
I thought the constitution was a "living breathing document"? ;)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The letters Jefferson wrote were to clarify the intent of the first amendment to a (Baptist IIRC) congregation. The intent of the writers is important in constitutional law.
Yes that the intent was that there would be no forming of an official national church such as there was a "Church of England" that all would be required by law to follow which was what their main concern was as the religion in question was among the most persecuted in England at the time and for which reason they chose to leave England for religeous freedom to begin with.
-
Originally posted by rpm
All those Christians gonna feel silly when they die and meet Budda instead of Jesus.
...and confused. Buddha isn't a deity, and being christians they'll keep getting reincarnated until they stop being christians so its unlikely they'd meet buddha on the higher plane of existance :)
-
Any atheist that doesn't fake believing in a given situation is a stupid atheist. If one doesn't believe in God he has nothing to fear from denying his real belief.
So if an atheist is himself a religious biggot, he deserves what he gets. If he's smart he won't play his atheism out loud and cause controversy.
I'm an agnostic myself, but I still attend to religious festivities and family happenings. I have no problem with it, I see them as traditions just as spending a christmas with my family every year.
-
Originally posted by rpm
All those Christians gonna feel silly when they die and meet Budda instead of Jesus.
if I met buddha I would kick him in his nads just to wipe that stupid grin off his face.
Atheists tick me off as much as jehovahs witnesses and fundamentalists. All loudly bray what they believe in over and over and want you to believe it too. So yes I dont think Jehovahs witness, atheists, or fundementalists should hold public office. And if you dont believe in a religion then you dont have one, and as such cant be discriminated against.
-
You got a point there Pooh.. I also believe that a person who says supernatural beings are talking to him shouldn't be accepted to public office.
All religious extremism is very bad and dangerous, christian jew muslim or atheist.
-
how can an atheist be "extremist"? Force everyone else to be atheists?
At most, religious people just seems like a bunch of idiots to an atheist, but practicing their religion is not a "sin".
Bozon
-
keep your gods in your churches where they belong. render unto ceaser and all that.
and if you wanna piss off buddha, hide the twinkies.
-
The Cabbage Patch Kids ride again. :)
-
I am pretty sure I was a Hindu in my past life.
Bozon, how goes it with Zeus and Hera at DESY?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
So Virgil, are you saying that you think it's fine that atheists are not allowed to serve in public office in those states?
yep, just like I do not think tele - evangalists should hold office either..
someone who spouts off their conviction of no-god is just as wacked as one who hollers his god is the only Way to the Divine
-
Originally posted by Eagler
yep, just like I do not think tele - evangalists should hold office either..
someone who spouts off their conviction of no-god is just as wacked as one who hollers his god is the only Way to the Divine
Bravo, Bravo!
-
Yeah those loud mouth buddhists need to keep their atheist mouth's shut for once !
It's not religious persecution if the religion isn't popular.
-
the atheist faith is way too much to swallow... I wish they would just go away with their theories or at least just keep em to themselves... their constant preaching is annoying.
lazs
-
The question is, how do they find out what you are?
Do they ask you? Would be pretty rediculous.
"Do you believe in God?"
"My beliefs are my own"
"Answer the question"
"I did"
etc.
If an atheist keeps his beliefs to himself, then sure, go into office. But that's a little difficult, considering every person seems to have a nack for spouting off what they believe and why you should too. Therefore I don't believe anyone is qualified to hold office.
-SW
-
Originally posted by lazs2
the atheist faith is way too much to swallow... I wish they would just go away with their theories or at least just keep em to themselves... their constant preaching is annoying.
lazs
Here here! Can't turn on the tv sunday morning without seeing 'em blathering away.
It's gotten to the point where I had to install a peep hole in front door so I can look in and see if it's a couple of atheisist with an armload of pamplets before I open the door.
Oh and if you happen to voice your disagreement with their views they'll give you the oh so condescending "well, I won't pray for your soul anyway".
-
Well... that would be fine... but it is the attack on other religions that get on my nerves... The fact that the money can't have "god" on it or they will be offended? How can they be offended? I do agree with pooh... I want the jehova witnesses to not come to my door but I also don't want to here the whining from the athiests here and in the news.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Pooh21
Atheists tick me off as much as jehovahs witnesses and fundamentalists. All loudly bray what they believe in over and over and want you to believe it too. So yes I dont think Jehovahs witness, atheists, or fundementalists should hold public office. And if you dont believe in a religion then you dont have one, and as such cant be discriminated against.
Lucky for you Jehovah's Witnesses do not want to hold political office. In fact if a Jehovah's Witness ran for office he would be removed from the religon.
-
lol that remind me one swiss guy ... he was so tired to reply question about religion while he were biking on silk road, that he developed quite a tricky answer.
q: "whats you religion ? do you belive in god ?"
a: " we belive in darwin."
lol people w/o education were satified and educated were not sure whats does he mean :)
anyway its so funny to see all those "christ love me" how they express their "love and tolerance" towards others ;)
anyway .. theocrats should keep their rifles loaded and eyes open.
http://www.nymasons.org/
:D
if primary goal of masons over there is the same like local.
-
lada you are correct in that most athiests see themselves as god.
lazs
-
Bozon: You got it.. an atheist that forces others to see things his way is no better than a fundamentalist of the opposite kind.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
So Virgil, are you saying that you think it's fine that atheists are not allowed to serve in public office in those states?
Did I write any such thing? No.
What part of "I am tolerant of your desire and wish to practice Atheism. I do not wish to see you or other Atheists excluded from any part of your rights."[/B] did you not read and understand?
Just so you know, it's a "blue" law. It isn't enforced, and it isn't considered enforceable. It isn't even considered important enough to bother with an amendment to remove it.
I don't see you going out of your way to make any statements against the Atheists attempting to remove God from the government. Interesting how tolerance appears to go only one way.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
lada you are correct in that most athiests see themselves as god.
lazs
..and?
Lotta mixed issues in this thread.. if Admiral VH is right about the enforcementability, it's a moot point.
That said, what's wrong with removing God from government?
-
nothing but... let's vote on it. the government can't sponsor any religion but I see nothing in the constitution that would force them to not mention god soooo..
This is indeed something that the people should decide. I will abide by the decision one way or the other so long as it does not infringe on any of my rights.
lazs
-
It seems to me that the thread is full of people saying essentially that discrimination against atheists is ok because not believing in a god is somehow more wacky than believing and is evidence of mental illness. Many of the other posts are... well, unrelated to my original question.
If, instead of 'atheist', the laws prohibited 'christians' from serving office, would you feel the same way? How can feeling one way about atheism and a different way about christianity be anything other than hypocrasy?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
It seems to me that the thread is full of people saying essentially that discrimination against atheists is ok because not believing in a god is somehow more wacky than believing and is evidence of mental illness. Many of the other posts are... well, unrelated to my original question.
If, instead of 'atheist', the laws prohibited 'christians' from serving office, would you feel the same way? How can feeling one way about atheism and a different way about christianity be anything other than hypocrasy?
Just because you say it doesn't make true.;)
-
The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution makes those State constitution clauses invalid. The US Consitution says that no religious test can be applied to hold office...and that must be enforced by the States regardless of any other State law. Those State laws only had meaning before the 14th Amendment was ratified.
As far as god in government goes...I don't understand the purpose of having the US motto be "In God we trust" or the addition of "under God" to the Pledge. The only purpose I can imagine is to proselytize to those who are "godless". It states that we as a nation trust in god and submit to be under him...which is not the case. We are a nation of many creeds, races, and religions...some of which do not believe in god.
Personally, I like the original motto much better: E Plurabus Unum...one, from many. And the old Pledge...One Nation--Indivisible--With liberty and justice for all.
-
Any atheist that doesn't fake believing in a given situation is a stupid atheist.
the atheist faith is way too much to swallow... I wish they would just go away with their theories or at least just keep em to themselves... their constant preaching is annoying.
The first quote is just dumb. Why should I fake a religion to satisfy your inability to stand on your own two feet?
"The athiest faith"?? Lazs, come on. I have to assume you are joking.
I'm an athiest, and I really don't care what anyone else believes in. It doesn't affect me, nor does my lack of faith in a deity affect anyone else.
It's not like I come to your door with pamphlets about dinosaurs and monkeys.
:rofl
RTR
-
There are a lot of people in this Country that are getting a little tired of a minority attempting to change words in the Constitution. The Bill of rights clearly states (Freedom OF religion)..It does not say Freedom FROM
religion. The establishment clause simply states that the Government will not establish an official religion. As was done in England (The Church of England). We are a Representative form of Government (A Republic). The people elect representatives to make laws. If you want Laws changed, change your representatives. There are 50 STATES each State elects State representatives ...(Now hold on this may come as a shock to some of you.)
From time to time they make Laws that you really don't care for.
-
Ahha! there is the crux!
"Freedom OF Religion" and not "Freedom FROM Religion"
Methinks you Americans aren't as free as you thought you were. So for all the Athiests among you then.... do you get to pick which religion you must subscribe to, or does the government assign it on the basis of equality of all religions. What do you do if they want you to be a Roman Catholic and you wish to be a Baptist? Are you allowed to switch?
Apparently your Bill of Rights deems that you must believe in a deity.
Shall we Canadians expect a big influx of religious refugees from the south?
:rofl
RTR
-
Originally posted by RTR
Ahha! there is the crux!
"Freedom OF Religion" and not "Freedom FROM Religion"
Methinks you Americans aren't as free as you thought you were. So for all the Athiests among you then.... do you get to pick which religion you must subscribe to, or does the government assign it on the basis of equality of all religions. What do you do if they want you to be a Roman Catholic and you wish to be a Baptist? Are you allowed to switch?
Apparently your Bill of Rights deems that you must believe in a deity.
Shall we Canadians expect a big influx of religious refugees from the south?
:rofl
RTR
Freedom OF religion means simply that. It means in the daily course of life you will be exposed to people practiceing their faith. More and more in this Country certain religions are being supressed. The latest example is the war on Christmas. The Christian faith is enemy #1 to certain groups in this Country. It sets moral rules and guidelines that some see as discrimination against some minority groups. ie; Gays. Which is why (if you pay attention) You'll here a lot of whining about the much hated extremist Right Wing Christians. Not Jews, Muslims , or Buddists. Christians. You are free to practice any faith you like in this country, or none at all, Do not attempt to use the Constitution to deny my rights to practice mine. In the establishment clause it goes on to say Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
the atheist faith is way too much to swallow... I wish they would just go away with their theories or at least just keep em to themselves... their constant preaching is annoying.
lazs
I'll be with you on this one as soon as we start investigating those mega rich tele-athiests about their extravagant tax free lifestyle.
