Moontanman Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 (edited) Once you can assert belief in god as the truth then all limits to behavior are removed. If you believe god says all redheads are evil and should be killed and you think that is the truth and your god demands it then what is to stop you from doing just that? Once you believe something to be the truth with no evidence to back it up then civilization fails. Our entire civilization rests on the premise of the truth being verifiable fact, not something some one believes. Throw that out and anything is possible as long as you believe it. BTW, cosmic consciousness, telepathy? If you don't mind A Tripolation, I'll stop disagreeing with you and concentrate on GIA.... Edited June 24, 2011 by Moontanman
mississippichem Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 For both you and A Tripolation. The cosmic consciousness is accessed through telepathy. Another un-proven concept. Why do I believe my personal experience to have a basis in reality? Because I did it twice. The first time with my wife and the second time with the cosmic consciousness. Without my wife as a witness to the reality of telepathy, I would not give any veracity to my second experience. If either of you think you can somehow make me disbelieve my own senses, and my wife, you are both wrong and spinning your wheels. Regards DL Wait!? Weren't you the guy bashing fundamentalists for believing in talking snakes and burning bushes? You can't be serious, surely you jest. At least some fundamentalists realize that their beliefs are irrational and only faith based. You actually believe that eye witness accounts are worth a damn, and personal [first person] accounts at that. I used to have friends in college that believed in telepathy...its accessed through technique called eating LSD, i.e. it only happens when you are tripping or insane. Your "more skeptical than thou" attitude is quite perplexing given that you believe in telepathy. If you believe in that, why not believe in Satan embodied as a talking serpent 7000 years ago in the garden of Eden? I don't believe either, and I think they are both about on the same order silliness. Another funny thing is that though you bash fundamentalists, you defend your position just like a fundamentalist; by repeating yourself over and over without any real logos. 2
Marat Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 Believers often claim that some special knowledge reveals truths about divinity to them which give them unshakeable confidence in its existence, or some special epistemic capacity, such as telepathy, allows them access to a truth about the cosmos or the divinity which cannot be doubted. Since such experiences are private, there is no way to refute them. However, before they can count as true for me, or as establishing anything as objectively real, they have to meet the publicly agreed upon criteria for objective existence, so their secret manifestation for any given individual doesn't really do anything for the essentially public question of God's existence. But I also wonder why believers are so willing to trust their inner intuitions or special revelations about the divinity, given that we all know that the mind can play tricks on itself. Erotomaniacs are convinced that some causual acquaintance at work is in love with them, and the delusion can seize hold of the erotomaniac's mind in such a way that the normal critical faculties are put out of operation. The same thing could easily be happening with inner convictions assuring people of God's reality. Even the Bible warns that the Devil may appear as an angel to delude us. Generally, the only way we can be sure that some inner intuition or conviction is true is by checking it against evidence in the outside world, not by inspecting the intensity of our inner conviction. If I wake up overwhelmingly convinced that horse number 7 is going to win the first race, that's not a good reason to make a bet, and it certainly doesn't compare with reading in the newspaper the next day which horse actually did win. 1
Moontanman Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 I got news for you Marat all women love me, I know it's true, so far only a few have realized this and for most of them it was a surprisingly short Revelation but I know it's true.... I'm sorry this male bovine excrement is just getting too thick to take seriously....
zapatos Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 Once you can assert belief in god as the truth then all limits to behavior are removed. Are you talking about belief in any God? For example, if you believe in the Christian God then aren't you, say in the case of the 10 commandments, under additional limitations, in addition to any secular limits to behavior? Once you believe something to be the truth with no evidence to back it up then civilization fails. Our entire civilization rests on the premise of the truth being verifiable fact, not something some one believes. Civilization fails? I would think that most civilization developed with most people believing in God with no evidence to back it up. This seems to be a bit of an overstatement. Can you expand on it some?
