CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Well, considering the fact that just about every religion in the world is practiced by people in the U.S we should actually replace "In God We Trust" with "In God, Allah, Buddha, Odin, Thor, Loki, Zeus, Hades, Poseidon, Cthulhu, Yog-Sothoth, Azathoth, Ra, Anubis, Osiris, and Set We Trust" or something along those lines. or we could just say "In Every God We Trust".
No. A large part of this country's founding, and the only part that was concerned with any religion, was for religious freedom.
While this is confusing for christians, try to stay with me.
Freedom from religion does not mean freedom for christians to force everyone else to be christian.
It means that you are allowed to be christian, but basic human respect dictates you cannot force others to believe what you believe and that govenment which both christians and non-christians are a part of, should not take favorites - the currency takes favorites, the "under god" in the pledge takes favorites. Therefore it is unconstitutional. Christians are and have been blatantly thumbing their nose at the constitution for generations now.
actually you dont have to say the under god part plus atheist do the same thing like taking points off a students grade if he says god bless you ps god bless you and i just want to debate
1. That teacher wasn't an atheist to my knowledge nor yours.
2. That story probably wasn't even true, it was a fox story, basically a right wing tabloid.
3. Why not put "in Alla" we trust, or Zeus, or the flying spaghetti monster? Because it offends Christians. So what part of referring to your god within government might be offensive to non Christians do you not understand?
It is really annoying how blinded so many Christians are to others on earth. Try looking at something outside of your own narrow and self-absorbed perspective and you might see the hypocrisy of all this Jesus stuff infiltrating the US government.
Tablets containing the Enuma Elish are real too, and older than the dead sea scrolls. Does that mean the Gods and events contained therein are real? Finding old scrolls and tablets doesn't mean that what is written on them is true.
Funny. Earlier you said to iamdavidh "I just want to debate." I provide you a debate. Instead of responding you downvote me. I don't think you really want a debate.
actually i do but your comments have been rude and non of the things you have said are relevent especially the cussing and attacking my religeon but you want to debate lets go we might as well see this 14 year old debate against a older person
I did not refer to your religion as phoney. I do believe it is inaccurate, but I did not belittle it in such a way. I also am 99% sure I didn't cuss at you, since I don't do that to anyone, and I DEFINITELY would not do that to a kid . I think you are confusing me for a different opponent. Whic is somehwt understandable, since you are debating numerous people. But I would appreciate if you tried to keep your accusations more accurate. Thanks.
i apologize and i will try harder to not accuse you or any other person and i believe it may have been the other man the one that seems to be significantly more rude than you
Apology accepted. If I do come off as rude or insulting, make sure it is me and copy and paste my comment to me as a response or as a message. If I was legitimately rude, I will apologize to you, although you may also have misunderstood me, and I will try to clarify, if that is the case.
I stand my ground, but I try to attack arguments, not the people who make them.
first: this "story" as you put it couldnt fool 33 percent of the world if it were fake second: everything must come from something except god because he is almighty. third: you dont affect me because i love those who dont love me.now your turn
Sure it could. First, that's only 1 in 3. Second, it offers nice things to people who agree to believe in it, so of course some people would want to believe in it, just in the hope that it is right. Third, people who were indoctrinated in it from birth and have known no other alternative will naturally find it quite difficult to look at it rationally. Fourth, those 33% have a pretty wide range of opinions on what exactly the Bible says, and have fought with each other about it since pretty much the beginning. Fifth, some of them have been lied to about science and history, so they don't even have the proper facts to make such a decision.
very well but the thing is that i was indoctrined and i have studied many of the well known religeons in fact at one point i wanted to be a pastor.also one in three is alot if you think about the amount of people on earth i also agree that many christians fight about it but this is mostly due to the fact that some want the rules to be easier and last i just want to add that i want to be a congress man and am glad you are participating with me since i need practice
First off, best of luck to you in pursuing your dreams. I am honored to be able to help you polish your debate skills.
I too have studied religions of a wide variety. I was raised Christian, but my parents weren't usually too strict about it and they allowed me to find my own path. Up to this point I have come to a few conclusions: a) all religions rely on faith to some extent. Faith, by itself, isn't necessarily bad, but it is not a viable way of discerning the truth. It is, at its heart, belief without, or in spite of, evidence, therefore it does not encourage actively pursuing the truth. b) because all religions are reliant on faith, they are extremely limited in their ability to establish veracity over another. Essentially, the only way you can "know" that you are in the right religion, is to have faith in it. You can't normally prove it. And for most people, it ends up being whatever time and place they grew up in that determines their faith. That seems pretty random for universal truth, doesn't it?
One other facet of Christianity's popularity that I stupidly forgot to bring up is that it is the religion that has been associated the most with exploration and successful military conquest.
Prior to Constantine, Christianity was relatively minor in Rome, although it was growing. By this point, before Christianity, Rome was the most advanced and powerful nation in the world, and they were already looking to expand even further than they already had. Constantine was converted to Christianity, and he instituted Christianity as the state religion of Rome and all of its territories. Following this, Rome became even more powerful and conquered pretty much all of Europe. Any land they conquered was forcibly converted to Christianity, as per the orders of Constantine and his successors. Eventually Rome would lose its power over places like England, France, Germany, etc. At this point, the Church was in the middle of the power struggles, and were promoting many of them. This wasn't really about religion, more about greed and politics, but it had a powerful effect due to the fact that Christianity was the primary religion of the laity. Eventually, internal corruption and foreign alliances pushed back the Roman Empire, creating a Europe that was filled with many Christian Kingdoms. These Kingdoms flourished due to a variety of factors and eventually were able to send ships and armed forces all around the world. They established colonies everywhere they could, and frequently forced locals to convert, just like the Romans did to them. They also brought diseases that killed off many indigenous populations, taking their native religions with them. So part of the wide spread of Christianity was luck, part was better technology, part was slaughter, part was conquering, part was warfare, part was disease, part was the Church giving into greed. None of this establishes any veracity of Christianity.
More to say, but this is already WAY longer than I planned.
so are you saying that in order for a religeon to flourish the belivers must truly believe? and that even agnostics and atheists must belive?because in my openion it takes more faith to be an atheist or agnostic since christianity is every where. also i agree that the church is corrupt which is why i am non denominational because i believe that all christians should be classified under one name instead of a bunch of branches also i must add that we christians are anoying at times and that we have been persecuted since we were established ps im not saying you are persecuting
so are you saying that in order for a religeon to flourish the belivers must truly believe?
Not at all. In fact I am pretty sure that many members of all the big religions are only there in the hopes that if it is right they well have a good afterlife. What I'm saying is that to truly believe requires faith, not evidence or rational inquiry.
and that even agnostics and atheists must belive?
Nope. Concerning Atheism, that is entirely about not believing. Atheism doesn't tell you what an atheist believes, it tells you one type of explanation that they don't believe in. It is not a religion, because it is not a decision normally arrived to faith. Neither is agnosticism, because they either don't know what to believe, or don't think that anyone CAN know the truth about these issues. So also not a religion.
because in my openion it takes more faith to be an atheist or agnostic since christianity is every where.
The idea that truth can be determined by the popularity concept is a common logical error known as argumentum ad populum ("appeal to the majority"). The idea is, just because a lot of people believe something, does not believe it is true. The most common example is that a thousand years ago, almost everyone agreed that the earth was flat. It looks flat. They didn't have reason to believe it wasn't. But even though it made sense to everyone to conclude that the Earth was flat, it obviously wasn't true.
Also, while there are Christians in every country, and while it is the most popular religion in the world, Christianity isn't dominant every where. There are also over a billion Muslims, as well as very large numbers of Hindus and Buddhists, and countless other religions. Almost all of these religions claim to be the "One True Religion", but since they differ so much, they obviously can't all be completely true. Observing that makes one wonder if any of them are true, and if they can't prove it through demonstrable evidence and solid reasoning, I see no reason to believe any of them. In conclusion, atheism doesn't take any faith at all, since I don't believe in anything that requires faith.
Nearly 100% of people thought the earth was flat and stars were holes in the sky, or gods, for far far longer than the Christian religion has existed.
So what is it about the blind belief of a mere 33% of humans for only 1700 or 1800 years of history (a blink of the eye in terms of human existence) makes you think they absolutely must be right?
Your argument seems to be more against the existence of a Christian god than for.
Minus it's a fallacious argument to start with, it would be like "1 out of 1 thousand people believe this, look at all these people that believe this, it must be right."
Prove our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian values. And even further, let's just pretend for a moment that you were right, the we have implemented Separation of Church and State from the very beginning with the Bill of Rights.
so wrong, our nation was founded on the values of choice and freedom, not christian values. this is the continuous fundamentalist argument that has been shown again and again to be untrue.
you are very foolish first off loki does not exist because there is only one god and he does deserve his name on the worlds most powerful nations money
good point but still why do atheist care its not like they have to say it and if they dont like in god we trust then you can use another type of money in fact make it easy and move there
Because it's a matter of principal. If we are going to have a constitution then we need to abide by it. If people moved away every time they discovered a flaw in their country, nothing would ever get solved.
If they feel offended because the government isn't endorsing their religion over all others, then maybe THEY should be the ones to get out of the country. Though, I doubt that the majority of Christians, Muslims or Jews really care what the pledge says.
ONe should not have to pledge a belief in God in order to pledge their allegiance to this country. It's that simple. It should be removed from the pledge. It was not in the original pledge, and has been a part of the plesge for less time than it was not part of the pledge so we should undo that mistake.
Same reasoning with the money. It is not the motto of the United States. E Pluribus Unum is and that should be the only thing on our money as it represents what we are far better than In god we trust.
remove it! get it off the money, get it out of the pledge of allegiance! (it wasnt there originally anyway) keep the church and state separate the way it was intended!
Minus Texas and Alabama rewrites of history, one of the founding excuses to make this a nation was to escape religious states. Even the 50% apx (yeah that's all) of Christian founders who wrote and came up with this country out of deep thought agreed religion should be personal and when it has power it can only do harm.
Putting it on money was a silly, short-sighted, and dangerous political tactic pulled for the sole purpose of convincing idiots to vote a specific way.
I don't believe Jesus ever lived, but being raised turbo super christian and with 18 credits in religious studies from a very academic university,
I can say without any doubt that if that mythical character ever lived, he'd be sickened by present day US- christians.
They'd be the modern version of pharisees... not that any christian today would even know what that reference is.
but being raised turbo super Christian and with 18 credits in religious studies from a very academic university
Seriously, why on earth do you go round inserting this in your posts as if it suddenly validates every bullshit point you make? Its an epic fail and you just appear like an arrogant prick. If you have something interesting to say, don't say it then run and hide behind shit, just stay out there and accept the responses.
I can say without any doubt that if that mythical character ever lived, he'd be sickened by present day US- Christians.
I don't know much about modern day US Christians but from what I get from your bullshit posts I think He'd be more sickened by your horsecrap than by theirs considering you don't even believe in Him.
They'd be the modern version of pharisees... not that any Christian today would even know what that reference is.
In near every post you make you include several jabs at Christians and their lack of knowledge in their faith. What do you even get from that, all it looks like is a poor little atheist who hasn't made shit from life so with his time he pokes at Christians that he doesn't even know and proceeds to judge them as though you are worthy of such a position. What makes you think you know all about each individual Christian and the amount of reading they do of the bible? You don't know so shut the fuck up and get a life.
P.S. I corrected your grammar in this post - you deemed the term 'Christian' as unworthy a few times of a capital 'C' but my spell checker corrected you - funny that, it doesn't do that for 'atheist' does it?
P.S. I corrected your grammar in this post - you deemed the term 'Christian' as unworthy a few times of a capital 'C' but my spell checker corrected you - funny that, it doesn't do that for 'atheist' does it?
Does this disparity in capitalization give you a sense of superiority?
First off, it wasn't you that was jabbing at my faith therefore I was not exactly referring to you when I posted. Anyhow, so you are asking if I feel superior because Christ gets a capital 'C'? Not exactly, no, superior isn't the word I would use.
First off, it wasn't you that was jabbing at my faith therefore I was not exactly referring to you when I posted. Anyhow, so you are asking if I feel superior because Christ gets a capital 'C'? Not exactly, no, superior isn't the word I would use.
Well I think its safe to say that He earned the capital so I guess 'happy' is the word I would use to describe how that makes me feel, perhaps even 'ecstatic' just to be adventurous :)
A sudden observation? And when I accuse Bob (hypothetical person) of being a half-witted overweight loser, that's just an observation too, right? Your apologetics are all too transparent.
Well, there is a very big difference between calling Bob a half-witted overweight loser to noticing that atheist doesn't have a capital. Besides, if it bothers you that much then just convert to something that gets a capital? ;)
Well, there are many differences. That being said, that there exists differences does not refute the commonalities. Which is what is the analogy is meant to express. Just because something happens to be an 'Observation' does not mean it isn't stated to feel superiority. However small.
Of course not, the observation was merely a sudden one that I felt needed shared with the person I was in discussion with, who just so happened to be him ;)
People don't just make sudden observations and then decide to tell others about those observations for no reason. There is always a reason. I think you know what that reason is, even if you will not admit it.