Until then, why don't we just let the belivers bay at the moon in peace.
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution makes those State constitution clauses invalid. The US Consitution says that no religious test can be applied to hold office...
Heres the 14th ammendment, I can't find it......
Amendment XIV.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,4 and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Proposal and Ratification
The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Thirty-ninth Congress, on the 13th of June, 1866. It was declared, in a certificate of the Secretary of State dated July 28, 1868 to have been ratified by the legislatures of 28 of the 37 States. The dates of ratification were: Connecticut, June 25, 1866; New Hampshire, July 6, 1866; Tennessee, July 19, 1866; New Jersey, September 11, 1866 (subsequently the legislature rescinded its ratification, and on March 24, 1868, readopted its resolution of rescission over the Governor's veto, and on Nov. 12, 1980, expressed support for the amendment); Oregon, September 19, 1866 (and rescinded its ratification on October 15, 1868); Vermont, October 30, 1866; Ohio, January 4, 1867 (and rescinded its ratification on January 15, 1868); New York, January 10, 1867; Kansas, January 11, 1867; Illinois, January 15, 1867; West Virginia, January 16, 1867; Michigan, January 16, 1867; Minnesota, January 16, 1867; Maine, January 19, 1867; Nevada, January 22, 1867; Indiana, January 23, 1867; Missouri, January 25, 1867; Rhode Island, February 7, 1867; Wisconsin, February 7, 1867; Pennsylvania, February 12, 1867; Massachusetts, March 20, 1867; Nebraska, June 15, 1867; Iowa, March 16, 1868; Arkansas, April 6, 1868; Florida, June 9, 1868; North Carolina, July 4, 1868 (after having rejected it on December 14, 1866); Louisiana, July 9, 1868 (after having rejected it on February 6, 1867); South Carolina, July 9, 1868 (after having rejected it on December 20, 1866).
Ratification was completed on July 9, 1868.
The amendment was subsequently ratified by Alabama, July 13, 1868; Georgia, July 21, 1868 (after having rejected it on November 9, 1866); Virginia, October 8, 1869 (after having rejected it on January 9, 1867); Mississippi, January 17, 1870; Texas, February 18, 1870 (after having rejected it on October 27, 1866); Delaware, February 12, 1901 (after having rejected it on February 8, 1867); Maryland, April 4, 1959 (after having rejected it on March 23, 1867); California, May 6, 1959; Kentucky, March 18, 1976 (after having rejected it on January 8, 1867).
Amendment XV.
-
Originally posted by Flatbar
I'll be with you on this one as soon as we start investigating those mega rich tele-athiests about their extravagant tax free lifestyle.
Until then, why don't we just let the belivers bay at the moon in peace.
Thats it Flatbar,"Feel the hatred" Think to yourself Hate Christians, Hate Christians, Then go get a new nose ring, And punk album.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I know that there's a lot of people here on the board that disagree with me on religious issues, but I'm hoping y'all will acknowledge that this situation is just not right:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/texas.htm
7 states prohibit atheists from holding political office. How would you like a law that said christians couldn't hold office?
This is balderdash. If anyone out there disagrees, let's have a discussion.
The easy answer is, demand of your legislators that they ammend the law.
If you can't do that they win you lose.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
Heres the 14th ammendment, I can't find it......
Amendment XIV.
Section 1.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
The "no religous test" is in US Constitution Article VI Section 3. The above section of the 14th indicates that all rights given in the Consitution are applied to all US citizens regardless of State laws.
-
Originally posted by RTR
The athiest faith"?? Lazs, come on. I have to assume you are joking.
Lazs' term is correct. Athiesm is a faith that there is no God. Lack of evidence does not logically prove non-existance. An illogical leap of faith is required to conclude the question one way or another.
Agnosticism is lack of faith in the existance. Atheism is a faith in the non-existance.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
Freedom OF religion means simply that. It means in the daily course of life you will be exposed to people practiceing their faith. More and more in this Country certain religions are being supressed.
I have no problem with being exposed to people practicing faith. I frequently pass a huge billboard asking if I've "Got God?"...got no problem ignoring it. I used to have a co-worker who prayed before each meal...I would respectfully wait for him to finish before we would eat lunch together.
But when it comes to government, I expect neutrality so that there is no question that I will be treated equally eventhough I am a minority in faith.
Help me understand the purpose of "In God We Trust" and "under God". Why would you have an issue if they were removed? Do you think that it is supressing your religion if they were removed?
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
Help me understand the purpose of "In God We Trust" and "under God". Why would you have an issue if they were removed? Do you think that it is supressing your religion if they were removed?
Would you have an issue if they stayed?
I have an issue if they go just due to all the legal costs in this stupid issue. I think the next judge should rule that the complaintant gets a thicker skin and a life. There are many more important issues.
-
Didnt Hitler and Nazis hate Christians too?
-
Where the hell is this "hate Christians" bull**** coming from?
-SW
-
chair... to answer your original question...
I believe that to deny office to an athiest based soley on his faith in aithiesm would and should be unconstituional..
as for "in god we trust" on the money... this violates nothing and at worse... should be put to a vote of the people. If more people want it than not.... fine... this would not violate a constitutional democracy in my opinion.
lazs
-
Faith:
1. Confident belief in the truth, value or trustworthiness of a person, idea
or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; Allegiance
4. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in god and a trusting
acceptance of gods will.
5.The body of dogma of a religion.
The most I can be accused of is that I believe that I don't believe in a deity in any form whatsoever. This isn't Faith. This is more a lack of faith.
I mean really, in order to have faith, you need to believe in at least something.
When was the last time you saw a bunch of us athiests heading to the local church of absenteism to sing and praise our non belief?
We don't.
Because we don't subscribe to a faith.
All that being said, it's not my intention to open a can of worms.
The argument for or against "faith" belongs in a seperate thread, and I'm not too sure it's a good idea to go there. We as a BBS don't have a real good track record with that topic.
cheers,
RTR ( Alas! Faithless)
-
Originally posted by Shane
and if you wanna piss off buddha, hide the twinkies.
Dumba** rednecks... buddha's not a god for gawdsake!
Plus he wasn't fat. Thats just a Japanese thing, buddha was a skinny dude, he went and lived with those Indian Brahman hermits that virtually live off dirt.
So...
- Buddha wasn't a fat guy. He was a well educated skinny Indian prince.
- Buddha wasn't/isn't a god. He is a mere man who reached 'englightenment'
- Buddha doesn't have any "superpowers"
- Buddha didn't try to explain creation with a pile of fairy tales (as such Buddhism can accept Darwins theories quite happily)
Now pass the twinkies.
-
Originally posted by RTR
Faith:
>Snip<
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence
>Snip<
I mean really, in order to have faith, you need to believe in at least something.
>Snip<
Because we don't subscribe to a faith.
If you do not have faith you are Agnostic.
If you believe that there is no God, then your faith is Athieism, as it is difficult to believe with no beliefs.
-
I give up
RTR (still faithless, and athiest)
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
The "no religous test" is in US Constitution Article VI Section 3. The above section of the 14th indicates that all rights given in the Consitution are applied to all US citizens regardless of State laws.
The Constitution became a living breathing evolving document after
"Roe v Wade". It does'nt matter what it clearly says. It matters who is interpreting it. Example....No private property will be taken for PUBLIC use without just compensation, could also mean... private property can be taken for private use, See how easy you can twist it. No religous test. Simple if you aren't religious there can be no test. I watch the Left on the Court, you can learn alot on how to twist the Constitution. Up to and including haveing it "emit" or give Vibes. Thats one of the reasons the "right to keep and bear arms" according to some is the right "not to keep and bear arms". A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Gun control freaks claim that is one of the bill of rights not given to the people, but a right given to the government to maintain the Army reserves The Militia. Get it...abortions in the bill of rights but the right to bear arms is not.
-
Originally posted by RTR
I give up
RTR (still faithless, and athiest)
a special place in the camps for you heathen ;)
-
sorry RTR but you are wrong...
an agnostic is one who says... 'maybe, maybe not.. the evidince is not strong enough for me to say"
this could apply to the belief in the big bang theory or global warming..
a person who believes in god does so out of nothing more than his faith.
A person who says that there is no god even tho he can not prove that to be true and has no real evidense... is basing his belief in athiesm in nothing more than pure faith.
Now,it has been my experiance that those who profess a belief in athiesm are doing so in order to make a statement. It is not enough for them to simply say 'there is not enough evidense for me to decide"
No, they are espousing an unreasonble and fanatic viewpoint in order to make an anti religious statement... they are every bit as fanatical in their faith as the most zealous of religious fanatics.
This manifests itself in their need to constantly combat religious faith with their faith in athiesm.
true agnostics simply do not care either way so long as they are not unduly put upon by either set of fanatics. True agnostics see athiests as being the exact same fanatics as the religious versions... two sides of the same coin.
lazs
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
The "no religous test" is in US Constitution Article VI Section 3. The above section of the 14th indicates that all rights given in the Consitution are applied to all US citizens regardless of State laws.
If where to believe the constitution is a valid document Gay marriage is legal in all 50 States.
Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section. 2.
Clause 1:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.12
-
....one more time.
Congress shall make no law respecting an[/u] establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
January 23, 1808: Thomas Jefferson wrote to Rev. Samuel Miller saying:
Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority. . .
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports...And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government.
—George Washington, Farewell Address to the United States, 1796
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion...Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
—John Adams, October 11, 1798
In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it, but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of the church or state authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.
—Thomas Jefferson, Second Inaugural address, March 4, 1805
I think there's more than sufficient evidence that the First wasn't intended to remove all references to God from our government. Seems plain that it was intended to keep our government from controlling and manipulating religious practices.
-
Still see no valid reason to prohibit an atheist from holding office other than sheer ignorance on the behalf of those who dislike atheists due to their experience with the more vocal ones.
-SW
-
Originally posted by lazs2
sorry RTR but you are wrong...
an agnostic is one who says... 'maybe, maybe not.. the evidince is not strong enough for me to say"
this could apply to the belief in the big bang theory or global warming..
a person who believes in god does so out of nothing more than his faith.
A person who says that there is no god even tho he can not prove that to be true and has no real evidense... is basing his belief in athiesm in nothing more than pure faith.
Now,it has been my experiance that those who profess a belief in athiesm are doing so in order to make a statement. It is not enough for them to simply say 'there is not enough evidense for me to decide"
No, they are espousing an unreasonble and fanatic viewpoint in order to make an anti religious statement... they are every bit as fanatical in their faith as the most zealous of religious fanatics.