Greatest I am Posted June 25, 2011 Author Posted June 25, 2011 Once you can assert belief in god as the truth then all limits to behavior are removed. If you believe god says all redheads are evil and should be killed and you think that is the truth and your god demands it then what is to stop you from doing just that? Once you believe something to be the truth with no evidence to back it up then civilization fails. Our entire civilization rests on the premise of the truth being verifiable fact, not something some one believes. Throw that out and anything is possible as long as you believe it. BTW, cosmic consciousness, telepathy? If you don't mind A Tripolation, I'll stop disagreeing with you and concentrate on GIA.... That being the case, I hope you read more cautiously. He said--”I would hope someone would hospitialize me if I convinced myself that telepathy existed.” Right after I tell him that if my wife had not confirmed that telepathy is real, then I would not have given any veracity to my contact with the cosmic consciousness. I did not convince myself. My wife did. Before you have at me, you might want to get the latest from http://www.noetic.org/ I think they are at the forefront of that research at the moment. Regards DL Believers often claim that some special knowledge reveals truths about divinity to them which give them unshakeable confidence in its existence, or some special epistemic capacity, such as telepathy, allows them access to a truth about the cosmos or the divinity which cannot be doubted. Since such experiences are private, there is no way to refute them. However, before they can count as true for me, or as establishing anything as objectively real, they have to meet the publicly agreed upon criteria for objective existence, so their secret manifestation for any given individual doesn't really do anything for the essentially public question of God's existence. But I also wonder why believers are so willing to trust their inner intuitions or special revelations about the divinity, given that we all know that the mind can play tricks on itself. Erotomaniacs are convinced that some causual acquaintance at work is in love with them, and the delusion can seize hold of the erotomaniac's mind in such a way that the normal critical faculties are put out of operation. The same thing could easily be happening with inner convictions assuring people of God's reality. Even the Bible warns that the Devil may appear as an angel to delude us. Generally, the only way we can be sure that some inner intuition or conviction is true is by checking it against evidence in the outside world, not by inspecting the intensity of our inner conviction. If I wake up overwhelmingly convinced that horse number 7 is going to win the first race, that's not a good reason to make a bet, and it certainly doesn't compare with reading in the newspaper the next day which horse actually did win. As stated. Without confirmation, I would not have accepted telepathy as real. You might also remember that I do not consider the cosmic consciousness a deity. It is a part of nature that most just have not found yet. Regards DL
Moontanman Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 That being the case, I hope you read more cautiously. He said--”I would hope someone would hospitialize me if I convinced myself that telepathy existed.” Right after I tell him that if my wife had not confirmed that telepathy is real, then I would not have given any veracity to my contact with the cosmic consciousness. I did not convince myself. My wife did. Before you have at me, you might want to get the latest from http://www.noetic.org/ I think they are at the forefront of that research at the moment. Regards DL So all the evidence you have is your wife confirmed it? Interesting I admit but hardly conformation. The forefront of the research you assert is still sucking hind tit to real science, I'll stick with real science, there are worldwide conferences on creationism too, they release papers in their own journals too, doesn't make it any more likely the Earth is 6,000 years old, it just means a lot of people believe it, belief does not equal evidence. Are you talking about belief in any God? For example, if you believe in the Christian God then aren't you, say in the case of the 10 commandments, under additional limitations, in addition to any secular limits to behavior? I am talking about believing in God instead of reality, if you read the Christian bible you will find very little limits to what can be justified by saying God wanted it to be done. The 10 commandments are a joke when it comes to what god wants, about the only one God will not allow is have no other gods before me, the rest are completely conditional. Civilization fails? I would think that most civilization developed with most people believing in God with no evidence to back it up. This seems to be a bit of an overstatement. Can you expand on it some? We live in the first and only civilization based on science, everything around you is based in science, from the computer you are on right now to the aircraft flying over head to all the food and water, power, medicine, everything that keeps you and me alive. Take away science and billions of people would die within days if not hours. All we have is based in a falsifiable reality, no amount of praying or belief will provide for us unless we want to go back to preindustrial civilization, that would necessitate the removal of most of the people on the earth. Try praying to make the electricity come on, or to make the water flow or to heal the sick, there is a reason no faith healers are employed by hospitals, have faith the sewage system will operate. Our entire world is based on the assumption that we can