I wasn't telling others, I was telling him. But I see you have taken it upon yourself to act in his defense, as atheists often do, and believe that I was speaking to others including yourself, which I was not. I really do believe this discussion is utterly pointless (although it is actually giving us points, I mean the other definition of pointless) and this really is not going to go anywhere. Are you finished accusing me yet? :)
I was talking to him and making an observation and before he could even reply you butt in and involve yourself. Fair enough, but at least admit it, its not much to admit. So anyways, I was thinking, we could start a discussion about whether or not your faith that God does not exist gets a capital but I just don't think it qualifies for one (a capital) to be honest. It (the capital/non capital debate) would however make this discussion more interesting and give it some sort of meaning. What say you?
P.S. Yes, I know I'm a freak when it comes to parenthesis.
If you want to start a topic, I'm not going to stop you. That you think Christians are superior because they get a capital "C" shows the frivolousness of your position. Whether or not a noun gets a capital letter has nothing to do with whether or not they have done something to "deserve" it, this is not how grammar works. Interestingly enough my spell checker is telling me to capitalize the "N" in Nazi. Perhaps you wish to discuss the merits of Nazism?
After all this time you still believe I feel superior? I specifically answered your question on this saying that it would not be the word I would use. It sure is interesting that Nazi's get a capital when atheists don't huh, that must be a real bummer for you guys - thanks for pointing that out; I had not considered this until now. You really are making a major deal out of nothing. If it bothers you this much then just convert to Christianity?
It sure is interesting that Nazi's get a capital when atheists don't huh, that must be a real bummer for you guys
No, not at all. Why would we be bummed out, by not being grouped with Nazis? If anything it shows that having a capital letter, means nothing. So why would you be happy or proud of a completely inconsequential and meaningless fact? I find this very interesting.
If it bothers you this much then just convert to Christianity?
It doesn't bother me, that's the thing. It amuses me that you are so proud of a capital letter that you feel the need to announce this fact. You are like the child who thinks she is better than the other child, because her lunchbox is bigger. So if you want to parade this childish notion by starting another debate about it, go right a head. You are only making a mockery of yourself.
No, not at all. Why would we be bummed out, by not being grouped with Nazis? If anything it shows that having a capital letter, means nothing. So why would you be happy or proud of a completely inconsequential and meaningless fact? I find this very interesting.
I was being sarcastic - not that you would have any idea what that is mind you. You were the one to bring up Nazism not getting a capital, I was merely making a joke out of it.
It doesn't bother me, that's the thing.
Then stop banging on about it like two fucking rabbits giggity giggitng!
amuses me that you are so proud of a capital letter
For the millionth time, I was stating a sudden observation that had rushed into my head at that moment. What are you, 90 with no marbles?
You are like the child who thinks she is better than the other child, because her lunch box is bigger.
And you are like the old man who forgets where his own bathroom is so shits in his pants instead. Seriously, why do you keep stating something when I have said so many times what I originally meant? It really is beyond me.
So if you want to parade this childish notion by starting another debate about it, go right a head.
I was simply trying to cheer you up; you were clearly offended that you don't get a capital and keep banging on about it telling me I'm superior when I clearly am not, so I thought that perhaps we could go to war about it and see each other's arguments. Obviously you'd rather sit there and cry like a baby whilst tossing insults in my direction - go right ahead, they bounce off me each time.
You are only making a mockery of yourself.
LOL, you've been making a mockery out of yourself this whole time with your petulance and blubbering, carry on though it doesn't bother me in the slightest.
In reference to grammar. What names did I call you again?
Forget about names, it is your constant insulting of my intelligence. LOL, what is the point in these back and forth posts? They are seriously going nowhere...
Well, hold on here....who insulted whose intelligence first? In your second response you called me a dumbass, and then asked "Where is your intelligence at?".
Prior to that, the only thing I said which could be construed as insulting your intelligence was this:
"You're a fool, if you don't think you are taking someone's word for it when you read the bible."
You're a hypocrite. It doesn't bother me that you don't like me, apparently you react the same way to anybody who questions your religious views.
1. You keep questioning my knowledge as if I don't know what Christianity is, I was pointing out I understand your religion perfectly, and in fact better than you and most Christians. I explained to you why that is. The other reason is to show that I have perspective on your religion while you do not, meaning I am more able to argue for or against any point of your religion than you are. Which I keep demonstrating like every time your try to argue with me on any of these debates.
2. Well, an old testament god would probably strike me with lightning or whatever, the one from the new testament would be far more interested in what I have to say than yourself though. You're boring. Either way he doesn't exist.
3. I'm on a debate site to debate. I spend about as much time thinking about religion as it takes to type this. It's easier for me because I'm a lot smarter than you and know more about it than you do. Personal attacks, innacurate one at that, have no bearing on this debate other than to highlight how easily Christians are influenced.
4. I don't use spell check and I type very fast. Sometimes I miss something. Christians, christians, Muslims, muslims, Scientology, scientology - they each mean the exact same thing regardless of the size of the letter preceding it and none of these terms are capable of feeling insult whether they are capitalized or not.
I understand your religion perfectly, and in fact better than you and most Christians
You're such a pompous prick, you know that? That statement is laughable and extremely, extremely false.
I explained to you why that is.
You said something about your qualifications, but that in no way proves you know my faith better than me.
I am more able to argue for or against any point of your religion than you are. Which I keep demonstrating like every time your try to argue with me on any of these debates.
LMFAO - what?!? You demonstrate shit in each post, you have not proved me wrong once and all you do is spew horseshit over each post you create. Its amusing though, keep doing this.
Well, an old testament god would probably strike me with lightning or whatever
I think He is rather amused at your dumbness, if I was Him I'd quite enjoy watching you make an utter ass of yourself.
the one from the new testament would be far more interested in what I have to say than yourself though.
He doesn't give a shit what you say if its offensive to Him.
I spend about as much time thinking about religion as it takes to type this.
Which is another reason why you don't know half as much as I do about my faith.
You're boring.
Not half as dull as you.
Either way he doesn't exist.
Then stop talking about Him like He is right next to you, you moron.
I'm a lot smarter than you and know more about it than you do.
Someone who feels they need to brag about themselves this much is someone that is not very smart at all. If you had even half a brain cell you wouldn't have posted all this horseshit.
Personal attacks, innacurate one at that, have no bearing on this debate
So why are you creating them then? Stop contradicting yourself you asinine pig.
have no bearing on this debate other than to highlight how easily Christians are influenced.
You think you influence me? The only influence you have on me is how much you make me want to squeeze the miserable life out of you. Other than that, you may as well be dead.
How does a perfect all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God become offended?
Just as my father was offended when I disobeyed him. Its quite simple to understand. Of course, there are many more levels of offending someone than that example.
Just as my father was offended when I disobeyed him.
Perhaps he was disappointed, not 'offended'. Of course, being disappointed is only possible if you don't already know what is going to happen (read: Omniscient).
You're right; that was a rubbish scenario. Alteration: child and father are shouting at each other after child disobeys him and the child hurls a line of insults at him, offending him.
As for your second point, I used to think that way when I was little but I just suddenly started to see it from His point of view: He knows what will happen if He sends His Son, but still He does it because He loves us so much, and although He knows Jesus will be rejected, it still hurts like crap watching Jesus, His only Son, suffer. It makes perfect sense when you look at it from that point of view.
You're right; that was a rubbish scenario. Alteration: child and father are shouting at each other after child disobeys him and the child hurls a line of insults at him, offending him.
This is the same thing you said before, only you added "hurls a line of insults at him", which doesn't fundamentally change the question at all. Being OFFENDED is a uniquely human characteristic, that would not apply to a perfect and all-knowing God. I think it is much more likely that YOU were offended, than God. If 'said deity even exists.
He knows what will happen if He sends His Son, but still He does it because He loves us so much, and although He knows Jesus will be rejected, it still hurts like crap watching Jesus, His only Son, suffer.
Then why send him to suffer? I thought Yahweh could do anything, is he not omnipotent? Is there some rule that blood must be spilled for forgiveness, a rule that even God cannot break? Furthermore, if God knew of everything that would happen, why did he wait until 30 AD to sacrifice his son? Not that it matters to me, but given all that is written in the Bible it seems apparent to me that the authors of the Bible did NOT believe that God Yahweh could see into the future, many of the stories in the bible would not make any sense if that were the case, particularly the great deluge and the events leading up to it.
This is the same thing you said before, only you added "hurls a line of insults at him", which doesn't fundamentally change the question at all.
Well, its not the same as I added to it.
Being OFFENDED is a uniquely human characteristic, that would not apply to a perfect and all-knowing God. I think it is much more likely that YOU were offended, than God. If 'said deity even exists.
There are many levels of offense. To sin against another is to sin against God because in doing this we are turning our backs on Him as we sin. Because of this, we are drawing the truthfulness of Him and the goodness of His character into question and this says to Him: "You're a liar". Therefore, sin in the words of Proverbs 17:5 insults God.
Then why send him to suffer?
So that we had a second chance and to show us how much He loves us.
Is there some rule that blood must be spilled for forgiveness, a rule that even God cannot break?
Are you implying that Jesus was not willing to bear the weight of our sins and unwilling to obey God?
Furthermore, if God knew of everything that would happen, why did he wait until 30 AD to sacrifice his son?
The concept of time is very different in the eyes of God so to speak as it is in our eyes.
it seems apparent to me that the authors of the Bible did NOT believe that God Yahweh could see into the future many of the stories in the bible would not make any sense if that were the case, particularly the great deluge and the events leading up to it.
Just call Him God, its far easier :) Where did the authors state that He could not see into the future?
There are many levels of offense. To sin against another is to sin against God because in doing this we are turning our backs on Him as we sin. Because of this, we are drawing the truthfulness of Him and the goodness of His character into question and this says to Him: "You're a liar". Therefore, sin in the words of Proverbs 17:5 insults God.
Offense does not always follow from insult.
Are you implying that Jesus was not willing to bear the weight of our sins and unwilling to obey God?
Whether or not Jesus consented to it ("father why have you forsaken me?"), doesn't change the fact that the whole event was completely unnecessary assuming that your God actually is omnipotent.
The concept of time is very different in the eyes of God so to speak as it is in our eyes.
So different that he forgot to 'save' mankind until 30 AD?
Where did the authors state that He could not see into the future?
Where did they say that he could? It is said that Yahweh knows everything, many have interpreted this as including the future, but nowhere is it explicitly stated.
Why would lucifer enter into a wager with Yahweh, if he knew that he could see into the future?
It often does though, and in this case, it often does too, like I just explained.
So different that he forgot to 'save' mankind until 30 AD?
I see you did not fully understand my statement. I will rephrase: Time is very different to God than it is to us. Our lives are ruled by time; bedtime, daytime, lunchtime, teatime, naptime, bathtime; we have to be in certain places at certain times, we have to be at work for a certain time and finished by a certain time, we have to wake up at a certain time and sleep at a certain time. With God, time is not the same at all. Therefore, whilst you are indignant that He took so long to send His Son, you are forgetting that the 'so long' phrase is very much related to time, something that you view very differently to Him. Comprende?
Where did they say that he could?
Don't answer my question with another question, you stated that the authors in the bible said that He could not see into the future; back this up or retract.
His understanding is infinite; Psalm 147:5, He can do all things, things that no man can do; Matthew 19:26, He is everywhere, He never leaves us; Matthew 28:20, He is omnipotent: "Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth" Revelation 19:6. He can do all things, including seeing into the future.
I have in effect proved your statements wrong, all you have to do is retract the original: "the authors of the Bible did NOT believe that God Yahweh could see into the future", you even capitalized the 'not', seeming so sure of yourself.
I like how you ignored my second paragraph all together, and ignored my last question. Why would lucifer enter into a wager with Yahweh if he knew that Yahweh could see into the future?
It often does though, and in this case, it often does too, like I just explained.
You cited a passage that states that sin 'insults' Yahweh. As I stated offense does not always follow from insult. What you said in no way proves that Yahweh (at least according to your holy book) is offended or can become offended. Even if it did, it would show that the bible attempts to apply human characteristics to a perfect being, which is absolutely archaic and defies our understanding of what perfect is. That a perfect being can experience jealousy and wrath tells me that he/it isn't perfect at all.
I see you did not fully understand my statement. I will rephrase: Time is very different to God than it is to us. Our lives are ruled by time; bedtime, daytime, lunchtime, teatime, naptime, bathtime; we have to be in certain places at certain times, we have to be at work for a certain time and finished by a certain time, we have to wake up at a certain time and sleep at a certain time. With God, time is not the same at all. Therefore, whilst you are indignant that He took so long to send His Son, you are forgetting that the 'so long' phrase is very much related to time, something that you view very differently to Him. Comprende?
Yo Comprendo pero su explicación es irrelevent.
I understand what you are trying to say, but unless his differed perception somehow inhibits or impairs his ability to 'save' mankind before 30 AD then your statement is entirely irrelevant. Lest his perception itself become a weakness.
Don't answer my question with another question, you stated that the authors in the bible said that He could not see into the future; back this up or retract.