This manifests itself in their need to constantly combat religious faith with their faith in athiesm.
true agnostics simply do not care either way so long as they are not unduly put upon by either set of fanatics. True agnostics see athiests as being the exact same fanatics as the religious versions... two sides of the same coin.
lazs
a person who believes in god does so out of nothing more than his faith
Not correct. I believe in God because of the nature of the earth. An example: The maple tree. The seed has a wing that serves as an auto rotating helicopter that flies clear of the parent tree and uses the rotation to bury itself in the earth far enough from the tree to grow. This is clearly engineering and design... That doesn't take faith...it just makes far more sense than "it came from the primordial soup."
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Still see no valid reason to prohibit an atheist from holding office other than sheer ignorance on the behalf of those who dislike atheists due to their experience with the more vocal ones.
-SW
and I don't think anyone in this thread is disagreeing with you. I beleive somone mentioned those to be "blue laws" such as beating your wife on the courthouse steps at noon on sunday, and getting hung for stealing a horse.
You are smart.....a camp worker perhaps who will avoid the athiest clensing ;)
-
John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States, recently repeated an old chestnut about America being a Christian nation whose founders were Christian gentlemen.
The claim is common among the country's fundamentalist Christians, but it is so ignorant of actual history one wonders whether it should not be taken as another serious indictment of American public education. Some readers may not be aware that Mr. Ashcroft's background includes familiarity with such arcane subjects as speaking in tongues. As for Mr. Bush, who touched the same theme in China, perhaps no comment on his grasp of history is required.
The late eighteenth century, following on the Enlightenment and waves of reaction to the violent excesses of the Reformation and counter-Reformation over the previous two centuries, was perhaps the lowest point for Christian influence ever. Virtually all educated people in Europe were deists and many were open skeptics.
America was not free of this influence despite its many Puritan immigrants. Indeed, many of the best educated citizens at this time were educated in Europe, and the small number of good libraries owned by educated people often contained the works of Enlightenment authors. Virtually all the ideas in the Declaration of Independence and even some of the words of the Constitution derive from these European sources. It is due precisely to the unique qualities of the period that we owe America's early embrace of religious tolerance. The immigrant Puritans had displayed no religious tolerance, and in fact were some of the worst fanatics from Europe.
George Washington was a deist. He was a member of the Masons, a then comparatively-new, secretive fraternal organization widely regarded as unfriendly to traditional Christianity and reflecting European secular attitudes. He did attend church regularly, but this was done with the aristocratic notion that it set an example for the lower classes, Washington being very much a planter-aristocrat (he used to refer to the independent-minded Yankee recruits in the revolution, who had had the practice of electing their officers before he was appointed as commander, as "a dirty and nasty people."). This was a time when there was an established church in Virginia, and it functioned as an important quasi-political organization.
Washington always used deistic terms like Great Providence. His writings, other than one brief note as a very young man, do not speak of Jesus, and he died, knowing he was dying, without ever calling for prayer, Bible, or minister. There is a story given by some of his best biographers shedding light on his church-going. He apparently never kneeled for prayer nor would he take communion. When one parson brought this to his attention after the service, Washington gave him the icy stare for which this aloof, emotionally-cold man was famous and never returned to that church.
Thomas Jefferson was accused publicly of being an atheist. More than any other founder, Jefferson was under the spell of European (and particularly French) thought. His writings, and references to him by friends, certainly make him sound like a private skeptic. He belonged to no church. He explicitly denied the divinity of Jesus, viewing him as a great teacher of human values. At best he was a deist referring in his private writings to God as "our god."
Jefferson who, despite high-sounding words, was something of a hypocrite on many aspects of civil liberties and particularly on slavery, was at his best on the need for religious liberty. Despite his free-thinking reputation, he formed alliances with groups like the Baptists, who deeply resented paying taxes to the established church in Virginia and won a long battle for a statute of religious liberty.
Thomas Paine, whose stirring words in _Common Sense_ contributed greatly to the revolution, was often accused of atheism because of his religious writing, but deism is closer to the truth. His later writing done in Europe, _The Age of Reason_, was regarded as scandalous by establishment-types. France, during the terror under Robespierre, turned to a new kind of state religion. This, the very brave Paine, living in Paris, also rejected, writing,
"I do not believe in the creed professed…by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the protestant church, nor any church that I
know of. My own mind is my own church."
The great Dr. Franklin, who incidentally lived about a quarter of his life on diplomatic missions in Europe and who as a very young man had run away from a home where rigid religious principles were imposed, was a typical deist of the period. He was an active member of the first Masonic temple in America. His attitudes were so amicable to French intellectuals and society, he was embraced, as no other American has ever been, as a national figure in that country.
Alexander Hamilton, undoubtedly the most intellectually gifted of the founders other than Franklin, paid lip service to religion, but he was known during the Revolution as a rake. Later, his distinguished career in Washington's cabinet was marred by a great sexual scandal. Generally, Hamilton used religion to promote his political aims, ignoring it whenever it was convenient. In this respect, perhaps he qualifies as a thoroughly modern American version of a Christian.
Gouveneur Morris, who wrote the draft of the Constitution we all recognize from the notes of others, was an extremely worldly and aristocratic man. He was also one of Washington's most trusted confidants. He was perhaps the most rakish, womanizing diplomat America ever sent to Europe, sharing at one point a mistress with Talleyrand, the most amoral ex-cleric who ever practiced statecraft. In general, Europeans were astonished that a man so worldly and so arrogantly patrician in temperament represented the young republic for a period in France.
Abraham Lincoln, while not a founder, is the most beloved of American presidents. Lincoln's closest friend and most interesting biographer, Herndon, said flatly that Lincoln was a religious skeptic. This has always so upset America's establishment historians that Herndon has been accused of writing a distorted book, a rather ridiculous charge in view of a close friendship with his subject and twenty years spent collecting materials.
Lincoln never attended church and when he refers to god in speeches during the Civil War, it is always with words acceptable to secular, educated people who regarded the King James Bible as an important cultural and literary document apart from any claims for its sacredness.
There is reason to believe that as the bloody war continued, Lincoln, who suffered from severe depressions, turned to the Bible for consolation, especially to the story of the struggle of the Hebrews.
Lincoln was also an extremely astute politician who used every means at his command in the great battle with secession, and his references to the Almighty may well have been part of his psychological artillery. He certainly did not invoke the name of Jesus.
Patrick Henry, who incidentally opposed ratification of the Constitution, was a Christian, but he was once described by Jefferson as "an emotional volcano with little guiding intelligence." Just a little brush up on history…
John Chuckman encourages your comments: jchuckman@YellowTimes.org
-
Silat did you even read the first page of this thread??????
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
a person who believes in god does so out of nothing more than his faith
Not correct. I believe in God because of the nature of the earth. An example: The maple tree. The seed has a wing that serves as an auto rotating helicopter that flies clear of the parent tree and uses the rotation to bury itself in the earth far enough from the tree to grow. This is clearly engineering and design... That doesn't take faith...it just makes far more sense than "it came from the primordial soup."
Yeah, the bannana, what a wonderful fruit, it fits my hand!!!
I'll fix it......
"a person who believes in god does so out of nothing more than either his faith, indoctrination or ignorance"
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Lack of evidence does not logically prove non-existance.
ZOUNDS!!!
Could this possibly mean that a Christian can understand the concept that lack of evidence with respect to certain aspects of evolution by no means invalidates the theory and proves the existance an intelligent designer?
This is an astounding development.
A person who says that there is no god even tho he can not prove that to be true and has no real evidense... is basing his belief in athiesm in nothing more than pure faith.
Methinks that those who base their existance on a particular faith have an extremely difficult time understanding the concept of not basing anything on faith.
Atheism cannot be described as "having faith that there's no god." Atheism is a logical decision to reject any conclusion that is soley based on faith.
The discussion goes like this:
Atheist: Show me proof of your god.
Believer: That's not how it works. God cannot be proven or disproven. To seek proof defies one's faith. You must either accept God or not on faith.
Athiest: Sounds like a bunch of doublespeak to rationalize idiodic behaviour. I'm sorry, you give me no reason to believe in your god.
Notice the similarity to other nutty encounters:
Skeptic: Show me proof that feng shui will align my chi and make me prosperous and healthy.
New Age Wacko: It doesn't really work that way. You just need to feel the positive energy flowing through you. You won't feel it and it won't work if you don't believe it.
Skeptic: You are a nutjob and probably on drugs. Good day.
Is the Skeptic jumping to some alternate, equally unsubstantiatable belief - that feng shui is crap? No, he is simply chosing to guide his actions using only the rational thought that God supposedly gave him.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Silat did you even read the first page of this thread??????
LOL:rofl
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Where the hell is this "hate Christians" bull**** coming from?
-SW
Actually it's not Christians...It's Extreme right wing Christians. It is one of the groups responsible for the Demise of the Democrats as the Majority party in the U.S. for over 40 years. Again, if you follow the rhetoric of some people the Extreme right wing Christians elected George Bush. How much more proof do you need that they are anti-progressive. While hate may be a little strong how about strongly disliked.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I have an issue if they go just due to all the legal costs in this stupid issue. I think the next judge should rule that the complaintant gets a thicker skin and a life. There are many more important issues.
If we always took that philosophy then some minorities would still be riding in the back of the bus and using separate but "equal" facilities.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
sorry RTR but you are wrong...
an agnostic is one who says... 'maybe, maybe not.. the evidince is not strong enough for me to say"
[/B] Yet they don't "believe". whaddya call em?
Everyone is an atheist of some sort. Athiests just disbelieve in ONE less god than you do Lazs, when you figure out why you don't believe in Zeus, Mars, Thor, and a thousand other gods, you'll know why an atheist doesn't believe in yours.
-
Originally posted by Booz
Yeah, the bannana, what a wonderful fruit, it fits my hand!!!
I'll fix it......
"a person who believes in god does so out of nothing more than his faith, indoctrination or ignorance"
Ignorance is for blind progressives (Liberals)...sooo. it would be impossible for an intellegent race (Conservatives) to travel to a distant Planet, Albeit in the far future, and create life on that planet...Holy Chit...that would make us get ready now "THE CREATOR". Of course Liberals on that planet would be running to the ACLU (Aliens civil liberties union) and demand they stop teaching the possibility of a CREATOR. They all know they came from "Gunk Soup".
-
Originally posted by lazs2
as for "in god we trust" on the money... this violates nothing and at worse... should be put to a vote of the people. If more people want it than not.... fine... this would not violate a constitutional democracy in my opinion.