know reality and it is the same whether or not you believe it is real or not. You cannot pick and choose which parts of our science you want to keep and which parts you do not believe in, your belief no matter how strong will never change reality. Civilization as we know it developed because of science not in spite of it or parallel to it or separate from it, science and the scientific method is why were are here having this conversation, with out it most of us would never have existed to have this debate. Belief is not what our civilization is based on, belief is the greatest threat to our civilization, once you actually believe your god is the only true god and his word as written is the only truth then everything falls into chaos and war and destruction, religions never bring people together, the more than 30,000 Christian sects demonstrate this quite well, they only fractionate into smaller and smaller groups that hate each other because they do not "believe" the correct way. They only believe that if everyone would just believe the way they do then we would all have peace but history shows this to be false, only when religion was gelded by secular governments did civilization prosper and advance, science has done more for humanity in the last 100 years than religion has done in all of history, i think quite it telling that god never once has pointed out antibiotics, or pain medicine, nothing what so ever but hate and division under the disguise of peace and love. Christian fundamentalists are the least of it, far more Muslim and Hindu creationist types are under our radar but just as dangerous, if the creationist mind set ever takes hold in our society we will experience the greatest fall of civilization the world has ever seen, the fall of Rome will be a bad weekend during spring break compared to the number of people who will die if our civilization falls. We cannot allow biblical literalists to take hold of our technology or our civilization, they would use it to end all freedoms as we know them or possibly worse just turn "it" off and let the world die. Now you know how i feel about religion, literally
Brainteaserfan Posted June 26, 2011 Posted June 26, 2011 (edited) So all the evidence you have is your wife confirmed it? Interesting I admit but hardly conformation. The forefront of the research you assert is still sucking hind tit to real science, I'll stick with real science, there are worldwide conferences on creationism too, they release papers in their own journals too, doesn't make it any more likely the Earth is 6,000 years old, it just means a lot of people believe it, belief does not equal evidence. I am talking about believing in God instead of reality, if you read the Christian bible you will find very little limits to what can be justified by saying God wanted it to be done. The 10 commandments are a joke when it comes to what god wants, about the only one God will not allow is have no other gods before me, the rest are completely conditional. We live in the first and only civilization based on science, everything around you is based in science, from the computer you are on right now to the aircraft flying over head to all the food and water, power, medicine, everything that keeps you and me alive. Take away science and billions of people would die within days if not hours. All we have is based in a falsifiable reality, no amount of praying or belief will provide for us unless we want to go back to preindustrial civilization, that would necessitate the removal of most of the people on the earth. Try praying to make the electricity come on, or to make the water flow or to heal the sick, there is a reason no faith healers are employed by hospitals, have faith the sewage system will operate. Our entire world is based on the assumption that we can know reality and it is the same whether or not you believe it is real or not. You cannot pick and choose which parts of our science you want to keep and which parts you do not believe in, your belief no matter how strong will never change reality. Civilization as we know it developed because of science not in spite of it or parallel to it or separate from it, science and the scientific method is why were are here having this conversation, with out it most of us would never have existed to have this debate. Belief is not what our civilization is based on, belief is the greatest threat to our civilization, once you actually believe your god is the only true god and his word as written is the only truth then everything falls into chaos and war and destruction, religions never bring people together, the more than 30,000 Christian sects demonstrate this quite well, they only fractionate into smaller and smaller groups that hate each other because they do not "believe" the correct way. They only believe that if everyone would just believe the way they do then we would all have peace but history shows this to be false, only when religion was gelded by secular governments did civilization prosper and advance, science has done more for humanity in the last 100 years than religion has done in all of history, i think quite it telling that god never once has pointed out antibiotics, or pain medicine, nothing what so ever but hate and division under the disguise of peace and love. Christian fundamentalists are the least of it, far more Muslim and Hindu creationist types are under our radar but just as dangerous, if the creationist mind set ever takes hold in our society we will experience the greatest fall of civilization the world has ever seen, the fall of Rome will be a bad weekend during spring break compared to the number of people who will die if our civilization falls. We cannot allow biblical literalists to take hold of our technology