Go back and re-read my statement. I did not say that they SAID this, what I said was that they BELIEVED this, which is implied by the context of some of the stories. My example was the wager between Lucifer and Yahweh.
His understanding is infinite; Psalm 147:5, He can do all things, things that no man can do; Matthew 19:26, He is everywhere, He never leaves us; Matthew 28:20, He is omnipotent: "Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth" Revelation 19:6. He can do all things, including seeing into the future.
Literally none of these passages say that he can see into the future. Perhaps if you hadn't left out my one of my sentences, you would see that I actually predicted your response to this question. These passages are interpreted as meaning that he can see into the future, yet none of these verses explicitly say this. Even if they did, it would present a particular incongruity with some of the biblical stories.
Why would lucifer enter into a wager with Yahweh if he knew that Yahweh could see into the future?
Because Lucifer was an ignorant asshole, that’s why.
You cited a passage that states that sin 'insults' Yahweh. As I stated offense does not always follow from insult.
And I stated that whilst it does not always follow from insult, it does often, and that is one of those times.
Yo Comprendo pero su explicación es irrelevent.
Es pertinente, que acaba de negarse a aceptar la verdad.
I understand what you are trying to say, but unless his differed perception somehow inhibits or impairs his ability to 'save' mankind before 30 AD then your statement is entirely irrelevant.
You clearly didn’t comprende. Time is different to Him therefore when you act indignant that He did not come sooner, you are again talking in the language of time.
I did not say that they SAID this, what I said was that they BELIEVED this, which is implied by the context of some of the stories. My example was the wager between Lucifer and Yahweh.
Said/believed, same difference. Either way you implied something false. The example you give is not a very good one as the author of this book is aware of how evil Satan is and is not in agreement with him, so obviously does not believe what Satan does. Furthermore, you said "authors", this is plural yet you gave one example. You need more to make your statement true.
Literally none of these passages say that he can see into the future.
They say he can do anything. That is enough, surely. An omnipotent being can do anything; looking into the future would be included in that. If God could not look into the future then He would not be omnipotent would He? Its common sense really.
Because Lucifer was an ignorant asshole, that’s why.
You can't chalk this up to ignorance. Lucifer was one of Yahweh's top angels, if anybody knew it would have been lucifer. This is a double-point, because God must have known that Lucifer would rebel and lead humans astray (according to your mythology) when he created him.
And I stated that whilst it does not always follow from insult, it does often, and that is one of those times.
Based on?? A hunch? A gut reaction? Your feeling? Do not think your bald assertions hold weight here.
You clearly didn’t comprende. Time is different to Him therefore when you act indignant that He did not come sooner, you are again talking in the language of time.
I heard you the first time, It doesn't address the problem that I've pointed out with your explanation.
YES or NO question: Does God's perception of time impair his ability to 'save' mankind?
-If YES, then he is not omnipotent.
-if NO, then you cannot use it as a reason.
Said/believed, same difference.
No. No, it's not.
Either way you implied something false.
Based on?? A hunch? A gut reaction? Your feeling?
The example you give is not a very good one as the author of this book is aware of how evil Satan is and is not in agreement with him, so obviously does not believe what Satan does.
Authors you mean. It also doesn't follow that because he (Lucifer) is evil, that he is unaware of Yahweh's Power.
Furthermore, you said "authors", this is plural yet you gave one example.
The other example, I've stated many times: the great Deluge.
If you could see the future and never made mistakes, you would never need to fix those mistakes. You wouldn't need an eraser, but that's precisely what the deluge (the flood) is. If God knew he was going to have to wipe out humanity and restart with Noah and his wife, then not just start out with Noah and his wife in the first place?
They say he can do anything. That is enough, surely. An omnipotent being can do anything
Yet we are told that he cannot sin, cannot deny himself, cannot lie, and cannot create a being greater than himself.
That is the key word there: was. Not at the time we are speaking about, at this time he does everything in his power to ruin this world so I think your statement there is totally irrelevant.
This is a double-point, because God must have known that Lucifer would rebel and lead humans astray (according to your mythology) when he created him.
You don't need to keep reassuring me that you don't believe in God, you are atheist and I get that 100%. Yes, God did know that Lucifer would rebel against Him and attempt to draw humans into dark places. What is your point here?
Based on?? A hunch? A gut reaction? Your feeling? Do not think your bald assertions hold weight here.
You are making a complete ass of yourself, here is why: you state that offense does not always follow from insults, which implies that it sometimes does (in my opinion, often does), which proves that there is a big chance that the 'insult' verse I included refers to offense. To dispute that will insult my intelligence and will also knock you flat on your asinine atheist ass.
Does God's perception of time impair his ability to 'save' mankind?
Nope.
if NO, then you cannot use it as a reason
So your plan here is to make me answer 'yes' or 'no' then force me to not supply reason so that you can then go on to diss my lack of reasoning and tell me I am making "bald assertions"? You have got absolutely no idea how to debate do you?
No. No, it's not.
Thats why I didn't say 'same thing', I said "same difference". You truly are a 90 year old without marbles who shits his pants and can't see without a magnifying glass which you evidently forgot to use which would make sense due to lack of marbles.
Based on?? A hunch? A gut reaction? Your feeling?
Common sense.
Authors you mean.
Why thank you for the correction in my error of grammar; if this is how we are playing then perhaps I should scroll through your previous posts and correct several of the errors you typed - oh and by the way it is 'irrelevant', not "irrelevent". Two can play that game, mister smart Alec.
It also doesn't follow that because he (Lucifer) is evil, that he is unaware of Yahweh's Power
That sentence doesn't make sense. Satan is aware of God's power, He was not out to destroy God (as he knew he would be a fool to even think it let alone try) but rather wanting to destroy Job's faith in God.
The other example, I've stated many times: the great Deluge.
So you are standing on a) a "wager" that Satan lost and b) the flood which God gave everyone a chance to escape but most did not believe him therefore got what they had coming to them which they had a chance to escape. These are really what you use for your back up plan? Surely there is something else you can use...?
If you could see the future and never made mistakes, you would never need to fix those mistakes. You wouldn't need an eraser, but that's precisely what the deluge (the flood) is.
God knew what would happen, He knew it all. An eraser scrubs out something you don't want. God scrubbed out what didn't want Him. The difference is that your theory is back to front. Perhaps in some ways the flood was an eraser, yes, but what was being scrubbed out had a chance and did not heed the warning. Not God's fault, not the floods fault - theirs.
If God knew he was going to have to wipe out humanity and restart with Noah and his wife, then not just start out with Noah and his wife in the first place?
We would never know the consequences of disobeying God if He did things like this and our fear for Him would be far smaller.
Yet we are told that he cannot sin, cannot deny himself, cannot lie, and cannot create a being greater than himself.
Obviously a benevolent being such as God could not do those things; He is omnipotent as Revelation tells us and we know that He can do anything (except lie, sin, deny himself, which is pretty obvious for a benevolent being).
That is the key word there: was. Not at the time we are speaking about, at this time he does everything in his power to ruin this world so I think your statement there is totally irrelevant.
Again, this is irrelevant. Unless you are insisting that by him rebelling he suddenly experienced amnesia. Everything Lucifer knew as an angel he would have also known as a fallen angel.
You don't need to keep reassuring me that you don't believe in God, you are atheist and I get that 100%. Yes, God did know that Lucifer would rebel against Him and attempt to draw humans into dark places. What is your point here?
What do you think my point is? With foreknowledge of future events he would be in a particularly advantageous position to prevent all these things from happening, so either he doesn't know or he doesn't care or he isn't able.
The simple solution would be to have never created Lucifer in the first place.
you state that offense does not always follow from insults, which implies that it sometimes does (in my opinion, often does), which proves that there is a big chance that the 'insult' verse I included refers to offense.
Chance has nothing to do with it. People are not offended by insults on the basis of probability, they are insulted on the basis of the content of the insult, and on the type of person they are. A child may call me a booger-face, and I wouldn't be offended by that because the insult doesn't apply to me in any real sense.
Notice I said People. The personality traits which all contain some degree of imperfection, allow people to become offended. This would not apply to a perfect entity.
Nope.
So your plan here is to make me answer 'yes' or 'no' then force me to not supply reason so that you can then go on to diss my lack of reasoning and tell me I am making "bald assertions"? You have got absolutely no idea how to debate do you?
No, my 'plan' was to show that your argument is inherently contradictory, and thus irrational. You can't have it both ways.
If you say that God's perception of time DIDN'T impair his sacrificing his son in the most beneficial way, and then in the same breathe say that he didn't sacrifice his son sooner because of his perception of time. <-----This is an impairment!
You are contradicting yourself.
Thats why I didn't say 'same thing', I said "same difference".
Watch closely:
Same Thing/Same Difference
.
.
.
SAME DIFFERENCE!
Ha! Interesting how that works, eh? These two statements actually mean the same thing, "Same Difference" is just a less coherent (and more oxymoronic) way of expressing it.
You truly are a 90 year old without marbles who shits his pants and can't see without a magnifying glass which you evidently forgot to use which would make sense due to lack of marbles.
^Perfect example of an insult which does not offend.
That sentence doesn't make sense. Satan is aware of God's power, He was not out to destroy God (as he knew he would be a fool to even think it let alone try) but rather wanting to destroy Job's faith in God.
...Thus he would be aware of the power to see into the future, assuming he posses such power.
We would never know the consequences of disobeying God if He did things like this and our fear for Him would be far smaller.
So even though God knew that humans would act in such a way (within the limitations that God created humans with) that he would have to wipe out millions of people including babies, so that he could use this genocide as a way to scare humans into obedience? Which is some how preferable to creating humans with the propensity towards doing good?
.
.
.
AND you believe he is a loving God? Interesting.
Obviously a benevolent being such as God could not do those things; He is omnipotent as Revelation tells us and we know that He can do anything (except lie, sin, deny himself, which is pretty obvious for a benevolent being).
Then he isn't omnipotent. Pure and simple.
Consider that the authors, used the concept of omnipotence, because it is the closest approximation of what Yahweh is, but even Yahweh is not totally omnipotent. If there are some things which he cannot do, see into the future, could be one of those things.
Again, this is irrelevant. Unless you are insisting that by him rebelling he suddenly experienced amnesia. Everything Lucifer knew as an angel he would have also known as a fallen angel.
I wouldn’t put anything past that rotten bastard. However, he likes to think he knows best but I guess God proved him wrong, on countless other occasions too.
With foreknowledge of future events he would be in a particularly advantageous position to prevent all these things from happening, so either he doesn't know or he doesn't care or he isn't able.
Just because God knew what would happen does not mean that He would prevent it. His whole idea from the very beginning was for us to have free will, so to prevent all sin would to be preventing free will – a debate I have already had here with a member and they lost.
The simple solution would be to have never created Lucifer in the first place.
Well, that is certainly the solution that our limited minds would come to, yes. What you have to consider is that without evil in this world, there would be no ability to sin therefore there would not be the free will that God had intended.
Chance has nothing to do with it.
Actually, chance has everything to do with it. I can see how if chance was out of the picture it would benefit your argument greatly but sadly if you say something that doesn’t always make it true. But then again, there is a chance it sometimes does... but this time you were wrong ;)
People are not offended by insults on the basis of probability, they are insulted on the basis of the content of the insult, and on the type of person they are.
Well, God is three divine Persons so I think it is fair to say He is on a whole other level when it comes to Him being offended as opposed to ourselves, which effectively rules out your “booger-face” example.
Notice I said People. The personality traits which all contain some degree of imperfection, allow people to become offended. This would not apply to a perfect entity.
I don’t think it has anything to do with imperfection, at least not in the person who is offended. God made man in His image, therefore there will be similarities between Himself and His Creation therefore for us to be offended by those that hurt us should not be so different to God being offended also.
No, my 'plan' was to show that your argument is inherently contradictory, and thus irrational. You can't have it both ways.
I would really appreciate it if you stopped ordering me around, it is pissing on the enthusiasm and positive side to this debate and is quite frankly beginning to make this debate boring. You in no way proved my argument to be contradicting but only further made a fool of yourself by forcing a one word answer and pleading for me to not provide reason. Scared of something?
If you say that God's perception of time DIDN'T impair his sacrificing his son in the most beneficial way, and then in the same breathe say that he didn't sacrifice his son sooner because of his perception of time
This is not an impairment because it is just you who sees the time issue as negative, not me or the billions of other believers. One question, why does it bother you so much that He didn’t send Him sooner when you don’t even believe in Him? Seems rather odd to me.
Thus he would be aware of the power to see into the future, assuming he posses such power
Who is “he”? God? Satan? Job? Be more specific. Assuming you mean God (as He is the one we have been discussing to see the future) what does that have to do with Satan wanting and failing to destroy Job’s faith in God? God knew all that would happen; God knew everything that has happened from since time began up till this very second, what exactly is your point here?
So even though God knew that humans would act in such a way (within the limitations that God created humans with) that he would have to wipe out millions of people including babies, so that he could use this genocide as a way to scare humans into obedience? Which is some how preferable to creating humans with the propensity towards doing good?