So if the day comes when the majority of Americans want strict gun control, then it would be OK with you if a law is passed requiring all guns be turned into the government...even though the 2nd Amendment clearly states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Or would you prefer that the courts be activist and strike down that law because it is unconstitutional?
-
Are atheists conservatives or liberals? And what about creationists, are they liberal or conservatives ?
Bush is a liberal ****, yet his campaign message was "A vote for me is a vote for Christ".
Does asking this question make me a liberal or a conservative or what ?
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
So if the day comes when the majority of Americans want strict gun control, then it would be OK with you if a law is passed requiring all guns be turned into the government...even though the 2nd Amendment clearly states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Or would you prefer that the courts be activist and strike down that law because it is unconstitutional?
Of course he would, can't you read what the man typed?
-
Agnostic:
1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a god
2. One who is skeptical about teh existance of god, but does not profess
true atheism.
3. One who is doubtful or noncommital about something.
Atheist:
- One who disbelieves or denies the existance of god, or gods
A person who says that there is no god even tho he can not prove that to be true and has no real evidense... is basing his belief in athiesm in nothing more than pure faith.
Now,it has been my experiance that those who profess a belief in athiesm are doing so in order to make a statement. It is not enough for them to simply say 'there is not enough evidense for me to decide"
Sorry Lazs, unless you are an atheist, it aint gonna make sense to you.
Much as believing in a deity makes no sense to me.
As for evidence, my tiny acorn was satisfied years ago that there is a multitude of evidence to how we all arrived where we are now. To me this evidence is empirical and irrefutable. (SP?)
I don't have, or need, faith. It is just a truth to me. I don't take the absence of a deity on faith. I just know that it is not the right answer.
I watched David Blaine levitate on TV the other night. It was plain as the nose on your face. Do I believe he really levitated? Not a chance. There is sound evidence that this is, in fact ,not something us humans can do.
I guess I don't believe in magic.
RTR
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
I have no problem with being exposed to people practicing faith. I frequently pass a huge billboard asking if I've "Got God?"...got no problem ignoring it. I used to have a co-worker who prayed before each meal...I would respectfully wait for him to finish before we would eat lunch together.
But when it comes to government, I expect neutrality so that there is no question that I will be treated equally eventhough I am a minority in faith.
Help me understand the purpose of "In God We Trust" and "under God". Why would you have an issue if they were removed? Do you think that it is supressing your religion if they were removed?
They have been there since the founding of the nation. The whole idea of
God in our political system is that our rights are God Given "Endowed by their (Creator)with certain inaliable rights. Not given by man. Man can not take rights given by God.But can take rights given by man.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
If where to believe the constitution is a valid document Gay marriage is legal in all 50 States.
Legal in that the marriage of a gay couple granted by one state is recognized in another. At least that is my opinion...this hasn't been tested yet by the Supreme Court and theirs is the only opinion that counts. The Court has so far refused to hear the only case that has been submitted on the subject. And until the Court rules, States and local governments can, and often do, enforce laws that they prefer.
BTW, this does not mean that a state cannot refuse to grant a marriage to a gay couple at this time.
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
If we always took that philosophy then some minorities would still be riding in the back of the bus and using separate but "equal" facilities.
So you equate bumps on a coin with not being served at a lunch counter due to the color of your skin.
Okay....:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So you equate bumps on a coin with not being served at a lunch counter due to the color of your skin.
No...I'm saying that the concept of not going to court in order to settle a constitutional question because it is expensive is silly. :rolleyes:
It is obviously important enough to someone to foot the expense of going to court...but if it really isn't that important of an issue, the government can always decline to fund a defense. Is that OK?
-
Originally posted by tikky
Didnt Hitler and Nazis hate Christians too?
Neg. their enemy were "Jews" so when they wanted to get rid of you, you became a jew.
For example Slovakia, had majority of christians , orthodox christians and they were ally of Germany during WW2 with own Nazi regime. So as far as church supported them, or didnt make any troubles to them, they had no problems at all.
Even after assasination of Haidrich, when German were kinda pathetic and they shot death all males from several vilages, they usualy offered life to pastor.
Actualy in Lidice pastor deny their offer and ask them to be shot with his friends.
Later on, when real terrorist ... ohh sorry i mean freedom fighters were find, they has been killed and all those who were involved in the church where they were hiding were also executed.
Hitlers goal had 2 legs. Superrior race and evil jews. That was enough to point on whoever.
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
Legal in that the marriage of a gay couple granted by one state is recognized in another. At least that is my opinion...this hasn't been tested yet by the Supreme Court and theirs is the only opinion that counts. The Court has so far refused to hear the only case that has been submitted on the subject. And until the Court rules, States and local governments can, and often do, enforce laws that they prefer.
BTW, this does not mean that a state cannot refuse to grant a marriage to a gay couple at this time.
But you Quoted the 14th ammendment as a reason why States do not have the power to deny the right of Atheists to hold office. And I agree...it is spelled out clear as a bell. I am demonstrating that the Constitution (Since the last half century) is no longer a valid document. The Full faith clause leaves not one shred of doubt...a legal marriage in one State is legal in all. We are using the Supreme Court in an attempt at Social engineering and it is coming back to bite us. The Supreme Court has become 5 (majority) appointed for life dictators.
-
Originally posted by RTR
I don't have, or need, faith. It is just a truth to me. I don't take the absence of a deity on faith. I just know that it is not the right answer.
Using logic, prove the existance or nonexistance of God.
If you cannot, then your belief in the existance or nonexistance of God is not based on logic.
Here is an example of the use of logic.
By your definition, Faith is "2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence"
Yet you provide no evidence or logic to your belief in the nonexistance of God. It is just your gut feeling, or as you say, "I just know that it is not the right answer."
Therefore, even though you say you are faithless, you have a belief that does not rest on logical argument.
You have faith.
-
You missed the part where I said that there was enough empirical evidence to convince me of the non-existance of a deity.
As for the rest...uhhh no, I don't think I need to do that.
How about you show me irrefutable proof that a god exists. I mean hard evidence, something you can actually touch.
RTR
-
Originally posted by Suave
Are atheists conservatives or liberals? And what about creationists, are they liberal or conservatives ?
Bush is a liberal ****, yet his campaign message was "A vote for me is a vote for Christ".
Does asking this question make me a liberal or a conservative or what ?
ROTFLMAO.. you don't know a Liberal from a conservative. Listen to Air America then listen to rush Limbaugh....Bush is a Liberal::O
-
Originally posted by RTR
You missed the part where I said that there was enough empirical evidence to convince me of the non-existance of a deity.
As for the rest...uhhh no, I don't think I need to do that.
How about you show me irrefutable proof that a god exists. I mean hard evidence, something you can actually touch.
RTR
well the actual touching part might be a little difficult but definatly "hard" evidence.
:aok
(http://www.sitiosargentina.com.ar/fotos/mujeres/fotos/j/jessica-alba-2.jpg)
-
I am agnostic. I don't believe in God. I believe in evidence and logic.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
They have been there since the founding of the nation. The whole idea of God in our political system is that our rights are God Given "Endowed by their (Creator)with certain inaliable rights. Not given by man. Man can not take rights given by God.But can take rights given by man.
OK...so for the sake of argument lets say that God does give those rights. Then that was the case back 100 years ago too...but "In God We Trust" was not the national motto, and "under God" was not in the Pledge. So why do we need it? And why would it bother you if it were removed?
-
Originally posted by RTR
You missed the part where I said that there was enough empirical evidence to convince me of the non-existance of a deity.
As for the rest...uhhh no, I don't think I need to do that.
How about you show me irrefutable proof that a god exists. I mean hard evidence, something you can actually touch.
RTR
Show me empirical evidence...irrefutable proof that life sprang from a primordial soup. You use the word deity..how about the Creator.
Have at it, let all the best scientific minds in the world today, the best scientific labs anything they need...now create a living cell.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
Have at it, let all the best scientific minds in the world today, the best scientific labs anything they need...now create a living cell.
They are just a few steps away. Synthetic RNA has been produced.
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
OK...so for the sake of argument lets say that God does give those rights. Then that was the case back 100 years ago too...but "In God We Trust" was not the national motto, and "under God" was not in the Pledge. So why do we need it? And why would it bother you if it were removed?
Since we accept that our rights come from God (Creator) can be anyones God not just the Christian one even though God is the same in all great religions. We need it to remind us where are inaliable rights come from. Having our rights as free people coming from God in no way impedes your right to not believe in anything. Why does it bother you if it stays? Incidently can you think of anytime in your life religion has denied your rights to do or say anything you believe?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
They are just a few steps away. Synthetic RNA has been produced.
Life can only come from life. They also falsified stem cell research..Snuppy ring a bell.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
Incidently can you think of anytime in your life religion has denied your rights to do or say anything you believe?
In one of my previous lives, the Pope had me put under house arrest because I espoused heliocentricity.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
Incidently can you think of anytime in your life religion has denied your rights to do or say anything you believe?
I've been staying away from most posts that aren't directly related to my original question, but this is a doozy.
Weaselan: You're... you're joking, right? Religion has been behind almost every large scale censorship drive in this country. When you adopt the concept of morality as being inextricably linked to religion, then use morality as the measure for whether something should be censored or not, religion is the motivating force behind preventing people from doing and saying things.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
Life can only come from life.
I think you assertion may need some basis.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I think you assertion may need some basis.
I think therefore I am?
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
So if the day comes when the majority of Americans want strict gun control, then it would be OK with you if a law is passed requiring all guns be turned into the government...even though the 2nd Amendment clearly states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Or would you prefer that the courts be activist and strike down that law because it is unconstitutional?
Crowmaw you know better than that...They can't pass a law requiring all guns be turned in. First they would have to ammend the Constitution. You know the feds, then the States by 2/3. Then pass any anti-gun law you
like. An activist Court is one that would ignore the fact that it violated the Constitution. Non activists judges read the Constitution...activist judges get "Vibes" They smoke a doobie and get eminations.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I think you assertion may need some basis.
How's this for basis....No one has ever created life without life. The reason, because it takes life to create life. You think that might be basic enough.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
But you Quoted the 14th ammendment as a reason why States do not have the power to deny the right of Atheists to hold office. And I agree...it is spelled out clear as a bell. I am demonstrating that the Constitution (Since the last half century) is no longer a valid document. The Full faith clause leaves not one shred of doubt...a legal marriage in one State is legal in all. We are using the Supreme Court in an attempt at Social engineering and it is coming back to bite us. The Supreme Court has become 5 (majority) appointed for life dictators.
I'm not sure I understand the problem. The Supreme Court has always acted in the way that is does now. It interprets the Constitution. Not just over the past 50 years...but for the past 200 years.
