CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:45
Arguments:28
Total Votes:55
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 IN GOD WE TRUST (28)

Debate Creator

churchmouse(328) pic



IN GOD WE TRUST

Add New Argument

If we are talking about having the words "IN GOD WE TRUST" on currency then I believe there is already a debate on this, however I'll state my point again.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution basically says not to prefer one religion over another. They are clearly breaking this Amendment, making them hypocrites. They should just get rid of the words all together - they may have been relevant 200 years ago, but no longer.

If we aren't talking currency then no In God I don't trust because God isn't real and after reading the Christian Bible he sounds like an asshole.

churchmouse(328) Disputed
1 point

Funny you say there is no God and then in the next breath you call him an asshole...........sounds like ya just don't know.

Why would someone like you read the Christian Bible?

And if you could provide me proof that he does not exist that would be great.

No religion is mentioned in the phrase...In God we Trust. It mentions God......not a denomination. And we live in a secular society where people reject the notion that we were ever Christian to begin with.

This is a slap in the face to the athiests and those who hate people of faith. It is a slap in the face to those who say there is separation of church and state.

2 points

in the next breath you call him an asshole

In case you were to arrogant to notice; I implied that if he were true he sounded like an asshole.

Why would someone like you read the Christian Bible?

So that I have a broader knowledge of religions therefore being much less of an ignorant asshole in comparison to most religious folk.

No religion is mentioned in the phrase

The word God refers to religion therefore religion is clearly raised

This is a slap in the face to the athiests and those who hate people of faith. It is a slap in the face to those who say there is separation of church and state.

Don't know how this is relevant at all.

casper3912(1581) Disputed
1 point

Its an implication, if he exists he would be an ass.

The same reasons anyone would and should read the bible.

there is a classical argument from empircus you can tackle.

God, refers to a type of religion, and the phrase refers to a religious belief. Typically abrahamic, although hinduism, some dead and minority religions may also fall under the umbrella.

could you better phrase your last two sentences? what is a slap?

casper3912(1581) Disputed
1 point

The words were actually added in 1957 on our paper currency.

They were apparently not relevant in till the red scare.

I'm curious, what do you think of vishnu or krishna: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishnu .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna I once ran into a traveling Hindu monk, pretty cool guy. hare hare krishna, hare hare krishna, hare hare rama, hare hare rama... :)

"My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege. A beautiful and solemn sentence such as the one in question should be treated and uttered only with that fine reverence which necessarily implies a certain exaltation of spirit. Any use which tends to cheapen it, and above all, any use which tends to secure its being trated in a spirit of levity, is from every standpoint profoundly to be regretted. It is a motto which it is indeed well to have inscribed on our great national monuments, in our temples of justice, in our legislative halls, and in building such as those at West Point and Annapolis -- in short, wherever it will tend to arouse and inspire a lofty emotion in those who look thereon. But it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in advertisements."

Theodore Roosevelt Nov, 11, 1907

2 points

How about in humanity we trust, sounds like a better alternative.

2 points

I agree. Though, I think that humans don't have faith in humanity, because of the crap the bible tells them. "You are sinful and disgusting creatures, so get on yours knees and praise me, and I will wash away your sinfulness with my glory!"

Religion and belief in a present god are nothing but weaknesses of the mind. They provide an excuse for men to act or think irrationally and are harmful to the human condition.

"The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man's power to conceive- a definition that invalidates man's consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence...Man's mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God... Man's standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man's power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith....The purpose of man's life...is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question." [Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual]

churchmouse(328) Disputed
1 point

Ahhh yes Rand.....the egotist. The ego...all that the nonbeliever has really. Ahhh yes "me" is all that matters. My happiness is what is the most important thing that exists. Of course she rejected God she believed she was God. What a self centered egotistical cold view of life and the universe. I would assume that Rand was so empty inside but could and would never admit it. Just an assumtion...you make them of course when you tell believers what its like to believe and how false it is. Oh that you would post a quote from a woman who ruined another womans marriage and who tried to destroy her lovers writing career because it didn't work out. Such an upstanding character she was.

Sigh....

If there is no God...no possiblity of God then show me your proof. Show me why I am weak and your mind is more rational and strong. You state here that there is no God. You are making a factual statement. I am not. Therefore produce the evidence, lay it on the table.

1 point

"Ahhh yes Rand.....the egotist. The ego...all that the nonbeliever has really."

Ahh yes Rand, the crusader of true capitalism.

"Ahhh yes "me" is all that matters. "

This comment makes me expect a moral plea.

"My happiness is what is the most important thing that exists."

Nice biased view. Rational Egoism, rational self interest. People like you make the mistake of sticking to the stereotype perception of self interest when attempting to refute objectivism.

"What a self centered egotistical cold view of life and the universe. "

Egotistical? Yes. Cold? Absolutly not.

"Just an assumtion...you make them of course when you tell believers what its like to believe and how false it is."

It is not an assumption when an irrational view is held despite all reason presented.

"Oh that you would post a quote from a woman who ruined another womans marriage and who tried to destroy her lovers writing career because it didn't work out. "

No greater an offense then it is to harm the human condition with the likes of your religion. What I find interesting is that you support capitalism, but also support the world's most influential source of altruistic thought, the ultimate defying principle to capitalism. Proud to be more consistant than you.

"If there is no God...no possiblity of God then show me your proof."

One is not called on to prove the negative, which is the statement god does not exist. The statement of a particular religion being false can be defended by bringing up the fact that to subscribe to one religion means to deny the validity of the claims made by all others. Since no objective evidence exists for the existence of a described god, you are not rationally justified in believing in the deity of the Bible.

"You state here that there is no God. You are making a factual statement."

Lol nice ignorance of debate standard. One can claim there to be no god until objective proof is presented.

"I am not"

You are Christian are you not? If yes, then you are.

"Therefore produce the evidence, lay it on the table"

It is not my burden to, but for fun I will point out the biggest case against your particular religion. The bible.

Also, I would like to present the argument that we are not morally justified in worshipping a god responsible for any acts of horrid nature when according to prescribed scripture he had the power to not commit such action. This is a presentation of the problem of evil, nor a bait for the problem of unknowable divinity, but a question of moral justification on the part of humanity.

Jungelson(3931) Disputed
1 point

IN GOD WE TRUST sounds like a statement, not a question to me.

1 point

We should put in God We Trust on our money. Without God there wouldn't be a earth or creation of man. We need to put our trust in Him. However if you don't put your trust in Him then that is your fault.

xyze(39) Disputed
3 points

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Keep god/religion out of government.

casper3912(1581) Disputed
2 points

We should put in Eris we Trust on our money. Without Eris there wouldn't be Achilles or the Trojan war. We need to put our trust in her, however if you don't put your trust in her then that is your fault, and you will suffer from this snub.

Not too convincing is it?

1 point

What if we put on "In no god we trust" instead?

Would that be acceptable under the First Amendment? Why not?

.

.

.

^ The answer to that question is why the phrase "In god we trust" should not be endorsed by the US Government. It's really rather simple.

1 point

Oh sorry, didn't you hear...

God is dead.