I find it quite interesting that whilst so many atheists have said this very same thing and judged God for all that He has done for us, they still cannot find a logical explanation to explain another way that He could have wiped out all evil and still have given us free will other than “He is omnipotent; an omnipotent God could have thought up something”. Very interesting.
AND you believe he is a loving God?
Loving beyond comprehension :)
Then he isn't omnipotent.
That, my friend, is an illogical objection.
God can only do that which is consistent with His nature; He cannot stop being God or holy. Omnipotence does not mean that God can violate His own nature and become an ice cream (I’m holding one now hence the example). An ice cream is not by nature God therefore God could not be the ice cream. But that does not mean that He can’t do all things that He desires to do which is what the biblical definition of omnipotence means.
Why do you keep calling Him Yahweh? An atheist shouldn’t be concerned about His name so would probably use the shortest possible such as God.
Just because God knew what would happen does not mean that He would prevent it. His whole idea from the very beginning was for us to have free will, so to prevent all sin would to be preventing free will.
Not creating Satan in no way eliminates freewill.
Actually, chance has everything to do with it.
Because you say so? Where is your argument?
Let's assume you are right. What do you think your chances are of offending me by calling me a booger-face? If you repeat the insult would the chances increase?
Well, God is three divine Persons so I think it is fair to say He is on a whole other level when it comes to Him being offended as opposed to ourselves
This is a non-sequitar. Whether God is one divine being, three divine beings, or a million divine being, makes absolutely no difference to the argument that was made.
I don’t think it has anything to do with imperfection, at least not in the person who is offended.
I do. Damaged ego is the most common cause of being offended.
God made man in His image, therefore there will be similarities between Himself and His Creation therefore for us to be offended by those that hurt us should not be so different to God being offended also.
Do you think we were made in his image - physically or Personality wise?
This is not an impairment because it is just you who sees the time issue as negative, not me or the billions of other believers.
Well it doesn't really matter if that's how you see it. It can and still is wrong. Just because billions of people believe something, doesn't grant it some magical immunity from factual/logical error. On the contrary billions of people believe things which are demonstrably false, all the time.
That something wasn't done that should have been done, means somewhere it was prevented from happening by some impairment or failing. You used Yahweh's perception of time, as reasoning for precisely this. That makes it an impairment or hindrance.
What you are doing is little more than rationalizing the holes in your doctrine.
Who is “he”? God? Satan? Job? Be more specific.
Let me clarify:
Thus he {Lucifer} would be aware of the power {of Yahweh} to see into the future, assuming he{Yahweh} posses such power.
Assuming you mean God (as He is the one we have been discussing to see the future) what does that have to do with Satan wanting and failing to destroy Job’s faith in God?
It doesn't, nor had I said anything to that effect. The point is, If Lucifer knew Yahweh could see into the future (which presumably he would) then he would not have entered into a wager with Yahweh.
I find it quite interesting that whilst so many atheists have said this very same thing and judged God for all that He has done for us, they still cannot find a logical explanation to explain another way that He could have wiped out all evil and still have given us free will other than “He is omnipotent; an omnipotent God could have thought up something”. Very interesting.
Is this what gives you solace? That the people whom you've debated with can't come up with a better solution? Is God's ability to conceive solutions, or to produce them, limited to what debaters on the internet have mentioned?
I don't know exactly what is being solved here. Was anything solved by the flood? Do we not have just as much 'evil' today as we did before the deluge? According to what you said above God doesn't want to "prevent all sin", because he wants to encourage freewill. But isn't that the intent (or at least the effect) of the flood? You think global genocide is justifiable, but to NOT create Satan is wrong?
As for your solution, I already mentioned. Yahweh could have created humans with a greater propensity towards doing good. We are to understand that nothing takes away your freewill more than being killed. So as for your argument it's complete bullocks!
Loving beyond comprehension
You seem almost proud of the irrationality of your position.
God can only do that which is consistent with His nature
Precisely why he isn't omnipotent. An omnipotent being can do anything and everything.
Why do you keep calling Him Yahweh? An atheist shouldn’t be concerned about His name so would probably use the shortest possible such as God.
I've called him both. God is a title, not a name. Why does it matter?
Bohemian, regrettably, I just don't have time for our debate at the moment. I have a job and family to be getting on with and my social life is hectic right now. I have enjoyed parts of our discussion but I think it is safe to say it was never really going anywhere as we are both firmly sticking to our guns and will not be moved. I predict you will say something along the lines of "I win" or "by definition of your post, I win" and feel free to do so but I just don't have the time to continue here - and lets face it, it was kind of dull!
If you were to quit in a fit of anger, then yes I would (and did) accuse you of losing the debate. If you say you don't have time to finish this, I will take your word for it. This time that you quit without the anger, tells me you are getting better at this. So perhaps you have learned a little something from our discourse, that is good.
I can understand how CD can become a huge time sink. If you ever suddenly find yourself with more time, you can always finish the argument when you are ready.
Well I will let you think that if it makes you feel better... we can have a debate elsewhere or perhaps even here if you like but we will just have to make it shorter and focus on one or two points only so that each post does not take so long to put together.
I don't understand how we can't have perspective on our own religion and you assume that you are the smartest person on any given debate? Don't hide behind your over inflated self ego when you don't have an argument to make. I am not saying this because I agree with what the other guy said, he was clearly out of line and he barely made a coherent argument to any of your points. Maybe you do know more about Christianity than I do but that doesn't mean I have nothing to contribute to the argument, even if that is just a new perspective on the argument.
I don't think I'm the smartest on any debate. I do know that this new crop of Christians, who come in waves every month or so, have no new arguments.
If you can debate me use logic and don't make assumptions of my argument based on nothing but what you imagine one who is no longer Christian must feel - no offense to you personally, but this is a rotating door.
The fact is I can and have made better arguments for Christianity than any Christian on this site, but I did it only as the "devils advocate" (and apologies for that specific analogy) of how a Christian on a particular debate should have made their point.
I won't waste my time though with juvenile arguments I used to make when I was 10.
Perspective means one understands multiple point of view. I, having been raised Christian, points out perspective - that I understand that point of view; while the one I'm debating does not seem to understand much of anything.
- bold for emphasis and not a quote-
You do not have to have experienced multiple religions or to have ever been an atheist to have perspective, as a direct answer to your argument.
Some lack the capacity to hear what others are saying unless they at some point have said it them self though.
Without a doubt that the brightest professor I've ever learned from was Christian. He taught Biblical Theory and could answer nearly every argument I could put forward. His ilk apparently does not populate this site though, it's all preaching and self-righteous indignation. I say that to point out the base of Christianity is not utterly meritless and lacking the capacity to make a coherent point to the rest of the world, they just don't on this site.
I would love a coherent lively debate from a theist. Maybe the internet only attracts a particular breed of the religious, or maybe I simply have not run into them.
You seem level-headed. If you want to debate me, learn your religion and something about debate and philosophy, and we'll have a good time (if you like to debate, which is why I'm on this site, I like to debate).
Posting on a debate site for the sole purpose of preaching makes little sense. The title debate itself assumes those here would not be interested in simply hearing sentences without explanation.
I do agree that it was stupid and against the general idea of this site for him to point out a very slight grammar mistake you made. Just thought I would say that not every Christian on this site needs to act like a 5 year old to validate their points.
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
What proof do you have that would lead you to say "most likely"? There is no evidence from the time period and not a word was written of this person until nearly 200 years after. That's a long time to remember something without the internet, television or even newspapers.
I don't need any proof as there really isn't any one way or the other... it's a matter of opinion. I wouldn't expect anything to be written about someone who wasn't considered to be that important at the time... as for 200 years? That's not that long, it could have been accomplished within 3 or 4 generations at the time.... things got passed along from generation to generation... the really story probably changed a million times but that doesn't mean that some of these people weren't real...
It is established historical fact that Jesus lived, the thing really up for dispute is whether or not he was a divine being. And you assume that because someone is a Christian they won't understand a direct reference from the bible? I agree that many Christians today are the modern version of the pharisees, they are not true Christians. Don't try and act condescending because you believe you have a higher intelligence than all Christians because they believe in something you don't.
Religious belief requires a certain type of unconscious intelligence, perhaps an instinct is a better word for it but it shows a great deal of sophistication, for in it one finds a masterful self-deception; where needs are meet despite the lack of resources. The mind creates a conviction out of thin air, and from it fuels a life.
The men whom find religious convictions unfulfilling , require more than a set of mere propositions to fuel it. They need an argument, with propositions made from earth and stone. Where else is intelligence as employed, than amongst a labyrinth of logical relations which comprises valid arguments? The nonreligious may lack the aforementioned instinct, and at times starve because of it; but that is because a more conscious intelligence has consumed it out of them...and spat it out.
Not always, but in general; the non-religious are consumed with an intelligence which require more than a religion can provide. Well nearly always, if not always, you will find the same instinct amongst the religious which requires of them nothing but an unfounded conviction.
So what about St. Augustine? A man who by his own admittance suffered from this need for reasoning you are talking about, yet when he worked through the logic of God he came to the conclusion that he is in fact real. I am also a believer in religion, but I don't do so blindly as it seems you are saying I do.
If I may interject. Religious convictions encompass more than the mere existence of God, while some may use logic to come to the conclusion that God exist, no set of self-evident premises or line of deductive reasoning would cause someone to conclude that the totality of some religious doctrine is true. Only through faith can someone come to that conclusion.
As Mr. Benjamin Franklin once said "To see by faith is to close the eye of reason".
Sorry it took so long to respond to you, I didn't notice you even posted :D But although you may be right in saying that you cannot prove an entire religion through logic, I have yet to hear a Scientific explanation that satisfactorily proves where we came from with evidence of their logic throughout the entire theory. I believe it is insulting that most scientists refuse to even acknowledge creationism as a distinct possibility. It just isn't good scientific process, unless you have fully disproven a hypothesis or theory, you cannot just write it off. At least that is my understanding of the scientific process. Again sorry it took forever to respond and if you never even see this then no hard feelings :D
But although you may be right in saying that you cannot prove an entire religion through logic, I have yet to hear a Scientific explanation that satisfactorily proves where we came from with evidence of their logic throughout the entire theory.
This is faulty reasoning. For the sake of argument, lets say that all of the scientific explanations lacked evidence, this would in no way lend more support to your position because it also lacks evidence.
But I digress, I believe there is plenty of evidence for both the Big Bang and Evolution (I assume you were referring to). What would constitute "satisfactory proof" depends on the person. If such satisfactory proof were ever provided and it undermined that person's sense of morality and purpose in the world, then of course they are going to have an impossibly high standard of what constitutes "satisfactory proof".
I believe it is insulting that most scientists refuse to even acknowledge creationism as a distinct possibility.
Scientists don't exclude creationism as an Explanation out of some prejudice, Creationism is excluded because the nature of it's claims are beyond the ability of scientific methodology to test and verify. Science by definition is a systematic study of natural phenomena. Because creationism deals with supernatural causes, it cannot be tested scientifically. You can always assert that the supernatural is ultimately behind some natural process, but this will only ever be conjecture.
A single example does not disprove a general trend. I, for instance, know of many idiotic atheists. However, as a general trend, atheism and religious conviction are inversely correlated. The article I cited found a R^2 value of 0.6, meaning that there is a 60% correlation- which is highly significant.
I understand that this is only the synopsis- it was all that I was able to access as well. Luckily, it gives the information needed for a statistical inference
Unless you come to the conclusion that God is the only logical explanation for how we came to be. Many scientific theories nowadays that explain our origin, I find easy to disprove, or at the very least find a problem in their reasoning.
That you find fault in them perhaps, but to disprove a scientific theory is another matter entirely. That you see the existence of God as the only logical reason for how we came to be, perhaps influences your perception of the before-mentioned theories. I sincerely believe that God isn't the only logical explanation for human existence. The only logical conclusion I see that one could come to in regards to God's role in origins, is that where God works with or as the natural laws that we study everyday to create what we now have. To evoke the supernatural, I think would be a defiance of logic.
Logically, you can only claim a first cause as a possibility.
You can't then extrapolate that out into an entire religion, not without further logic and evidence at least.
ultimately the universe is absurd, either something always was, something came from "nothing", or another incomprehensible thing; why would someone choose one absurdity over another?
Scientific theories don't really explain our origin(and I would contest that something can), they just tell us what the evidence seems to entail. What may be coined the "big three" scientific theories are:
The "BigBang",which explosion is a bad metaphor for, comes from the Doppler affect(which you can experience at a racetrack), It also finds evidence among other phenomenon.
Abiogenesis, I don't know much about I'm more into physics then chemistry, but I do know various experiments have lead credence to life or proto-life being able to come about by different conditions which may of occurred on earth many years ago.
Evolution, Is really just "natural selection" over a long course of time.
Abiogenesis is probably the weakest of the three, but then again I'm the most ignorant of it out of the three above.
I would say the weakest idea, that is the least logically supported and the one with a complete lack of empirical evidence(by definition really), is that of a supernatural creator. Its really an untestable hypothesis, and I know of no logic which strongly supports the existence of a god, especially a particular god. I'm always willing to listen to new arguments, but most of them I have heard before.