It has always been the case that sometimes laws are passed that are unconstitutional. They stay on the books, and sometimes enforced, until a case is submitted and the SCOTUS agrees to render a decision with its opinion. Unconstitutional laws exist so long as no one has enough of an interest to file a judicial complaint...or if the SCOTUS refuses to hear the case.
The SCOTUS may refuse to hear a complaint for several reasons...but usually because they are too intimidated by the politics of the issue, or if they believe that a remedy may be possible. In the case of gay marriage, it was probably a combination that it is a political hot potato and because there was talk of a constitutional change that would leave no doubt about the definition of marriage.
-
hehe Gunslinger.
That was pretty good evidence, I must say!
I could believe in that!
How do I subscribe to the Church of Gunslinger, and do I have to believe in that David Blaine guy too, or is the chick enough?
LOL, Ive been pointing my finger at her pic and yellin "Booya"! but it ain't working. Where's Chuck Norris when ya need him?
RTR
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
How's this for basis....No one has ever created life without life. The reason, because it takes life to create life. You think that might be basic enough.
I'm glad the Wright Bros didn't use that same logic.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I'm glad the Wright Bros didn't use that same logic.
Your thinking of Doctor Frankenstien, he created life. Of course that was fiction. The Wright brothers knew better they where just working on a flying machine...big difference.
-
"Nobody has ever flown a powered, controlled, heavier than air flying machine before.... therefore it can't be done." Wilbur Wright.
Glad he didn't believe that crap.
Anyway Weaslesan, what are you worried about Frankenstein for anyway?
Unless you don't believe your own assertion that it is impossible.
-
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?
Originally posted by weaselsan
Having our rights as free people coming from God in no way impedes your right to not believe in anything.
Nor is your right to believe impeded by a lack of a government sponsored reminder...so I'm not sure why that is relevent.
Originally posted by weaselsan
Why does it bother you if it stays? Incidently can you think of anytime in your life religion has denied your rights to do or say anything you believe?
Hrmmm...trying to answer a question with a question? :huh
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
I'm not sure I understand the problem. The Supreme Court has always acted in the way that is does now. It interprets the Constitution. Not just over the past 50 years...but for the past 200 years.
It has always been the case that sometimes laws are passed that are unconstitutional. They stay on the books, and sometimes enforced, until a case is submitted and the SCOTUS agrees to render a decision with its opinion. Unconstitutional laws exist so long as no one has enough of an interest to file a judicial complaint...or if the SCOTUS refuses to hear the case.
The SCOTUS may refuse to hear a complaint for several reasons...but usually because they are too intimidated by the politics of the issue, or if they believe that a remedy may be possible. In the case of gay marriage, it was probably a combination that it is a political hot potato and because there was talk of a constitutional change that would leave no doubt about the definition of marriage.
The Interpretation part is over the last 50 years or so. The Supreme court should apply the Constitution to the laws as they are written. This would allow the legislators to fine tune them to conform to the Constitution where required. Notice how you matter of factly use (Hot Potato) and talk of ammending the constitution as an excuse for the Supreme Court not hearing the case. Very simple have a gay couple move to a bright red state and take it to a superior court. They would have no choice but to uphold the marriage as legal. I have a feeling that the supreme court would then, unless they where activist in the wrong direction (Right) uphold it as well. Then you are probably correct, there would be a constitutional amendment directly making gay marriage illegal in all states. So what we have here is fear of democracy.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
"Nobody has ever flown a powered, controlled, heavier than air flying machine before.... therefore it can't be done." Wilbur Wright.
Glad he didn't believe that crap.
Anyway Weaslesan, what are you worried about Frankenstein for anyway?
Unless you don't believe your own assertion that it is impossible.
You equate creating life with building airplanes...assert that creating life is impossible....no I know it's impossible.
-
I equate a technical challenge with a technical challenge.
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
Why? The national motto and the Pledge did not include it before...why do we need to be reminded now?
Nor is your right to believe impeded by a lack of a government sponsored reminder...so I'm not sure why that is relevent.
Hrmmm...trying to answer a question with a question? :huh
So where in agreement there is no reason to change the national motto.
Of course there's a snowballs chance in hell they ever will.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I equate a technical challenge with a technical challenge.
Creating life is impossible not a technical challenge...Creating good tasting American beer is a technical challenge.
-
Originally posted by RTR
hehe Gunslinger.
That was pretty good evidence, I must say!
I could believe in that!
How do I subscribe to the Church of Gunslinger, and do I have to believe in that David Blaine guy too, or is the chick enough?
LOL, Ive been pointing my finger at her pic and yellin "Booya"! but it ain't working. Where's Chuck Norris when ya need him?
RTR
There can be only one chuck norris. Did you know his tears cure cancer? Too bad he NEVER crys. And yes you have to beleive in David Blane or off to the camps you go. Jessica Alba will be there at the camps I promise, hint hint wink wink.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
Notice how you matter of factly use (Hot Potato) and talk of ammending the constitution as an excuse for the Supreme Court not hearing the case...So what we have here is fear of democracy.
I'm still not sure I see the problem. This is the way the SCOTUS has always worked. The docket is always tight, so there will always be some cases not heard. The Court has to make a decision somehow to determine what gets heard in a given year...all the cases submitted are important or they would not have made it all the way to the Supreme Court. I suppose the Court could randomly choose the cases they hear...perhaps that would be more fair.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
So where in agreement there is no reason to change the national motto.
Of course there's a snowballs chance in hell they ever will.
You are evading the question:
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?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
and I don't think anyone in this thread is disagreeing with you. I beleive somone mentioned those to be "blue laws" such as beating your wife on the courthouse steps at noon on sunday, and getting hung for stealing a horse.
You are smart.....a camp worker perhaps who will avoid the athiest clensing ;)
It's not disagreeing with me, disagreeing with Chairboy or common sense I presume would probably be where the disagreement would be.
Although I still wish people would get hung for stealing horses, or the present day horses - cars.
I'm not an atheist though.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Lazs' term is correct. Athiesm is a faith that there is no God. Lack of evidence does not logically prove non-existance. An illogical leap of faith is required to conclude the question one way or another.
Thats a definition made by someone who believes in a "god".
For example, if I were raised on a desert island, with no teaching of religion, and thus an athiest - how would you describe that? Agnostic maybe? OK... so a christian missionery shows up, tries to sell me the whole god thing, and I walk away laughing you're nuts and don't believe him. Is that faith?
Or how about this, how about I walked into a Church and said your god is actually a creation of my god: Bruce, you should all worship Bruce. If they don't believe me is that an illogical leap of faith?
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
Crowmaw you know better than that...They can't pass a law requiring all guns be turned in. First they would have to ammend the Constitution. You know the feds, then the States by 2/3. Then pass any anti-gun law you
like. An activist Court is one that would ignore the fact that it violated the Constitution. Non activists judges read the Constitution...activist judges get "Vibes" They smoke a doobie and get eminations.
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.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
Creating life is impossible not a technical challenge...Creating good tasting American beer is a technical challenge.
With science and technology doubling roughly every eighteen months, one must be very careful these days when one uses the term ‘impossible.’
All life on earth that we know of is based on DNA. DNA is composed of four non-living, organic molecules. We can build these molecules from scratch, and string them together to form a genome. If that genome we build is a copy of a virus, say, phi X, and if it infects cells and reproduces exactly like the original phi X, then we have created a live virus.
Phi X only has 5,000 base pairs in it’s genome. Humans have 3,000,000,000 so it’s going to take awhile before we start cranking out Frankenstein.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Silat did you even read the first page of this thread??????
Yes I did.
Someone mentioned the founding fathers as Chrisitians so I posted a response. Is that a problem?
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Thats a definition made by someone who believes in a "god".
For example, if I were raised on a desert island, with no teaching of religion, and thus an athiest - how would you describe that? Agnostic maybe? OK... so a christian missionery shows up, tries to sell me the whole god thing, and I walk away laughing you're nuts and don't believe him. Is that faith?
Or how about this, how about I walked into a Church and said your god is actually a creation of my god: Bruce, you should all worship Bruce. If they don't believe me is that an illogical leap of faith?
I do not believe in God, I am an agnostic. My belief is that the logical endpoint of a discussion on theology is that because there is not evidence one way or the other, no logical conclusion can be produced.
Polytheism: the belief in many Gods.
Monotheism: The belief in a single God.
Atheism: The belief in no God.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
Creating life is impossible not a technical challenge...Creating good tasting American beer is a technical challenge.
Many things were impossible before they weren't.
Not a big microbrew fan huh?
-
Originally posted by Silat
Yes I did.
Someone mentioned the founding fathers as Chrisitians so I posted a response. Is that a problem?
Well I'd read it again because Octavious posted the same thing you did.
-
I think it's funny that one permutation of matter is considered sacred, and others not.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I do not believe in God, I am an agnostic. My belief is that the logical endpoint of a discussion on theology is that because there is not evidence one way or the other, no logical conclusion can be produced.
Polytheism: the belief in many Gods.
Monotheism: The belief in a single God.
Atheism: The belief in no God.
Well I think deep down you do, as shown by your personal definitions. You answered neither of my questions as well.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Using logic, prove the existance or nonexistance of God.
If you cannot, then your belief in the existance or nonexistance of God is not based on logic.
Here is an example of the use of logic.
By your definition, Faith is "2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence"
Yet you provide no evidence or logic to your belief in the nonexistance of God. It is just your gut feeling, or as you say, "I just know that it is not the right answer."
Therefore, even though you say you are faithless, you have a belief that does not rest on logical argument.
You have faith.
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.
Thier could be an invisible purple dragon sitting beside me, but as it has no measureable properties it's lack of presence beside me isn't a matter of faith. It's a matter of it being meaningless whether it is there or not because it has no measurable effect.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Dumba** rednecks... buddha's not a god for gawdsake!
Plus he wasn't fat. Thats just a Japanese thing, buddha was a skinny dude, he went and lived with those Indian Brahman hermits that virtually live off dirt.
So...
- Buddha wasn't a fat guy. He was a well educated skinny Indian prince.
- Buddha wasn't/isn't a god. He is a mere man who reached 'englightenment'
- Buddha doesn't have any "superpowers"
- Buddha didn't try to explain creation with a pile of fairy tales (as such Buddhism can accept Darwins theories quite happily)
Now pass the twinkies.
so he is a scrawny guy who is not a god, who has no superpowers, no heat vision, regeneration, super strength, or any of that fancy marvel crap?
that means I can kick him in the nads with impunity, reincarnate as angelina jolie and play with my titties,drink holsten, and fly ah all day, w00t.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
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.