or our civilization, they would use it to end all freedoms as we know them or possibly worse just turn "it" off and let the world die. Now you know how i feel about religion, literally Most Biblical literalists do not disagree with science, but rather support it and its research. They just insert an "except for" clause into all laws that states that God can break the rules of the natural world. I very much support science, but I have experienced something like GIA, and therefore stick with Christianity. However, I admit that it is, in some sense illogical. Why God didn't give us instructions for antibiotics I do not know. Maybe He wanted us to have the joy of discovering them. If He told us everything, I'd think that it wouldn't be so much fun living because we couldn't discover things. People are healed by prayer and anointing though, or maybe it is luck or something. Edit: I do not hate other Christian denominations. I am not a member of any denomination, because I agree, that we should be united, although I do attend 1 denomination. Edited June 26, 2011 by Brainteaserfan
A Tripolation Posted June 26, 2011 Posted June 26, 2011 Right after I tell him that if my wife had not confirmed that telepathy is real, then I would not have given any veracity to my contact with the cosmic consciousness. ...one person is not considered an affirmation by scientific standards. You would have to replicate this, many times, under a controlled, monitored environment. Why God didn't give us instructions for antibiotics I do not know. Maybe He wanted us to have the joy of discovering them. If He told us everything, I'd think that it wouldn't be so much fun living because we couldn't discover things. People are healed by prayer and anointing though, or maybe it is luck or something. Wouldn't be as much fun, eh? Well, those centuries where we didn't have antibiotics, a lot of people died horrible, slow deaths because of a lack of proper medicine. But so long as we get the joy of discovering remedies, I can see how God would justify the suffering of countless people. People are not healed through prayer. It is indeed why hospitals do not employ faith healers. Because it's all nonsense. Belief is not what our civilization is based on, belief is the greatest threat to our civilization, While I agree with most of what you say, I think you take it too far. Theism has been around in some form or another for thousands of years. The world has continued to develop.
Brainteaserfan Posted June 26, 2011 Posted June 26, 2011 ...one person is not considered an affirmation by scientific standards. You would have to replicate this, many times, under a controlled, monitored environment. Wouldn't be as much fun, eh? Well, those centuries where we didn't have antibiotics, a lot of people died horrible, slow deaths because of a lack of proper medicine. But so long as we get the joy of discovering remedies, I can see how God would justify the suffering of countless people. People are not healed through prayer. It is indeed why hospitals do not employ faith healers. Because it's all nonsense. While I agree with most of what you say, I think you take it too far. Theism has been around in some form or another for thousands of years. The world has continued to develop. From a scientific standpoint, I would agree that it is nonsense. However, having witnessed it, I believe that it isn't. If you were God, how would you carry out population control?
A Tripolation Posted June 26, 2011 Posted June 26, 2011 From a scientific standpoint, I would agree that it is nonsense. However, having witnessed it, I believe that it isn't. Then you should go have that person go to hospitals and cure all the people of their terminable illnesses. If you were God, how would you carry out population control? If I were God, I would have dealt with the loneliness and spared billions of people a life of agony and suffering on this Earth. Or I would have at least created a perfect world. Not this one plagued with evil. 1
pwagen Posted June 26, 2011 Posted June 26, 2011 Are you talking about belief in any God? For example, if you believe in the Christian God then aren't you, say in the case of the 10 commandments, under additional limitations, in addition to any secular limits to behavior? Even the ten commandments wouldn't stop christians from killing. I'd hate to drag up the inquisition, the crusades and the witch trials, but there are also examples of this in the Bible. Look at the story of Moses. What did he do after he got the 10 commandments, one of which is "You shouldn't kill people"? The Amorites were a non-Hebrew Canaanic people who once held power in the Fertile Crescent. When Moses asks the Amorites for passage and it is refused, Moses attacks the Amorites (as non-Hebrews, the Israelites have no reservations in attacking them), presumably weakened by conflict with the Moabites, and defeats them. Just a little bit later: The Midianites sent beautiful women to the Israelite camp to seduce the young men to partake in idolatry, and the attempt proved successful.[58] God then commanded Moses to kill and hang the heads of everyone that had engaged in idolatry, and Moses ordered the judges to carry out the mass execution. After Moses had taken a census of the people, he sent an army to avenge the perceived evil brought on the Israelites by the Midianites. Numbers 31 says Moses instructed the Israelite soldiers to kill every Midianite woman, boy, and non-virgin girl, although virgin girls were shared amongst the soldiers. Quotes from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses As you can see, the 10 commandments is definitely not something that would stop jews (and in extension christians, as they share the same scripture) from killing, raping and plundering, if they believed it was ordered by their god. These examples are things that allegedly happened straight after the jews were told they shouldn't kill. It's not like they had time to forget what the stone tablets said. 2