Religion seems to me to be primarily of a emotional nature, a good number of people I know became religious or more open to it after a loved one died or another tragedy. A few I know are religious because of some properties of their lives.For example, inadequate parents which fail to provide for all their needs and hence religion is a substitute, . It seems religion is a complex coping mechanism, which I am fine with...usually.However religion can create problems, and there are simply better ways to cope(like acceptance).
Although natural selection has quite a bit of evidence, I do not dispute that we are not the same as we were when God first created us. But I find it very hard to believe that we evolved from single cells into what we are today. When you think about something that we take for granted every day like our eyes, it is hard to believe that something so complex could ever just simply happen. The first thing that would have to happen was that an organism would have to grow a sack of fluids and complex cells in order to even begin to see. But then it has also has to grow a second for depth perception and then even more complex cells to see different colors and distinguish them. And theoretically the first "animal" to develop these eyes would have to at the very same time develop brain mechanisms to interpret the information the eyes would send. The odds of any one of these things happening are beyond astronomical, but all of them? and thats just one piece of our bodies.
I admit I have never heard of this Abiogenesis but I will definitely look into what it entails.
When it comes to the "Big Bang Theory" I don't think you are correct in saying it comes from the doppler effect, but we use the doppler effect (with light) to determine where and how fast the planets are moving. So from evidence provided by the doppler effect they have extrapolated that all the planets are moving outwards from a single point of origin. But in the end I feel like we do not know nearly enough about our own solar system let alone the universe to make these complex theories trying to explain what we see.
I do agree that there is very little empirical evidence to support God. The only instance I can truly think of is when miracles have been performed but seeing as everyone refuses to accept the bible as viable source it is impossible to prove one way or another. I feel like miracles are evidence of God because they are by definition things that shouldn't be possible according to our scientific laws.
Evolution isn't blind chance or something simply happening, its natural laws working in concert.
Keep in mind that evolution has occurred over a long time span as well, and every day there is an astronomical number of changes in an "complex" organisms DNA. So the more "complex" a species becomes, the more variability and diversity it has to draw on to evolve. The more evolved, the more evolution(well in some situations).
Also, in "simpler" organisms symbiotic and parasitic relationships are more common, the sponge is less one organism and more of many in that it can be cut into pieces and survive(and reproduce that way, so long as two of its cell types stay together)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponge#Asexual. Even though it is classified as an animal.
A simple eye might be able to be created by having bacteria sensitive to light communicate and form a symbiotic relationship with another form of bacteria not sensitive to light. From here adjustments and improvements can be made. Nature is often surprisingly elegant, and we shouldn't restrict what it can do without evidence.
Although, I must state I am simply spinning ideas to show how evolution isn't so very unlikely; I'm not a biologist so the exact details of the evolution of the eye I'm just guessing at but the general theory of evolution I believe I grasp quite well.
Abiogenesis is interesting, I wish more people has heard about it, since it is often confused with evolution.
The "Big bang" come from a multitude of things, but the Doppler shift of stars and other galaxies set it off:
Also, technically; ah... this might sound weird, but its not so much that the planets are moving but rather that the space between them is expanding. What more specifically do you think we need to know?
Perhaps miracles would be good evidence for god, if they could be repeated and verified as such, but if they could be repeated then they could probably be explained as a natural law after some refinements were made to scientific theories. So miracles are actually in a tight spot as evidence.
2) Pharisees- a sect of Jews rather than christians- DO exist today, as Rabbinic Judaism is the progeny of the pharisees of the roman period. And although your assumption that (most) people would not understand your reference may or may not have been correct, generally debaters try to clarify their statements.
2. I was talking to Christians... are you saying most Christians don't know who the pharisees were? I wasn't trying to confuse anyone tiger.
I was talking about their boisterous insistence on their own holiness while plotting to undermine the actual message of Jesus - how they are portrayed in the bible, which I guess was confusing to someone. The point was, Christians are the same today, they insist on some holy high ground they hold while consistently pursuing social policies that make the earth a grimmer, darker place.
A very simple comparison, not a riddle. Anyone who had actually read the bible should have been able to understand it within my context without looking up a single thing.
i am a high school freshman i know what you mean and i am a christian. please get your facts straight plus christians are just trying to serve their nation
A lot of people are serving the country, atheists, muslims, buddhists, agnostics, satanists, wiccans, all kinds of people including christians,
and some of all of these people are not.
What I see is christians consistantly and endlessly trying to shove not only their beliefs on others, but their beliefs onto the constitution, which is the opposite of the constitution's intent.
So what precisely are you talking about with this silly sentence?
we see it as helping our nation when we save another perosn from the fiery pitts of hell and besides im not trying to push it on you if i were you would be getting endless messages from me with undisputable evidence
I will see your "undisputable evidence" (the word is indisputable, BTW) and raise you 1 dose of logic mixed with verified investigative inquiry and objective reasoning. Bring whatever you like to the table :)
first the bible speaks of a place called golgotha or place of the skull and in israel there is a place with that name and exact description, also according to nat geo the spear jesus was pierced with has been found, also consider how beutiful and uniqe non man affected areas are it coulsnt of been that perfect with just chance or evoloution next the bible mhas been proven to be the most accurate book with less misinterpretations than any other book its size also as i often use where did the big bang come from ps i cant spell very good and thats not suprising since im 14
also according to nat geo the spear jesus was pierced with has been found
I very much doubt that. Even if Jesus was a real man who really existed, even if he was really executed, even if the story is accurate and he was prodded with a spear, even if the spear survived all this time, even assuming all of this is true there would be absolutely no way to tell. It's not as if we can conduct a DNA test to verify this. What's to stop someone from simply claiming a spear they found is the holy lance. In fact there are at least 4 different spears claimed to be the Holy Lance: One in Rome, one in Austria, one in Poland, and one in Armenia. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if all of them were fakes.
Medieval churches attracted their congregation by possessing relics, this has lead to the emergence of many fake relics over the years.
first the bible speaks of a place called golgotha or place of the skull and in israel there is a place with that name and exact description
I am sure Golgotha and many other communities mentioned in the Bible did exist. I would actually be surprised if the majority of them were somehow proven to be fictional. If the authors of the Bible were trying to pass lies off as the truth, of course they would use settings that really existed, to help establish credibility. If they simply exaggerated or misunderstood actual events, the real events those misrepresentations were based on would have happened in real places. Even if the tales were purely allegorical, it would be easier for lay folk to wrap their heads around esoteric matters if there was something in the tales, such as real cities or nations, that the audience could recognize.
Furthermore, those cities being real doesn't say anything about the veracity of everything else in the Bible. Spider-Man stories take place in New York City. NYC is real place, but that doesn't mean that Spider-Man is real, or that the events in his comics and movies actually happened.
also according to nat geo the spear jesus was pierced with has been found
Bohemian covered this very accurately and thoroughly, so I'll be brief. Throughout history there have been several spears claimed to be the Spear of Destiny, but there is absolutely no way to know which, if any of them, are real. Spears were laying around all over the place back then.
also consider how beutiful and uniqe non man affected areas are
Beauty is a completely subjective concept. Subjective concepts aren't very useful for determining objective truth, at least on their own. And unique? Wilderness areas were the status quo before mankind started moving into civilization. And neither of these things say anything about God.
it coulsnt of been that perfect with just chance or evoloution
Unless you are using a scale of quantification, "perfect" is also subjective. Also, I would hardly call nature perfect, considering how fragile it is, and how it is in a constant state of transition. Beautiful, awesome and worth protecting? Yes. But not perfect.
And yes it COULD happen through "chance or evolution." All the way down to the atomic level we see differentiated bits of stuff that have differing qualities. When these things interact with each other they have different effects, determined by a wide variety of laws of physics (and chemistry, and other fields, depending on what exactly you are talking about.) Given enough time and interactions, an astounding array of things can and will happen. We have repeatedly observed thousands of natural occurrences that can be described as basically being the end result of chance.
As far as evolution, well that is all about the variety of life, and it does explain many facets of that variety quite well.
next the bible mhas been proven to be the most accurate book with less misinterpretations
If you mean in terms of factual data, then you are simply wrong. Many of the concepts, events and people in the Bible can't be proven right or wrong AT ALL. Many others are impossible or at least highly unlikely if taken literally. The few bits of information that can be verified with any degree of authority are not up to the task of verifying the rest.
If you mean accurate in terms of translation, then which of the hundreds of slightly differing translations are you referring to? Ultimately, it wouldn't actually matter how well it was translated. A lie can be translated perfectly throughout the centuries just like truth can.
where did the big bang come from
We don't know yet. It is a rather complex and ancient riddle to solve, and some believe that it is impossible for humans to ever know. Regardless, no theory for it has ever been proven. And that includes God just the same as it includes temporal reversals or infinite universe chains.
While I liked the first answer "in every God we trust", it really doesn't matter by putting that word "every" in. They could maybe put in "all Gods" we trust but even that will upset a lot of people. Simply saying "God" is generalized; therefore it is not nevessary to change it.
The ones that want it completely taken out are NOT those who want to respect all religions. They are the ones who want to censor religion, violate the freedom to practice it, and remove it from society. They are the atheists, who think that religious people are intellectally infereior, delusional mental cases.
The ones that want it completely taken out are NOT those who want to respect all religions. They are the ones who want to censor religion, violate the freedom to practice it, and remove it from society. They are the atheists, who think that religious people are intellectally infereior, delusional mental cases.
No one is asking to have religion removed from society they are asking to have it removed from government. The framers of this nation believed religion to be a private matter. Religion is a matter between "A Man and his God" only, it is not a matter for the state. I don't think the Government should be making theological statements on behalf of the American people, especially when those statements don't reflect the great diversity which has always been the pride of this nation.
The phrase "In God we trust" was not in the original pledge, to alter the lyrics for religious and political reasons is a great disrespect to the authors of the pledge.
Many people who are affiliated with a particular religion hold views contrary to that religion.
Nevertheless, this is no grounds to dictate belief upon the minority by the majority, nor to endorse such belief using public tax money provided by many of those who are not being represented by our currency.
"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression." ~Thomas Jefferson
Less than 1% of the US population is Eskimo. Maybe we should have a vote to see if Eskimos should wear their pants backwards and walk on their hands. Part of the wording of the Constitution was meant to protect the few, in this case non-religious, in others different minorities, from the many.
And not a word of god had infiltrated any government content anywhere until mid 19th century, song, anthem, money or otherwise.
Actually a large portion of the Christian and otherwise religious population argued against "god" on money because they considered it blasphemous - which makes a lot more sense until one realizes the function of large organized religion is way more about money and power than any moral objective.
Um, no. Not saying it at all would be neutral ground. And not everyone refers to their creator, or ruler or whatever, as a god. No matter what words you use you are leaving someone out. But if you don't say anything at all then no one would probably even think about it. And before we continue, I want it out but am not atheists.
the main three religeons do christians call him god muslims call him allah which baisically is the same and jews call him god they just dont believe in jesus as god ps dont say they are not the three main cause christians alone compromise 33 percent of the world
I think that if it's not necessary to make a vote then the majority doesn't matter. It is in no way necessary to have these words on our currency or in our pledge, though I stopped reciting the pledge in middle school because I found it ridiculous. So that didn't really affect me.
im not im just asking that if and in my openion when christians disappear that you will ask for forgiveness and become a chritian cuz i do care about you even if i dont know you
You being a high school freshman is no excuse. You should have proper grammar and be able to spell by then. I'm not insulting you, I'm bitching about the stupid school systems. They don't teach the basics anymore. -__-
Yes. it should be removed. As we know non of religions do not call people to something bad. Every religion call people for forgiveness and peace. There are some people like terrorist who claim that by killing people u will go to the heaven. But the whole religion cannot be considered this way, as happened in Islam. Islam does not call anyone for war. But burning the Holy Quran was awful. So in what god do Americans trust??
Yes. This in a way goes against the Establishment Clause in the very first amendment. I am atheist, and never say "one nation under God" in the pledge. I always say "one nation indivisible". This isn't just for atheists and agnostics, some other religions don't just have one God. It's ridiculous to have this as the motto in a free nation.
Yes. 'In God we trust' only represents the Christian population(73% of the USA's population), but doesn't represent the whole country. This is especially important as the USA is a democracy, which represents the entire country.
So therefore, it should be removed, as it does not represent the entire country.
Trust god in all you do. No matter what it seems like God IS REAL. The rest of the "gods" shouldn't be included as they are not real. People just created them because they were scared of being judged by God. But god doesn't judge you. TRUST HIM IN ALL YOU DO AND HE WILL DO GOOD
I honestly don't know if you're trolling with that answer. It's absolutely ridiculous.
Relgion, and faith, is defined as a belief that you cannot prove. To even suggest that a country where the majority of the people do not believe in something should actively support both that belief and free thinking together is absolutely insane.
Further than that, Christianity started with the birth of Jesus, around 2000 years ago. Both pagan and tribal religions started thousands of years before this, other religions were not started in a response to God's opinions, that's an incredibly self absorbed and ignorant view.
We should not remove In God we Trust because they that is how we got our freedom that why we are free. Thats how this earth was created thats how we are here today. If it wasn't for God then the world would not be here and also we would not be here.