Thier could be an invisible purple dragon sitting beside me, but as it has no measureable properties it's lack of presence beside me isn't a matter of faith. It's a matter of it being meaningless whether it is there or not because it has no measurable effect.
I dont know what if the big invisible purple dragon, bit your head off.
you never said he was intangible.
-
Originally posted by Pooh21
I dont know what if the big invisible purple dragon, bit your head off.
you never said he was intangible.
Then we'd have evidence of it's existence and you would be morally justified to exclude him from holding public office?
-
would you try to exclude an invisble purple dragon from holding office?
-
No, thrawn. I think it's acceptable to discriminate against the headless.
Head biting invisiblke purple dragons probably need to be killed.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Thier could be an invisible purple dragon sitting beside me,
What...the IPU isn't manly enough for you. :rofl
-
Bless her hooves!!!
Booz
EAC #1137 department head, department of department departmentalizing
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/019510322X/ref=sib_fs_bod/002-0973981-7239209?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S01U&checkSum=9tO5Pr9V51AMfW4CRX14gKBnfuiuU77kelgrGywOX7w%3D#reader-link) 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.
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
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?
OK heres my answer. The National Motto "In God We Trust" in no way causes a loss of civil rights or injury of any kind to any citizen in any way. Short of simply whineing that it violates the establishment clause, I see no reason for our elected representatives to waste their time on such a mundane issue. As you yourself noted the SCOTUS probably wouldn't touch it with a ten foot gavel, and Congress wouldn't even entertain the thought. Remember Congress opens with a Prayer. We fund religous men as chaplains in the Military with tax dollars, even the SCOTUS opens sessions with "God save this honorable court". How could wasteing time on an issue like that do anything but possibly energize the religous base to further erode the democratic party.
BTW...The left had better understand what damage an activist court is capable of, we are only one justice away from a shift to the right that progressives may find a little unsettleing. When the SCOTUS begins making rulings that clearly are ideologic in nature and not based on the constitution ie; Roe v Wade, where in deep trouble. You see the balance of power in this country is no longer as the old Civics teacher taught you "In the three branches of Government". They are increaseingly in the balance of the SCOTUS.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
OK heres my answer. The National Motto "In God We Trust" in no way causes a loss of civil rights or injury of any kind to any citizen in any way...
I think you were answering a different question. The question is:
Originally posted by crowMAW
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?
I'm seriously trying to understand the purpose these additions from the perspective of a religious person who wants them to stay.
-
crow... we have a fundamental dissagreement in that I do not believe that the wording of the law allows for government to do anything about religion or god other than not establish a national religion. I can not imagine the founders using the phrase "touching religion" but..
The use of the word god by government in pledges and on money can be adressed two ways in my opinion. You could file suit with the supreme court and have them interpret the meaning of seperation of church and state to include any generic reference to god ...
This might be difficult given that all the founders pledged to god and spent money with "in god we trust" on it... They obviously had no problem with a reference to a generic god don't you see?
Or...You could simply vote on it with the understanding that it is not covered by the constitution and therefore not a right to use the generic god on money and pledges.
This stands a better chance since the generic god is more a habit and tradition and was simply an acceptable thing at the time... One could say that the population has not only become more secular but... that modern citizens are somehow.... Harmed?... Offended? by a generic reference? I think that is incorrect and that the ones wanting it struck are just trying to make a statement but.... I would go along with the majority.
As for gun control... it is allready unconstitutional... it has strayed from the intent of the founders and our rights are indeed being infringed.... it is an obvious case for the cowardly supreme court to hear. I look forward to it.
The only ruling was miller in the 30's and in that the supremes held that it was an individual right but felt that sawed off shotguns were not useful as weapons of common defense.
I tend to view the fanatics that are athiests with the same caution that I view all fanatics and people who follow a doctrine based on faith or feel.
I don't want to tell people that they can't see auras for instance because there might be an instrument that measures/reveals em next year or so... To flatly claim that they do not exist is just as weird to me as caliming they do.
lazs
-
Part I.
Oh boy, where to begin....
First of all, the clauses of the seven state constitutions that mention the religious test are rendered legally null and void by the incorporation clause of the 14th amendment, and more indirectly by the tenth amendment.
Now that doesn't render such religious test effectively null and void, due to the religious bigotry so in-eloquently expressed by several posters in this thread.
You see, a lifetime of indoctrination (many call it brainwashing) leads to the easy demonization of those who are different, and religion has had many years of propaganda, lies, torture, killing, etc. to enforce their beliefs.
Nothing to discuss. Other than the fact that the site you linked attempts to embellish the establishment clause to suit its own agenda, and quotes the "wall of separation" paragraph which DOES NOT exist in the Constitution, but rather in a series of letters by Thomas Jefferson.
I am tolerant of your desire and wish to practice Atheism. I do not wish to see you or other Atheists excluded from any part of your rights.
I am however very INTOLERANT of the attempts by organized Atheists to remove God and the Judeo-Christian principles from the government that has served us quite well for 200 years. So, if you want to quote Jefferson and the rest of the founding fathers, remember it was they who put GOD in about 90% of the documents founding this nation, and there is little if any doubt as to their intentions or to which God they referred.
Oh man are you wrong. Completely ignorant of both the history and actual documents surrounding the founding of this country. First you say that what Jefferson said in a letter, and really, in a discussion of a series of letter doesn't matter, then you claim that the founding fathers put God in 'about 90% of the documents founding this nation'.
Do you have a source for that, or are you just pulling that out of your ass?? :) First, the only document that founds the country and the government upon which it depends is the Constitution and it's amendments. The only references to religion in that document have to do with freedom of and from religion, as well as a very clear insistence that the government remain neutral wrt religion.
BTW Virgil, do you believe in the trinity?
The letters Jefferson wrote were to clarify the intent of the first amendment to a (Baptist IIRC) congregation. The intent of the writers is important in constitutional law.
Yes that the intent was that there would be no forming of an official national church such as there was a "Church of England" that all would be required by law to follow which was what their main concern was as the religion in question was among the most persecuted in England at the time and for which reason they chose to leave England for religious freedom to begin with.
Technically true. And the 14th amendment extends that neutrality to the state governments as well. That is what makes those clause ok to still have 'on the books' since they are rendered null and void by the 14th amendment.
And if you dont believe in a religion then you don’t have one, and as such cant be discriminated against.
That is a complete and utter non-sequiter. I don't believe in racism either, but I can damn well assure you that one can still be discriminated against based on race.
keep your gods in your churches where they belong. render unto ceaser and all that.
Exactly, and don't forget Mathew 6:5-6. :D
the atheist faith is way too much to swallow... I wish they would just go away with their theories or at least just keep em to themselves... their constant preaching is annoying.
So tell me lazs, when was the last time atheists came knocking on your door trying to convert you?? Oh wait, I know, you get sick and tired of all of the government representatives spouting off about how much they hate god. No wait, that's not it...it must the fact that you can't find a church within 100 mile of where you live because the evil atheists burned them all down.
You have an overdeveloped case of persecution complex. No charge for the diagnoses.
Well... that would be fine... but it is the attack on other religions that get on my nerves... The fact that the money can't have "god" on it or they will be offended? How can they be offended? I do agree with pooh... I want the jehova witnesses to not come to my door but I also don't want to here the whining from the athiests here and in the news.
Well, you must be watching too much Faux news then. Because they (we) ain't really in the news unless Bill O'Lielly is making up **** about the 'War on Xmas'.
The government shouldn't put IGWT on the money (The original national motto, 'E Pluribus Unum' was much better, and all inclusive). It was guess what, a drive by the religionists to get IGWT on the money and 'under gawd' inserted in the pledge. Apparently the actual original wishes of the founding fathers didn't matter all that much eh?? Only the revised version since the insecure religious nutters felt the need to constantly cram their view down everyone else's throat.
lada you are correct in that most athiests see themselves as god.
Really?? Name one. I see my self more as an invisible pink unicorn. :p
Oh and Virgil, atheists don't "practice" anything. A-theism - lack of belief in god. I know, I know, your preacher and Faux news has been telling you for years that we 'hate' god, but really. Do you hate the easter bunny??
Now, for a little lesson on how real atheists think, you'd do well to ask them. I recommend http://www.iidb.org.
I don't see you going out of your way to make any statements against the Atheists attempting to remove God from the government. Interesting how tolerance appears to go only one way.
That's because our country is supposed to be secular. Meaning, no religious preference. By logical extension, that means there has to be no preference between religious or non-religious thought as well. Otherwise, it's just a smokescreen for a thinly veiled theocracy. Answer this: How would you like your tax money to be going to Islamic based charities where you don't know they might be doing with that money?
nothing but... let's vote on it. the government can't sponsor any religion but I see nothing in the constitution that would force them to not mention god soooo..
This is indeed something that the people should decide. I will abide by the decision one way or the other so long as it does not infringe on any of my rights.
First, you're equivocating between our the US government, a representative democracy with rights guaranteed, and a pure democracy (mob rule).
Many feel that the governments obvious preference for monotheism does infringe on their rights, so why are you ok with that? You'd go along with the popular vote unless it infringes on your rights, but you're ok with the popular vote if it infringes on other's rights?? Either you're not making sense, or you're a hypocrite.
The whole point of the Bill of rights is to protect the rights of....the minority...to avoid what Jefferson (or maybe Madison) called the 'tyranny of the majority'. As an example, if next week, the entire country decided that slavery was ok, but we would only take as slave those who live in, say, Dixon, CA. that would be the majority vote. :) Get used to those shackles man....
-
There are a lot of people in this Country that are getting a little tired of a minority attempting to change words in the Constitution. The Bill of rights clearly states (Freedom OF religion)..It does not say Freedom FROM religion.
Man, this is a short sighted, narrow minded view that has been diced to death by legal scholars for decades now. You can't have freedom of religion if you don't have freedom from religion. Do you really need me to spell it out for you?? I can try to use small words.
RTR makes hte point very well with sarcasm!
The establishment clause is only one part of the first amendment, but it has been interpreted to mean that the only real, practical way to truly abide by it is 100% government neutrality WRT religion. The Lemon test, McReary, and dozens of other landmark cases make this quite clear. (I predict at least one whine about 'activist judges'.)
Freedom OF religion means simply that. It means in the daily course of life you will be exposed to people practiceing their faith.
Yep, no problem with that. I don't exaclty see a shartage of churches around here....
More and more in this Country certain religions are being supressed.
Really?? Not where I live. I think you have been watching too much Faux News. Define suppression?
The latest example is the war on Christmas. The Christian faith is enemy #1 to certain groups in this Country.
Yep, definitely too much Faux News. Change the channel and put your tinfoil hat away man. There is NO war on xmas. There is, however, and attempt to include Jews, Muslims, and *gasp* even atheists in the celebration of the holidays. Now, if you want to get into the real roots of many of the traditions, you'll have to actually take xianity out of most of it, because they were all 'borrowed' from previous, existing religious traditions.
It sets moral rules and guidelines that some see as discrimination against some minority groups. ie; Gays.
And others. Non-believers, Jews, etc. It also sets a pretty bad moral example in many places. Fortunately, most societies in the world have gotten past those silly superstitions and myths and put together a more coherent, rational morality system.
Which is why (if you pay attention) You'll here a lot of whining about the much hated extremist Right Wing Christians. Not Jews, Muslims , or Buddists. Christians.
Well, yeah, in the US, it's the religious right that is slowly trying to convert the US into a true theocracy. In the middle east, it's the muslims. Oh, and since when did sticking up for ones rights become whining? I guess all the founding fathers should have just sucked it up and taken one for the team eh?
You are free to practice any faith you like in this country, or none at all, Do not attempt to use the Constitution to deny my rights to practice mine. In the establishment clause it goes on to say Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Oh please. No one is trying to deny you the right to worship whatever myth you want. Or is there a large scale concerted effort to shut down churches in your area??
The thing many of us, religious and atheist are trying to prevent is the special treatment of people solely based on religion (Office of Faith Based Initiatives anyone?) But the propaganda machine has spun 'no special treatment' into 'persecution and denying you the right to worship how you want' and even otherwise intelligent folk such as yourself seem to have fallen for it.
Oh, the section of the 14th amendment that pertains to this is:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This has been interpreted as applying the entire bill of rights the 'protection of law' to the state level.
There is a reason for this....many states were trying to do just that, establish state churches.
-
Lazs' term is correct. Athiesm is a faith that there is no God. Lack of evidence does not logically prove non-existance. An illogical leap of faith is required to conclude the question one way or another.
Agnosticism is lack of faith in the existance. Atheism is a faith in the non-existance.
Wrong. Try to learn something about it before demonstrating your ignorance in public. Also, FFS, stop trying to tell us what we think!! It's bad enough so many religious nutcases are trying to tell us was all what to think.
A-theism - No theism, without theism. Lack of belief in the supernatural or divine.
Agnosticism - without knowledge, or unknowable. It is more like saying even if god(s) existed, we couldn't know it or have any way to divine it. Just like the ants in your back yard can't comprehend you.
Atheism is the ultimate lack of faith, using the word faith in the religious sense (to belief without reason).
Would you have an issue if they stayed?
I have an issue if they go just due to all the legal costs in this stupid issue. I think the next judge should rule that the complaintant gets a thicker skin and a life. There are many more important issues.
Holden, that is a red herring. The government changes the money all the time, mostly to try to foil counterfeiters. There wouldn't be a legal cost of the religious backers didn't raise such a ruckus every time someone suggested going back tot he original, neutral stance. It kind of puts a lie to all the 'ceremonial deism' excuses that the SCOTUS has been fond of the last couple of decades.
Oh, and why can't the ones who want to force their beliefs on others (you know, the xians) 'grow a thicker skin' and keep their damn religion where it belongs: in church, and out of the government. Is your and their faith so weak that you need government support to survive? They already get a subsidized existence, simply based on the fact that they are religions.
I still think that churches should be held to the same standards as secular charities. Oh, wait, equal treatment is discrimination, I forgot.
Didnt Hitler and Nazis hate Christians too?
For someone who plays a WW2 game, you don't know much about it. Hitler was raised catholic, and used the church and religion quite effectively (much like Shrub does now). And the Nazi belt buckles had "Gott mit uns" inscribed on them. I can show you a picture if you’d like.
Besides, that's another red herring and totally off topic.
If you do not have faith you are Agnostic.
If you believe that there is no God, then your faith is Athieism, as it is difficult to believe with no beliefs.
Gawdammit Holden, stop trying to tell us what we believe!!
Ok, fine, here goes:
1. Weak Atheism - lack of belief in god(s). Just like lack of belief in unicorns leprechauns, and smart republicans. :p
2. Strong Atheism - Denying the existence of god(s). More rare, but still more logically sound than theism.
3. Agnosticism - the view that humans can't know whether god(s) exist or not because they would be so unfathomable to us.
Then there's various flavors of religion, from mono-theism (jews and muslims), to poly-theism (most xians, and hindus), to deists, pantheists, etc.
Pantheism is actually much more wide spread than I would have thought, and most in the US don't even know what it is.
sorry RTR but you are wrong...
Nope, you are the one who is wrong. See above. And again, stop trying to tell me what I think.
A person who says that there is no god even tho he can not prove that to be true and has no real evidense... is basing his belief in athiesm in nothing more than pure faith.
No, if that was the case, your default position should be that you believe in unicorns, leprechauns, little green men, and the invisible dragon in my garage. You can't prove any of them don't exist.
If where to believe the constitution is a valid document Gay marriage is legal in all 50 States.
You are correct, and they should be. Thanks for admitting that not allowing it is discrimination, and unconstitutional
An example: The maple tree. The seed has a wing that serves as an auto rotating helicopter that flies clear of the parent tree and uses the rotation to bury itself in the earth far enough from the tree to grow. This is clearly engineering and design... That doesn't take faith...it just makes far more sense than "it came from the primordial soup."
Oh, now we're going off into incompetent...err..I mean, intelligent design. Again, you should learn a bit about science. Because you are wrong. Links available upon request.
Ignorance is for blind progressives (Liberals)...sooo. it would be impossible for an intellegent race (Conservatives) to travel to a distant Planet, Albeit in the far future, and create life on that planet...Holy Chit...that would make us get ready now "THE CREATOR". Of course Liberals on that planet would be running to the ACLU (Aliens civil liberties union) and demand they stop teaching the possibility of a CREATOR. They all know they came from "Gunk Soup".
See, this here statement shows how easy it is to use religion to demonize and dehumanize those who don't think the same way you do. Similar to the way the leaders of the Rwanda genocide used religion and race as a tool to dehumanize those who were different and slaughter them by the thousands. Links available upon request.
WRT 'In god we trust" and 'Under gawd" in the pledge:
They have been there since the founding of the nation.
Dude, you are so wrong you couldn't be more wrong if you tried, learn a little history.
Using logic, prove the existance or nonexistance of God.
If you cannot, then your belief in the existance or nonexistance of God is not based on logic.
Using logic, prove the existence or nonexistence of Zeus.
If you cannot, then your belief in the existence or nonexistence of Zeus is not based on logic.
There, fixed it for you.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Yeah, there's a lot of xian apologetics that try to wriggle out of this simple axiom, but if you try and follow them you will (or should) wind up believing in all sorts of magic fairies.
Show me empirical evidence...irrefutable proof that life sprang from a primordial soup. You use the word deity..how about the Creator.
First: in science, there is no such thing as 'irrefutable proof' in science. No theory is ever considered 100% proven, because we don't know how every little thing works. Not even Gravitational Theory, which is less well supported than Evolutionary Theory.
Second: for the actual evidence: http://www.talkorigins.org. I recommend the FAQ as a good starting place. I am also good friends with several world renowned paleontologist, micro-biologists, geologists, and a few others. If you have any questions....
I am agnostic. I don't believe in God. I believe in evidence and logic.
1. You don’t even know what agnostic means.
2. You just broke on eof my industrial strength Irony meters. :p You seem to know very little about logic, and you are definitely not very clued in about evidence.
Since we accept that our rights come from God (Creator) can be anyones God not just the Christian one even though God is the same in all great religions. We need it to remind us where are inaliable rights come from. Having our rights as free people coming from God in no way impedes your right to not believe in anything. Why does it bother you if it stays? Incidently can you think of anytime in your life religion has denied your rights to do or say anything you believe?
Ok, first, not everyone accepts that our ‘inalienable’ rights come from some creator. Sure, it was the prevailing idea at the time, but the god of the most influential founders (with the notable exception of Patrick Henry, who really was a devout xian) was primarily deistic. Look it up.
Second, rights are not inalienable or absolute. If you don’t believe me, ask one of the detainees at Gitmo. Our rights are granted by the constitution. And if the government chooses not to adhere to that document, as the current administration has demonstrably not done, they are worth less than the paper it’s written on.
Third, it bothers me if it stays because of all the ignorance regarding its history. Now, many (including several in this thread) are willing to let this little thing slide, because it’s ‘historical’, but they are completely ignorant of the actual history regarding this. Another 50 years from now, when the christofascists have continued their historical revisionism ala David Barton, and spreading their lies via the pulpit, it will be even more ‘historical’. And their foot will be even further in the proverbial door. It’s the same strategy the IDiots (those pushing creationism in the guise of science) use to get their religious ideas into public schools. (google ‘wedge document’ for proof, in their own words.)
Oh, and I can think of several times in my life when the rights of many of my friends have been infringed directly upon for purely religious reasons. Yeah, I have gay friends. Every opposition to their marriage has been based on religious motivation, and if it were challenged in front of a truly impartial judge, the sectarian motivation would be revealed for what it is, and it would be struck down.
In order to get it truly banned, what are the Radical Religious Right (RRR) trying to do? Amend the constitution. What does that tell you?? That currently, it is unconstitutional. Think about that until it sinks it…it’s really a profound point.
-
Life can only come from life. They also falsified stem cell research..Snuppy ring a bell.
Dude, your ignorance of the current research, and science in general is showing again. When was the last time you looked up the latest research on stem cells? And what exactly was ‘falsified’? Links please. And if life can only come from life, as you so boldly proclaim, how did we get here? Can you actually give a good, working definition of life? I doubt it, since in science, it is a big, fuzzy gray area. I’d be willing to nominate you for that Nobel prize though, as soon as you produce it.
And that catches me up to page two…..More to come!
Cheers,
Spitter
-
An activist Court is one that would ignore the fact that it violated the Constitution. Non activists judges read the Constitution...activist judges get "Vibes" They smoke a doobie and get eminations.
I call BS. I’ve noticed a distinct trend when yahoos who don’t understand constitutional law spout off about ‘activist judges’.
Activist judges are those who make decision they disagree with, regardless of legal precedence, reasoning, or evidence.
Judge Jones of the recent Dover case is a prime example. As a matter of fact, the press release that many people had prepared if the decision went their way were all for praising the judge for his wisdom and clear thinking, but when the decision went the other way….you guessed it, the activist judge label was trotted out.
Yet more Faux News and RRR propaganda that works on the sheeple of the US.
How's this for basis....No one has ever created life without life. The reason, because it takes life to create life. You think that might be basic enough.