Why don't we get rid of this government sponsored money and have each individual bank print out their own banknotes. Let each individual bank print whatever the hell they want on the bills and keep the government completely out of it.
No, our country was founded because of Christianity. To remove the roots on which this nation was founded on would 1) be disrepectful to those who sacrificed their lives for our current existence and 2) cause unneccessary discord among ourselves. No matter how ridiculous that religion is, we should honor our forefathers.
We are a nation that was originally based on Gods teachings, many of the things in our constitution and declaration of independence came from the writer's belief in God.
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
...on January 3, 1797. It was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, receiving ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797.
The Treaty of Tripoli was made 21 years later than the constitution on which we declared independence from Britain. Their original intentions will never be known. This Treaty is just as lame as when "All men are created equal." was put in the Declaration of Independence. Not all men were equal then or now.
The date on the Declaration of Independence is written plainly for all to see;
The Treaty of Tripoli was made 21 years later than the constitution on which we declared independence from Britain.
Chuckles
"The constitution on which we declare our independence"
Um...no. The Declaration of Independence is what declared our independence, not the Constitution. The Constitution was written in 1787.
The Treaty of Tripoli, was ratified only 10 years after the Constitution was written. To my knowledge none of the primary founding fathers had died in that time, So the treaty of Tripoli was written and approved by largely the same people who wrote the U.S. Constitution.
That the Declaration of Independence was dated in a particular style common to Great Britain (to which the document is addressing) in no way invalidates the Treaty of Tripoli.
Your argument, as usual, is both poorly researched and factually incorrect.
I suggest you quit laying claim to any college education, you continue to prove that educated idiots exist.
I used constitution with a small c, not a capital C.
American Heritage defines constitution as:
3a The system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or another institution.
As for how many of those that were around 21 years later, I doubt if there was very many left. I am doing research to again prove you wrong. Will attach updated information to again prove your stupidity.
I suggest you quit laying claim to any college education, you continue to prove that educated idiots exist.
Are you calling me an idiot? I really wish you would.
I used constitution with a small c, not a capital C.
American Heritage defines constitution as:
3a The system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or another institution.
Regardless of whether you spell it with a big C or a little c this still wouldn't refer to the declaration of independence. Even according to the definition you provided it says >>>THE<<< system of fundamental laws. As in there is only one (per government). We already have one, the U.S. constitution. The Declaration of Independence cannot also be a constitution. Furthermore the Declaration of Independence doesn't prescribe the limits of government, it doesn't do any of the functions described in your definition.
The difference between Constitution and constitution is how it is used in a sentence. This is what dictates capitalization.
EX: The Constitution is the greatest of it's kind, it has been the inspiration of many nations' constitutions.
This is purely an attempt to back-peddle; To rationalize your error. Attempt failed.
As for how many of those that were around 21 years later, I doubt if there was very many left
It would have been 10 years later after the authorship of the Constitution, as I have previously noted. In fact there is more time between the the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, than there is between the U.S. Constitution and the Treaty of Tripoli. The U.S. Constitution is what establishes national Jurisprudence. The Treaty of Tripoli was written nearly all by the same people who wrote the Constitution. This isn't even debatable.
If that definition of constitution doesn't suit you, there are several others.
Merriam-Webster
2b : the structure, composition, physical makeup, or nature of something
3: the act of establishing, making, or setting up
5b : a written instrument embodying the rules of a political or social organization
Yes, keep looking. If you find a vague enough definition, it might fit your argument. Of course I say this facetiously.
What you are doing is called 'Equivocating'. That you preceded constitution with "the" makes it a little difficult to equivocate here.
"the constitution" only refers to one thing (at least in regards to this nation). So you cannot claim you were talking about the Declaration of Independence. You made an obvious blunder, and now you are trying to cover it up. You also made the additional error of calling me an idiot. You can humble yourself, or you can let your ego get the best of it. Your call...
Second of I never said anything about the "Constitution", I clearly said "Declaration of Independence"
Really? Your first sentence:
Thewayitis: "The Treaty of Tripoli was made 21 years later than the constitution on which we declared independence from Britain."
I dismantled this statement and showed that it was false in more ways than one. You got pissy and called me an idiot, then you provided a definition which was also unsuccessful. That I was able to elicit such an emotional reaction shows how weak your argument was.
Updated information as promised. Below is a list of those that signed the "Declaration of Independence" 56 signatures and by 1797 there was 26 of them that were died.
Button Gwinnett (1735 – May 19, 1777)
Lyman Hall (April 12, 1724 – October 19, 1790),
George Walton (1749–February 2, 1804)
William Hooper (June 17, 1742 – October 14, 1790)
Joseph Hewes (January 23, 1730 – November 10, 1779)
John Penn (May 17, 1741 – September 14, 1788)
Edward Rutledge (November 23, 1749 – January 23, 1800
Thomas Heyward, Jr. (July 28, 1746 – March 6, 1809
Thomas Lynch, Jr. (August 5, 1749–1779)
Arthur Middleton (June 26, 1742 – January 1, 1787),
John Hancock (January 23, 1737 [O.S. January 12, 1736] – October 8, 1793)
Samuel Chase (April 17, 1741 – June 19, 1811)
William Paca (October 31, 1740 – October 23, 1799)
Thomas Stone (1743 – October 5, 1787)
Charles Carroll of Carrollton (September 19, 1737 – November 14, 1832)
George Wythe (1726 – June 8, 1806)
Richard Henry Lee (January 20, 1732 – June 19, 1794)
Thomas Jefferson (April 13, 1743 – July 4, 1826
Benjamin Harrison V (April 5, 1726 – April 24, 1791)
Thomas Nelson, Jr. (December 26, 1738 – January 4, 1789)
Francis Lightfoot Lee (October 14, 1734 – January 11, 1797)
Carter Braxton (September 16, 1736 – October 10, 1797)
Robert Morris, Jr. ( January 20, 1734 – May 8, 1806)
Benjamin Rush (January 4, 1746 [O.S. December 24, 1745] – April 19, 1813
Benjamin Franklin (January 17, 1706 [O.S. January 6, 1705[1]] – April 17, 1790)
John Morton (1725 – April 1, 1777)
George Clymer (March 16, 1739 – January 24, 1813)
James Smith (September 17, 1719 – July 11, 1806),
George Taylor (c. 1716 – February 23, 1781
James Wilson (1742 – 1798)
George Ross (May 10, 1730 – July 14, 1779)
Caesar Rodney (October 7, 1728 – June 26, 1784)
George Read (September 18, 1733 – September 21, 1798)
Thomas McKean (March 19, 1734 – June 24, 1817)
William Floyd (December 17, 1734 – August 4, 1821)
Philip Livingston (January 15, 1716 – June 12, 1778)
Francis Lewis (March 21, 1713 – December 30, 1803
Lewis Morris (April 8, 1726 — January 22, 1798)
Richard Stockton (October 1, 1730 – February 28, 1781
John Witherspoon (February 15, 1723 – November 15, 1794)
Francis Hopkinson (September 21, 1737 – May 9, 1791),
John Hart (c. 1711 – May 11, 1779)
Abraham Clark (February 15, 1726 – September 15, 1794)
Josiah Bartlett (November 21, 1729 – May 19, 1795
William Whipple, Jr. (January 14, 1730 – November 28, 1785)
Samuel Adams (September 27 [O.S. September 16] 1722 – October 2, 1803)
John Adams (October 30, 1735 – July 4, 1826)
Robert Treat Paine (March 11, 1731 – May 11, 1814
Elbridge Thomas Gerry ( July 17, 1744 – November 23, 1814)
Stephen Hopkins (March 7, 1707 – July 13, 1785)
William Ellery (December 22, 1727 – February 15, 1820)
Roger Sherman (April 19, 1721 – July 23, 1793)
Samuel Huntington (July 16, 1731 [O.S. July 5, 1731] – January 5, 1796)
William Williams (April 23, 1731 – August 2, 1811)
Oliver Wolcott (November 20, 1726 – December 1, 1797)
Matthew Thornton (1714 – June 24, 1803),
The "Treaty of Tripoli" was approved by only one of the those that signed the Declaration of Independence, John Adams (President of the USA at this time). It was voted and unanimously approved by Congress. A list of those that were Congressmen follows.
.
Rank Name (Party-State) Seniority date
1 James Gunn (F-GA) March 3, 1789
2 John Henry (P-MD)[2]
3 John Langdon (DR-NH)
4 Theodore Foster (F-RI) June 7, 1790
5 John Rutherfurd (P-NJ)[3] March 4, 1791
6 John Brown (DR-KY) June 18, 1792
7 William Bradford (P-RI)[4] March 4, 1793
8 Samuel Livermore (P-NH)
9 Alexander Martin (A-NC)
10 John Vining (P-DE)[5]
11 James Ross (F-PA) April 24, 1794
12 Stevens Thomson Mason (DR-VA) November 18, 1794
13 Henry Tazewell (A-VA)[6]
14 Henry Latimer (F-DE) February 7, 1795
15 William Bingham (F-PA) March 4, 1795
16 Timothy Bloodworth (DR-CT)
17 Humphrey Marshall (F-KY)
18 Elijah Paine (F-VT)
19 Jacob Read (F-SC)
20 Josiah Tattnall (DR-GA) February 20, 1796
21 James Hillhouse (F-MD) March 12, 1796
22 Benjamin Goodhue (F-MA) June 11, 1796
23 Theodore Sedgwick (F-MA)
24 William Blount (DR-TN)[7] August 2, 1796
25 William Cocke (DR-TN)[8]
26 Uriah Tracy (F-CT) October 13, 1796
27 Isaac Tichenor (F-VT)[9] October 18, 1796
28 John Laurance (F-NY) November 9, 1796
29 Richard Stockton (F-NJ) November 12, 1796
30 John Eager Howard (F-MD) November 30, 1796
31 John Hunter (R-SC)[10] December 8, 1796
32 Philip John Schuyler (P-NY)[11] March 4, 1797
Joseph Anderson (DR-TN) September 26, 1797
Andrew Jackson (DR-TN)[12]
Nathaniel Chipman (F-VT) October 17, 1797
Ray Greene (F-RI) November 13, 1797
James Lloyd (F-MD) December 11, 1797
John Sloss Hobart (F-NY)[13] January 11, 1798
Joshua Clayton (F-DE)[14] January 19, 1798
William North (F-NY)[15] May 15, 1798
James Watson (F-NY) August 17, 1798
Daniel Smith (DR-TN) October 6, 1798
Franklin Davenport (F-NJ) December 5, 1798
Charles Pinckney (DR-SC) December 6, 1798
William Hill Wells (F-DE)
How can anyone know the intentions of others? I would say it is beyond possible to do so.
Amazing. Talking to you is like talking to a bag of rocks. I have stated very clearly twice already, that the people who wrote and approved the CONSTITUTION .....not the Declaration of Independence.
And of course it wasn't the same congressmen. Merely that the same people, the same orators, and the same prevailing attitudes, had allowed the The treaty to be ratified UNANIMOUSLY. John Adams for instance had the same cabinet as George Washington who shaped the treaty.
"To my knowledge none of the primary founding fathers had died in that time, So the treaty of Tripoli was written and approved by largely the same people who wrote the U.S. Constitution." (Exact quote)
A man's contribution to this nation's foundation is not determined solely on his ability to vote. Thomas Paine's sharp political essays inspired a people to war, George Washington led those people to war and to victory, Thomas Jefferson's ideas have laid much of the foundation for the U.S. constitution. Who exactly was Button Gwinnett and why should we consider his contribution equal to any of the other founders I have mentioned?
1) If we are going to stoop to mathematical ability, you claimed more than half of the signers were deceased. As far as I am concerned, stating the obvious is superior to being incorrect.
2) American historian Richard B. Morris, in his 1973 book Seven Who Shaped Our Destiny: The Founding Fathers as Revolutionaries , identified the following seven figures as the key Founding Fathers:
If you are seriously claiming that all 56 were equally influential, why stop at the people at the convention? if all men are created equal, why not write a book detailing every last one of the billion people on Earth at the time?
unless of course, you are stating that these 56 people were better than the rest of the world.
Or, you can agree that it is reasonable to say that seven people out of fifty six were the most influential, just as fifty six out of one billion people were more influential
You, sir, must have had a wonderful time taking a history class. For those of us who have the ability to discern intentions from actions and evidence, it is not necessarily so difficult. Perhaps you may want to consider reading a book. Or doing research
After all, I too am capable of stating that you do not know any history.
That does not necessarily make either of us right.
However, considering that the basis of studying history is to understand motives and trends in the past, it seems self-evident that one can act on the intentions of the deceased. I can, after all, go to the public domain and read letters written by the founding fathers, or read journals that they may have kept. Although it is not a fool-proof method, it is generally accepted that people's motives and intentions can be derived from their actions and recorded thoughts.
As to your quip concerning my understanding of the present- I do not find this to be either factual or relevant. How many news sources to do have on your bookmarks? I have seven. Not to mention access to archive institutions through school. Between world news, science, and technology alone, I probably read the equivalent of a short novel on a daily basis.
And were you to read my arguments, it would seem evident. I use examples. I link sources. I am generally able to convey complex ideas in a relatively clean fashion.