Again, wearing your ignorance on your sleeve?? Do you know what life is? Can you define it scientifically? Your knowledge is basic, that’s for sure. Google abiogenesis. Or if you prefer, I can provide some links to actual current research.
Oh, and FYI, a cell is not the smallest unit needed for self-replication, the first step in creating life as we know it. You want to talk with some biologists who are studying the topic? I can point the way.
So where in agreement there is no reason to change the national motto.
Of course there's a snowballs chance in hell they ever will.
weasel, are you being deliberately obtuse, or just trying to stir the pot? The national motto did change and the pledge did change in the 1950’s. The changes were spearheaded by religious organizations, primarily, the Knights of Columbus. Learn some history.
Creating life is impossible not a technical challenge...Creating good tasting American beer is a technical challenge.
As to the first part, you’re almost certainly wrong. The current research being spearheaded at Stanford is pretty confident that they will have a major breakthrough in the next decade. As to the second, that is probably impossible. But then, I’m probably spoiled from living in Germany.
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.
Actually, you are incorrect. Unconstitutional law get passed fairly regularly. It’s only when they are challenged in court that they are reviewed for constitutionality.
For instance, in the 1950s, many schools around the country made it mandatory for students to recite the pledge of allegiance. That was finally challenged (by jehovah’s witnesses) and ruled unconstitutional because it infringed on their religious freedom. A perfect example of what happens when one particular sectarian power gets some control of government. Unfortunately, the ruling was very narrow, and the SCOTUS didn’t go the extra step and rule the inclusion of the words ‘under gawd’ unconstitutional, because they were afraid of the political backlash.
So here we are 50 hears later, finally trying to get an honest court to review it without dodging it using the old ‘ceremonial deism’ defense.
Ok, I’m done, don’t feel like dealing with the rest of the ignorance and people who won’t even listen.
Some of you guys have more patience than me and are doing fine. Good luck with that.
Cheers,
Spitter
-
Congratulations. Twelve tons of insults, innuendo, and contrived B.S. in a Wall of Text. Sorry, too much drivel and crap to wade through.
Have a nice day.
-
Originally posted by Spitter
Gawdammit Holden, stop trying to tell us what we believe!!
Ok, fine, here goes:
1. Weak Atheism - lack of belief in god(s). Just like lack of belief in unicorns leprechauns, and smart republicans. :p
2. Strong Atheism - Denying the existence of god(s). More rare, but still more logically sound than theism.
3. Agnosticism - the view that humans can't know whether god(s) exist or not because they would be so unfathomable to us.
Quotes from Webster's Online:
Atheist: one who believes that there is no deity
Agnostic: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable.
As no evidence proves nothing, the question of existance of God is presently unknowable. Hence agnosticism is the endpoint of logic on this question. Faith that either conclusion is established fact is illogical.
I await your next wall of rambling text.
-
Originally posted by Spitter
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, you are incorrect. Unconstitutional law get passed fairly regularly. It’s only when they are challenged in court that they are reviewed for constitutionality.
LOL...your statement just agreed with mine. Re-read what I said:
Crow said: unconstitutional laws do get passed
Fate said: Unconstitutional law get passed fairly regularly
Sounds the same...am I missing something?
Crow said: SCOTUS exists: to ultimately determine the constitutionality of actions by the Legislative and Executive branches
Fate said: It’s only when they are challenged in court that they are reviewed for constitutionality
Never expanded on how or when they ultimately determine constitutionality in this post...but if you read all the thread you would see:
Originally posted by crowMAW
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.
And:
Originally posted by crowMAW
It has always been the case that sometimes laws are passed that are unconstitutional. They stay on the books, and sometimes enforced, until a case is submitted and the SCOTUS agrees to render a decision with its opinion. Unconstitutional laws exist so long as no one has enough of an interest to file a judicial complaint...or if the SCOTUS refuses to hear the case.
But welcome to the bbs. :D
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I can not imagine the founders using the phrase "touching religion" but..
Click on the link and you can see the Congressional Record surrounding the 1st Amendment:
The Complete Bill of Rights (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/019510322X/ref=sib_fs_bod/002-0973981-7239209?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S01U&checkSum=9tO5Pr9V51AMfW4CRX14gKBnfuiuU77kelgrGywOX7w%3D#reader-link)
-
spitter... nice speeches but... you seem to prove my points that you are trying to make a statement with your athiesm... it is your religion.
You mix science and faith just as religious people do... you say science seems to point your way but... you have "faith" that no future science will ever prove your "faith" in athiesm wrong... this is silly. You are being silly.
If you were to take the agnostic view then you could spout all the science you want... A scientist doesn't go in with "faith" that something doesn't exist... If someone in the 14th century were to say that he thought everything was made of little tiny particles so small that they could not be seen... Your "faith" as a scientist would have to say they guy was a religions nut.
The constitution says what it says... It says nothing about nativity scenes or "in god we trust" it simply does not allow for the establishment of A religion.... It would seem that so long as the supreme court does not intervene and the people want a generic god in public documents.... then that is fine with our constitution.
That is all there is too it. sorry it offends your faith but it is a small thing. It does not affect your life in the least except how you take it. Just as those who lobby to remove the gerneric god from money don't really affect me unless I let em...
I don't care who wins so long as it is the will of the people. I do care if the supremes change the constituion by interpretation tho... that is why I am against flag burning as "free speech" or "hate speech" not being protected under the first. I don not favor constitution by fad.
lazs
-
crow... I am reading it and the vast weight of all the discussion seems to be centered on not allowing the government to establish a state government. There is little or no evidence that the founders objected to the the word "god". The opposite is true.
lazs
-
Lazs2:spitter... nice speeches but... you seem to prove my points that you are trying to make a statement with your athiesm... it is your religion.
Yeah, I know this old saw gets brought up anytime an atheist actually has the temerity to challenge religious discrimination and bogotry. Actually, atheism is only a religion in the sense that is is as constitutionally protected as any religious belief (I'd have to look up the court cite if you want it.). In other words, non-belief is protected, which means that according to our laws, the first amendment does indeed offer freedom from religion as well as freedom of religion.
You mix science and faith just as religious people do... you say science seems to point your way but... you have "faith" that no future science will ever prove your "faith" in athiesm wrong... this is silly. You are being silly.
No. You are incorrect. I don't mix science and faith. If my current beliefs are shown to be wrong by a major change in a scientific paradigm, then my beliefs will change with them. That's the difference between a worldview based on reality, and one based on a nearly static, 2000 year old dogma.
If you were to take the agnostic view then you could spout all the science you want... A scientist doesn't go in with "faith" that something doesn't exist... If someone in the 14th century were to say that he thought everything was made of little tiny particles so small that they could not be seen... Your "faith" as a scientist would have to say they guy was a religions nut.
No, my 'faith' as you call it is really more of skepticism. I would have said 'prove it'. or at least 'show me good evidence for it that isn't better explained by simpler, more natural means. That's the difference between my skepticism, and religious faith. Mine is open to change based on evidence. Religious nutters simply re-interpret or deny the evidence based on their pre-concieved notions.
The constitution says what it says... It says nothing about nativity scenes or "in god we trust" it simply does not allow for the establishment of A religion.... It would seem that so long as the supreme court does not intervene and the people want a generic god in public documents.... then that is fine with our constitution.
No, that is also wrong, the constitution reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; "
No law respecting an establishment of religion. That is not the same thing as an establishment of religion. The framers of the constitution were very careful and selective with their wording. It is a subtle, but very profound, difference.
Cheers,
Spitter
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
Thats it Flatbar,"Feel the hatred" Think to yourself Hate Christians, Hate Christians, Then go get a new nose ring, And punk album.
I may laugh at them but I'll never hate them for their choice. My early Christian upbringing taught me the tolerance to accept other's religious faith or lack there of.
Nose ring? Punk Rock album? Naw, 50's DooWop and and a DA with a flattop and sideboards are more my speed given my age.
-
Originally posted by Spitter
No, that is also wrong, the constitution reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; "
No law respecting an establishment of religion. That is not the same thing as an establishment of religion. The framers of the constitution were very careful and selective with their wording. It is a subtle, but very profound, difference.
Cheers,
Spitter
Ahh... "an establishment of religion" is different from "...an establishment of religion."
Those italics make all the difference...... :huh
-
Originally posted by Spitter
Yeah, I know this old saw gets brought up anytime an atheist actually has the temerity to challenge religious discrimination and bogotry. Actually, atheism is only a religion in the sense that is is as constitutionally protected as any religious belief (I'd have to look up the court cite if you want it.). In other words, non-belief is protected, which means that according to our laws, the first amendment does indeed offer freedom from religion as well as freedom of religion.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; "
Cheers,
Spitter
I would consider the choice to not believe in a higher power just as much of a leap of faith as the choice to believe in a higher power, therefore making it very much a religion.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; "
Translation- "Congress will not endorse any one religion. There will be no official religion of the United States." Nowhere in the Constitution is there verbiage of a ban on all government acknowledgment of the possibility of a higher power, and doing so makes atheism the official religion of the United States.
-
Yep spitter.... I haven't read one thing you have written that can't be torn to shreds... You need to actually think things through rather than just regurgitate em.
Your defenitiuon of athiesm and of the first amendment is really strange... but... even you admit that under any defenition that it requires a leap of faith to say that you know the unknowable.
Just glancing at your wall of text shows that you wear your athiesm as a statement... you are using it as a weapon against those you percieve to be the opiated masses and the cause of all suffering in the world.
Inalienable rights are ours from birth. Everyone knows that. even the evil people who would take them away. Taking them away does not negate that we were born with em.... Stalin or Jefferson didn't give em to us nor do they have the power to... they are long dead and people continue to be born with inalienable rights.
there is much spouting of the danger of religion here but the commies stamped it out and replaced it with government... they created the most evil of all powerful empires. Their paradise of rights not given by god but by man... That is what spitter and company are advocating...
lazs
-
Funny how some folks are hard pressed to acept ANY government control over their guns, but are more than willing to trust them with their religion, or freedom of the press or speech.
-
MT... how do you figure? I don't want governement to have any control over religion other than when it steps on others rights. I do not want the government to establish a religion nor to forbid one.
I don't want free speech infringed. funny how those who profess to love free speech are quick to ban words under "hate speech"
Burning flags isn't speech... it's just setting something on fire.... profanity is just profanity... If the majority want's it limited to adults then fine. What you want tho is that some words not be able to be spoken even by adults or written about.... unless you are a certain color of course. Talking dirty to children or in their earshot should not be protected under free speech but.... you should be able to do so with a paying or... warned...adult audience.
lazs