You should not be able to disregard my input on the grounds of my age. If you have no other tactic than to belittle me- or utilize any other of ad hominem- it may be in your best interest to simply stay quiet.
Is it that strange that I am a teen? I do not think it should be considered a factor. Although I appreciate your sentiment, your implication is that it should be easy to best a teen...
He's trying to use your age as grounds to dismiss your argument, without realizing that it only makes his argument look worse for resorting to such appeals.
Our country was not in any way based on God's teachings.
There are 10 unbreakable commandments, not a single one is enshrined in the constitution - not one.
The states never made more than 4 illegal
and 3 of those prohibitions (murder, theft, and perjury) also exist in every civilization on the planet - including those that predate monotheism.
There are seven deadly sins - not one is illegal. In fact greed is encouraged.
Didn't Jesus say "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of god" ... I looked for a wealth limit in the Constitution but didn't find any...
Our declaration of Independence says "All men are created equal" which is an anathema to god's teachings (women are inferior, slavery is perfectly fine, etc).
Our Constitution mentions religion only twice - the 1st amendment (separation of church and state) and prohibiting any religious test for any office of the united states. Hardly sounds like a document based on religious teachings.
Well, for two reasons. The first reason is that to prevent a tyranny of the Majority we have the U.S. Constitution which limits what the government an do, and one of those limits is on the establishment of religion. The second reason is that, the United States is a very diverse nation, we are a nation of immigrants, with many different beliefs, and our motto should reflect that. With such a diverse nation the dangers of sectarianism are greater than ever before. Certainly no group should want their tax money to support an ideology they do not believe. Many people believe in many Gods, many people believe in no gods, are these people not tax paying Americans as well?
I can understand where you are coming from, but surely your argument is invalid as if we remove it those who believe in God could see it as an attack on them and pro-atheism (thus creating the problem you claim would happen with it in the pledge and currency). This would only create difficulties as those who believe in a God are in the majority in the US. Plus, do you really think a tyranny is being presented by the majority by having a few words in it? Either way, someone is going to be offended (and the believers would be even more so because it would be taking something away, whilst for the non-believers it would merely be adding something - the loss of the believers would outweigh the victory for the non-believers)
if we remove it those who believe in God could see it as an attack on them and pro-atheism
Those who view it as an attack are, for lack of a better word, idiots. The pledge as it was originally written did not include the phrase "One Nation Under God", and the pledge was written by a Baptist minister. He certainly would not see his pledge as pro-atheism and neither should anyone else. They are only offended because they want the state to favor their religion above all others.
The problem is that people are ignorant of history. In God we trust did not appear on money until 1954, for over a century our currency lacked any reference to any deity and nobody construed that as "Pro-atheism".
The lack of something can not be legitimately offensive to any reasonable person.
I am not disagreeing with you here, but the fact is some people can be stupid and the majority would see it as an attack. I am not condoning their logic, nor supporting it (I myself am a Christian and wouldn't be offended), but on a realistic scale it would cause upset as it has been there for as long as most people can remember - if we never added the statement I don't think it would be a problem but because we HAVE therein lies a problem.
This is really more of a question about SHOULD we remove it from the Pledge/Currency rather than CAN we remove it from the Pledge/Currency. Your first few posts made it sound like we should leave these phrases because most people want them. I don't disagree that many people would be upset if we removed these phrases. The majority will almost always be upset when you remove some aspect of their favoritism, even if just symbolic. I'm making the case based on history and constitutionality.
Imagine you wrote a popular song or anthem, and somebody decided to change your words around for political reasons, and without your consent. This is exactly what has happened to Francis Bellamy. If we want to respect his contribution should we not leave the Pledge, as he originally wrote it?
This would be a good point if you made it right after the Pledge got changed, though I think that it is too late. The fact of the matter is that now, many people don't look back to how the Pledge WAS, but rather how is it now and how is has been for a, relatively, long time. Because it has been left unchanged for so long it has become part of the Pledge and I do not think many people would respect a decision to change it back as they perceive it as seemingly always being like this.
Yes agreed, everything has the right to be challenged but it doesn't necessarily make the point in question evil / bad - anybody can make an argument like that it doesn't prove your point.
No, that the argument can be used to support other unsound arguments, however does make it a bad argument. You seem to agree with what I'm saying, but you are still caught up on something.
A valid argument cannot be used to support simultaneously both a false and a true conclusion. If an argument is invalid in one case then it is invalid in all cases. If we are to agree that "...because that is the way it has always been, why change it now?" is a bad argument for slavery, then it is also a bad argument for keeping "In God we trust" and "One nation under God". It cannot be a good argument in one case and a bad argument in another.
You want to best as you can, to avoid arguments that may also support other dubious conclusions.
Ah right I can see what you mean now. Well, you make a valid point but you have to note that I was talking about it in the mind of the public. I was merely discussing how THEY would see it to be a weird thing to change and we all know the average person isn't deeply philosophical and so would see little contradiction in what you have pointed out. If you put yourself in their position you have to realize the logic behind why they would see it weird to have it changed - it doesn't benefit anybody, they would see it as an attack because it was seemingly done for nothing (nobody obviously gains i.e. it doesn't save a life like changing slavery did). My main point was based around this as for one, it could cause a public out roar and mainly because it wouldn't serve any direct and needed purpose. It being there doesn't kill anybody, and removing it wouldn't save anyone and this is built upon, in the eyes of the public, that it has been there for a long time - 'why would it need changing?' they'd think.
If you know how the public feels then why do you still seek to remove it?
Personally, I feel that there is nothing evidently wrong with it. I don't feel like it forces anybody to be something there not, yet I can understand why some people would want it removed. I just think there is a lot more going on outside this seemingly meaningless topic that could be discussed as many other things actually carry meaning. Also, on a practical level, it would be extremely hard and would achieve little.
For constitutional matters, it doesn't matter how the majority feels. The U.S. Constitution is the law of the land. The general public is not knowledgeable of history, and not knowledgeable of the Constitution. To put it succinctly -- The public is wrong.
While it seems like removing these phrases from money and from the pledge accomplishes nothing I must digress. Restoring the pledge to it's original wording I think honors Francis Bellamy, but more than that i think the greatest benefit is to honor our Constitution. For me it is a matter of principal. No violation of the Constitution is to small to be rectified. A small violation of the Constitution paves the way for others.
You are wrong; it does matter. Sure, in an ideal universe if things went well and everybody was chums then it wouldn't matter. But sadly, my dear friend, we do not live in that world. Politics and laws have consequences, hence why some get passed and others do not. It would be simply inviable to remove it and a waste of time as in order to do so it would have to go through so many levels not only would it be failed, but it would be failed for multiple reasons. You have to, again, think about it realistically (as we do live in an imperfect world) - it would not be worth it and it isn't even a bad situation! If it was something like black people being used as slaves then I would agree with you, but it is mere letters on a page.
Also, I have already proved to you it does not violate the Constitution. It isn't like you are the first one to this it does, many have tried to get it removed but again and again it is told that it does not violate anything.
No, you are still wrong. The U.S. Constitution is the Law of the Land, it was created specifically to prevent a tyranny of the majority. There are some things even a majority cannot impose regardless of the level of popular support, and those 'things' are enumerated within the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is non-negotiable. The establishment clause, which outlaws any state endorsement of religion, is not subject to popular will.
It would be simply inviable to remove it and a waste of time as in order to do so it would have to go through so many levels not only would it be failed, but it would be failed for multiple reasons.
You say this and yet, you have not provided a single such reason aside from "Many people would be outraged". You say it is a bad idea but cannot explain why. Your argument thus far has been little more than Argumentum ad populum.
As long as we are looking at prior court cases let's look at a few more:
Bradwell v. Illinois, An Illinois women was prevented from practicing law because she was in fact a women. The supreme court ruling supported the prior Illinois Court ruling which supported her rejection from the Illinois Bar. This was in clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause and openly discriminated against women.
In Plessy v Ferguson, the Court determined that "Separate but equal" did not violate the 13th and 14th amendment, only to be overturned 54 years later in Brown v Board.
In LDS v The United States, the Supreme court upheld an act which seized LDS (latter-day saints) Church property, stripped Mormon women of their right to vote and other marital rights, and removed Mormons from public office. This was not overruled until nearly a century later.
Your argument rests upon the assumption that the U.S. Supreme court cannot be in conflict with the Constitution, which is demonstrably false by the fact that it has made contradictory decisions in similar cases. In your first link it says "The same court sided with him in 2002 when it struck down the pledge, which he challenged on behalf of his daughter. Two years later, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned that ruling, saying Newdow had no legal standing to challenge the pledge because he did not have legal custody of his daughter." In essence the court said that he was right to challenge the pledge but due to a technicality he was not legally able to challenge it.
So you are saying you are better to evaluate whether something is against the Constitution than the Supreme Court of Justice? This is getting quite pointless to be honest because, at current standings, it is found not to violate it and so you have no argument (other than 'I know better than them') to stand on. We could argue for hours over whether they are right to say what they did, but at the end of the day they said that it didn't violate it. What else is there to argue? I am not saying that the SCJ is without a doubt right but this has turned into little more than trying to prove something that isn't factual (at the current times). It could all change, but as we speak this is what is being presented.
Perhaps you didn't understand, I've given 3 specific examples where the Supreme Court has been undeniably and unequivocally wrong. I'm arguing that this is simply another of those cases of the Supreme court being wrong. So to say that the Court currently agrees with you is not all that significant in regards to it's constitutionality, especially considering how long it generally takes to overturn unconstitutional decisions (it took over a century to overturn the LDS v United States ruling). If your argument is that the Supreme Court is infallible, then you have no argument.
I don't need to be to be a Supreme Court Judge to know that "Under God" is an unconstitutional tax-payer funded endorsement of religion, just as I do not need to be a Supreme Court Judge to know that denying women the right to vote also is not Constitutional. I have read the U.S. Constitution, I know what it says.
Do you think if we put "One Nation Under No God" in the pledge and "In No God we trust" on money people would view that as being constitutional? Of course not, so why is the inverse? Are these phrases being supported by tax payers? Yes. Are these phrases representing all the Tax Payers? No. The government should not be making theological statements. As Jefferson himself wrote "religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions."
If you look at the history of these phrases, they were basically written into law as a F#ck You to the atheistic Communists. It was created as an insult to atheists, that was the intended purpose. It marginalizes a minority group, that alone is reason enough to remove the phrases. America is a nation of many beliefs, many faiths, and even people of no faith. The role of the government is to represent the people, all of the people, and not to marginalize them, and unfortunately it has a long history of doing just that.
E PLURIBUS UNUM "Out of many, one" is an excellent motto on it's own. Our motto needs to unite Americans and not to divide them.
This wasn't just said in the SCJ though, but also ratified and decided in other courts (as I showed). I can understand why you are saying it but I think it is frivolous and kind of arrogant to suggest that your view upholds the view of many others, using your own logic against you, YOU have been wrong in the past - perhaps this is an example of you being wrong again?
And your latter arguments rest solely on your view about how it presents religion and is against the Constitution and such things will have no conclusive end and thus should be ignored (it would be merely pissing in the wind as one could say).
Do you really feel that the phrase signals out people and that they wake up every morning and go 'that phrase makes me feel segregated from society :('?
This wasn't just said in the SCJ though, but also ratified and decided in other courts (as I showed).
As was the contrary. It was in a 9th circuit Court of Appeals case, that the Pledge was originally declared as unconstitutional, the decision was only overruled by the Supreme court due to a technicality. The man in the case did not have full custody of his daughter, and thus could not bring forth a claim on her behalf.
I can understand why you are saying it but I think it is frivolous and kind of arrogant to suggest that your view upholds the view of many others
I can assure you that what I am saying is not a fringe view, but is in fact held by many Americans. I am not the first nor will I be the last to suggest the removal of these phrases. The United States is a secular nation from it's founding, not despite it's religiosity, but BECAUSE of it's religiosity.
YOU have been wrong in the past - perhaps this is an example of you being wrong again?
Perhaps so. Can you show that I am?
And your latter arguments rest solely on your view about how it presents religion and is against the Constitution
It does and it is. I can point to other court cases where the use of the word "God" is deemed to be inherently religious, and is barred from public schools on that basis. In Dover v Kitzmiller, intelligent Design is declared as religious and it doesn't even use the word God instead using "Intelligent designer".
Do you really feel that the phrase signals out people and that they wake up every morning and go 'that phrase makes me feel segregated from society
I don't presume to know what anyone wakes up feeling, however it does single out certain groups of people. Not just atheists either, but Hindus and Neopagans who believe in many Gods, and certain Jewish sects that refuse to write out the word "God" because they feel it is disrespectful and instead only write "G_D". What I do know is that the Government shouldn't, as Jefferson said, be making religious opinions on behalf of the people. Perhaps God is some incorporeal impersonal force detached from any human characteristics, if that were the case to have "One Nation under God" would make about as much sense as having "One Nation under Gravity". Point being the government shouldn't be taking sides on a theological and philosophical question, and leave the people to form their own opinions.
It should be our goal to eliminate all instances of favoritism, symbolic or otherwise.
"As was the contrary. It was in a 9th circuit Court of Appeals case, that the Pledge was originally declared as unconstitutional, the decision was only overruled by the Supreme court due to a technicality. The man in the case did not have full custody of his daughter, and thus could not bring forth a claim on her behalf."
It was actually declared as Constitutional as it was 'ceremonial and patriotic' from a separate ruling.
"I can assure you that what I am saying is not a fringe view, but is in fact held by many Americans. I am not the first nor will I be the last to suggest the removal of these phrases. The United States is a secular nation from it's founding, not despite it's religiosity, but BECAUSE of it's religiosity."
This doesn't prove, nor add anything to the debate.
'It does and it is. I can point to other court cases where the use of the word "God" is deemed to be inherently religious, and is barred from public schools on that basis. In Dover v Kitzmiller, intelligent Design is declared as religious and it doesn't even use the word God instead using "Intelligent designer"."
We have already be shown how it was deemed Constitutional so this is invalid until the courts say otherwise. Sure, we can go back and forth all day but it won't get us anywhere.
"question, and leave the people to form their own opinions."
I don't think the Pledge and the phrase necessarily force people to have that view.
I think you must agree this debate is getting nowhere - want to call a truce? We could argue all day but it is boiling down to self-held beliefs and things which can get ridiculous.
It was actually declared as Constitutional as it was 'ceremonial and patriotic' from a separate ruling.
We have already crossed this bridge. The supreme court is not infallible, and has been wrong before and as I contend is wrong now. To simply say that it is currently supported by a supreme court decision is of no advantage to your argument, so it would behoove you to provide more substantial reasoning for your argument. Your response was to say that it wasn't just supported by the supreme court but it was supported by prior lower court rulings and as I quickly pointed out, so has the contrary ruling (that the pledge was unconstitutional) which is also supported by prior lower court rulings.
Now you have just reverted to your initial argument, without regard to the fact that the supreme court is sometimes wrong. You still have yet to address this fact.
This doesn't prove, nor add anything to the debate.
You claimed that my view wasn't held by many others, I claimed that my view is held by many others, and now you claim this adds nothing to the debate....So why did you bring it up?
We have already be shown how it was deemed Constitutional so this is invalid until the courts say otherwise.
Something being deemed constitutional, and something actually being constitutional are two entirely different matters. Also your argument would suggest that racial segregation was constitutional. Is this something you are prepared to defend? If not you might want to find a new argument.
Sure, we can go back and forth all day but it won't get us anywhere.
It won't get you anywhere because you refuse to budge from an incorrect proposition without either presenting new arguments or addressing the problem with your current argument.
I am having no such difficulty.
I don't think the Pledge and the phrase necessarily force people to have that view.
Well forcing people to have a particular pinion is quite difficult if not impossible, however the phrase does endorse a particular religious view not shared by a large portion of Americans.
I think you must agree this debate is getting nowhere - want to call a truce? We could argue all day but it is boiling down to self-held beliefs and things which can get ridiculous.
A truce implies both sides are near equal, if I were to call a truce it would be rather generous of me. The personal belief of which you refer is the desire to have government favoritism.
The conclusion of Aronow v. United States is ridiculous, and clearly incorrect.
"It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise".
In what way does the phrase not sponsor The religious exercise of trusting in a existing single god, typically understood to be anthropomorphic... It is an official recognition and statement of validity in a set of religious beliefs, and in how they tie into national beliefs. Also, in what way is America a theocracy(aka, mentioning of god and trust in it is patriotic)?
It wouldn't be an "attack", quit being so dramatic although if you wish, it'll be more like a "Defense". Not supporting a belief, isn't supporting a lack of belief. Also your argument depends on an ad-populum. It is tyrannical for the minority to be stepped on by the majority in such a way, especially when the highest law of the land expressibly forbids it. Its not about someone being offended, its about the structure and nature of government.
First of all, please read the article posted (it shows how you are wrong). Secondly, I would like to challenge you calling me 'dramatic' which, for one, is a bit of a low blow (I have feelings too), but more importantly many people would feel strongly about this issue as they do trust in God. By removing the statement it would hurt them and they would see it as an attack as it would be removing that identity of their perception of the country.
Your article doesn't prove me wrong, and the establishment clause in the constitution is commonly referred to as the separation of church and state clause. Their feelings are irrelevant, and their personal feelings don't need inclusion in the pledge or else it might as well include how we Americans like hot dogs and base ball. Their perception would still remain, besides the "in god we trust" was added in the mid 19 hundreds as an "attack" on "foreigners" and those "godless pinkos".
I think your comparison of believing in a God to baseball and hot dogs is a bit demeaning, you have to understand that it means a lot more to those who believe than a sport and food. You say that their feelings are irrelevant, but the whole point of this debate is about whether we should remove it and feelings can play a huge role - religious groups could lash out at the state, cause friction etc. etc. which would be bad for the US (especially during the given time period). You have to see it from a rational point of view that by keeping it, peace is being kept to a larger degree (I don't see many people getting too fussed about it being there) and there is no harm done - it doesn't force you to believe in God. And the article does prove you wrong as you said the 'in God we trust' goes against the Government values etc. while it clearly does not.
There is nothing demeaning about the comparison, logically they are the same, rationally they are the same; you are reading into it. If people rebel against the state for the removal of something that should of never of been added, then you throw them in jail or kill them(depending on the specific situation). Friction is sometimes wanted, justified, and should be faced head on. what is correct and right, often isn't easy. It should also be noted, that it isn't a peaceful thing to have that phrase in the pledge. It is an assault on secularism, one of the true foundations and continuers of this great nation and it is part of the on going social institutionalization of religion. If your religious your likely desensitized and blind to the various coercions that take place to assimilate people, and when government partake in such things even subtlety it is the beginnings of a theocracy and carries much weight. We already have too many laws based on nothing more then religious insensibilities rather than logic, too many tyrannies of the majority, too many laws which are really injustices, and then state has the audacity to include in its very pledge an endorsement of various religious beliefs.
The article was a ruling, an interpretation via someone not a definite demonstration; such things can be easily over ruled. There is no evidence in the article either, nor reasoning that I saw.
It creates and supports a toxic environment and supports a set of religious beliefs, particularly the Abrahamic ones.
I can't believe I am actually reading this... how old are you? 8? First of all you have to understand the concept of religion in order to argue against it - people who believe in God see it to be a larger factor than the other concepts it doesn't matter how you try to phrase it that is how they see it (you can't just assume your views are right). You say that those who rebel against the state should be killed? What happened to freedom of expression? Do you also suggest killing those who Occupy? And now you are just going back against yourself... you say the phrase is an assault on secularism, yet when I said the removal of the phrase could be seen to be an attack on theists but apparently that was only a 'defense' - please sort yourself out. Then you go out and generalize all religious people? I see you take on the classic 'religious people are blind' kind of view which is sweet, but also illogical - I am not saying they are all extremely aware but they are not all blind. And please enlighten me on how it supports the Abrahamic ones? It merely states 'God' as a concept. You seem to be a nice kid, in future please check yourself before you wreck yourself.
Should the state really just shrug their shoulders when they are attacked? Terrorists should not be meet with apathy. Most religious folk in this country wouldn't really care, and the ones that likly would are indeed old enough to remember not having it. Sure, one or two nut jobs might swing a gun over it, and those people will be handled the same as any nutjob of any ideology or religion.
Occupy are not rebels, they are protesters. Although, if they reach sizable mass and violently revolt it would just be the right of revolution in action.
Please be aware of the history of the phrase and its significance at various times. Secularism was seen as too close to "communism", as not being opposite it enough due to soviet policies, those times and the presence of it in the pledge are used to rewrite history in order for anti-democratic and anti-individualistic-rights special interest groups to gain power.
Religious people categorize and segment their thoughts, in general they are very diverse but when it comes to some particulars there is never much difference except amongst those who are part of less traditional religions of america. Its due to various social forces that this phenomenon exists, one of which is a certain degree of a lack of secularism(which promotes absolutely no religious position, nor degrades any). There are reasons why religion exist, and its probably not because a sky man is hovering over people whispering in their ears silently, there are reasons why otherwise perfectly rational people will participate in the most absurd rituals and support empirically unsupportable political positions.
God is a religious concept, that just so happens to be common to various religions(which are all closely related). In God we trust is a even more specific religious concept, referring to a small set of particular religions, just because something supports a set of religions doesn't mean it doesn't violate the establishment clause.
All faith, even the necessary kind, is blind by definition. It is belief without evidence. Religion is nothing more than a collection of logical fallacies, especially appeal to emotion. Even you don't have a problem with bohemian's logic, but you recognize the irrationality of others who are religious and are attempting to use it to prove yourself correct(kinda oxymoronic eh?). Btw, your argument is a slippery slope.
OK my good sir, my hat goes off to you that was a good response. I can more understand where you are coming from, though I still am not fully convinced. I do not agree with you on the 'rebel' aspect as they shouldn't deserve to die that would be inhumane. Furthermore I think you are going quite off topic (and by quite I mean heavily) trying to break down religion as a whole (a job many before you have tried to do and I am sure many more will try to do so also). Let us get back to the basis of the argument: you suggest that barely anyone would mind and I think we should both resign ourselves in that case as it can neither be proved nor disproved, though let us look at it from the two sides. One the one hand let us assume they do not mind and they are all happy and loving and don't get mad. Everything would be fine that way. But if they DO find a problem with it, there could be huge problems across the country and create rifts in society potentially segregating the religious from the non-religious. Breaking it down into basic points, if your view if true the religious people are happy and the non-religious are happy. Though if what I perceive is true then the religious people are not happy and the non-religious are. Is it really worth taking that risk? Especially since such a small minority call for it? I would also like to comment on your suggestion of the majority bullying the minority but in the same sense what seemingly superior right should the minority have to change the majority? Neither the minority nor the majority should be favored and the only far way to solve it would be to take a national vote (of which we both know what the answers would be). We have to look at it from the realistic side: is it worth creating a potential risk for a minor gain? You tell me.
Second of all, there is a big difference between pro-atheist and pro freedom of choice.
Third, it may be a majority, but only around 65% of the US is religious, and there are other religions than Christianity, which is what the pledge & currency is referring to.
And anyway, doesn't it seem unintelligent for a writing to support both God & freedom of religious choice?
In currency it says in God we trust, but you should know in the pledge, if you have ever said it, that it says one nation under God. Now if you have never said the pledge you have no right to be making this debate.
We may have every religion in the world in the United States, but our country was first founded by people who followed Cristianity, and besides there are at least 2 religions that follow the Lion of The Tribe of Juda, and they are christianity, and judyism. All of the other religions follow different gods. so what are the chances of them being right compared to the ones that follow the Lion of The Tribe of Juda.
This amazing place was originally founded on the the beliefs of GOD. I am not anything I don't believe in one thing or another. I grew up in a home where my father didn't believe in God, and my mother does. I grew up saying "In god We Trust" due to the face, when the English man came and settled here it was Christian beliefs the founded. I like having on the money and the pledge cause it reminds me of how we all came to be here. Allah, and all the others or just another name for God in different languages if you think about it. It may explain thing differently, but in the end, they all still pray and talk to the person they believe in. I say do not remove it, cause it reminds us how the USA of founded. Rules of the Bible and God.
Like it or not, this nation was founded on Christian principles. In fact the only reason we have the liberty to worship whatever religion we want is because America is a Christian religion. Just think of it. If America was a Muslim nation, you'd only be allowed to be Muslim. If America was an athiestic nation, you'd be laughed at because you believe in God... Sound familiar? America was based on Christian values,but today we are losing them...
Like it or not, this nation was founded on Christian principles.
Like it or not - no, it wasn't. Is Liberty a Christian principle? Capitalism? Security? Taxation? Representative Democracy? Separation of Powers? Speedy trial by jury of peers? Privacy? Right to Bear Arms? etc. etc.
"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" - Constitution
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" - 1st Amendment
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); " - Treaty of Tripoli
Founded on freedom to be Catholic, or Protestant, or Jewish, or Deist, or Muslim, or whatever else...
"Like it or not, this nation was founded on Christian principles." Factually speaking, it actually wasn't. It was founded on the principles of Post-Enlightenment Liberalism, originating primarily from political philosophers in Post-Revolutionary France.
"In fact the only reason we have the liberty to worship whatever religion we want is because America is a Christian religion." Actually, the reason we have religious liberty is because of the United States Constitution, which prevents the country from adopting an official religion (Establishment Clause, 1st Amendment).
"Just think of it. If America was a Muslim nation, you'd only be allowed to be Muslim." You realize there are nations that are officially Muslim that do allow people to adhere to other religions, right? Your comment makes me think you don't.
"f America was an athiestic nation, you'd be laughed at because you believe in God... Sound familiar? " Technically, America is somewhat "atheistic", in that, as a country, it does not have an official theistic religion. But that is more semantics than practice.
"America was based on Christian values,but today we are losing them..." Again, no it wasn't. It was founded upon Classical Liberalism, and many of our most influential Founder's (including the architect of the Constitution) were not Christians.
Did breaking with Britain go counter to Romans 13:1?
"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