Brainteaserfan Posted June 26, 2011 Posted June 26, 2011 Even the ten commandments wouldn't stop christians from killing. I'd hate to drag up the inquisition, the crusades and the witch trials, but there are also examples of this in the Bible. Look at the story of Moses. What did he do after he got the 10 commandments, one of which is "You shouldn't kill people"? Just a little bit later: Quotes from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses As you can see, the 10 commandments is definitely not something that would stop jews (and in extension christians, as they share the same scripture) from killing, raping and plundering, if they believed it was ordered by their god. These examples are things that allegedly happened straight after the jews were told they shouldn't kill. It's not like they had time to forget what the stone tablets said.[/size][/font] I think that that commandment is a translation difficulty. In many Bibles, the word kill is translated murder. Even in the KJV, where the word used in Exodus is kill, in Matthew 19:18, where the rich young man came to Jesus, this is translated as murder. According to dictionary.com murder is: mur·der [mur-der] - noun 1. unlawful intentional killing - verb (used with object) 2. to kill unlawfully and deliberately - Related Forms self-mur·dered- adjective self-mur·der- noun Since the Israelites laws were whatever God told them, then it was lawful, and thus justified in their eyes. Matthew 19:18 18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Marat Posted June 26, 2011 Posted June 26, 2011 Modern criminal law distinguishes 'homicide,' which refers to any killing of a human being, whether lawful or not, from 'murder,' which is an illegal killing of a human being. Many killings of people are legal, such as in war, in self-defense, while acting under the defense of necessity, while acting under certain circumstances in the course of law enforcement, etc. Similarly, the Biblical text of 'thou shalt not kill' is said to be most accurately translated into English as 'thou shalt not commit a murderous act,' which does allow for some killing of human beings. But still, the general point seems to stand, which is that the genocidal actions that Moses commits against all the Semitic tribes standing between the Jewish people and their intended homeland are immoral by any ethical standard, so it seems monstrous to worship an imaginary entity who would command such things. 1
Moontanman Posted June 26, 2011 Posted June 26, 2011 (edited) While I agree with most of what you say, I think you take it too far. Theism has been around in some form or another for thousands of years. The world has continued to develop. Progress was quite modest until secular governments gelded religion and secured the rights of humans over the word of god, only then did we begin to progress and only after the scientific method was worked out did we really start to progress at a rate comparable to what we see now. I may be slightly over the top with my assessment but I take full responsibility for what I say and in no way demean anyone who wants to believe and allow others to believe their own way a idea that was conceived by man and the right to do so is BTW the result of mans laws not god's. BTW if god is the supreme being of anything i have to admit he is the supreme being of fairness, "he/she/it" unambiguously ignores everyone with complete fairness. Edited June 26, 2011 by Moontanman
A Tripolation Posted June 26, 2011 Posted June 26, 2011 Since the Israelites laws were whatever God told them, then it was lawful, and thus justified in their eyes. What do you think happened to the virgin girls that were to be "shared" with the soldiers? Do you really think it was consensual in any way? This happened many times in the OT. The Israelites would take the young woman for themselves. Does that mean God excused rape? Or, since they were God's people, the rape was ok? 1
zapatos Posted June 26, 2011 Posted June 26, 2011 (edited) Even the ten commandments wouldn't stop christians from killing. I'd hate to drag up the inquisition, the crusades and the witch trials, but there are also examples of this in the Bible. Look at the story of Moses. What did he do after he got the 10 commandments, one of which is "You shouldn't kill people"? ... As you can see, the 10 commandments is definitely not something that would stop jews (and in extension christians, as they share the same scripture) from killing, raping and plundering, if they believed it was ordered by their god. These examples are things that allegedly happened straight after the jews were told they shouldn't kill. It's not like they had time to forget what the stone tablets said.[/size][/font] Even the US and state Constitutions wouldn't stop citizens from killing. I'd hate to drag up gangs and mass murderers, but there are also examples of these in US history. I never claimed the 10 commandments would stop Jews from killing. I simply said they were additional limits on behavior. There will always be people who do not follow any given set of rules. However, let's not fool ourselves into believing that secular law will control all behavior either. I may be slightly over the top with my assessment but I take full responsibility for what I say and in no way demean anyone who wants to believe and allow others to believe their own way a idea that was conceived by man and the right to do so is BTW the result of mans laws not god's. Interestingly enough (in regards to the US), none of those men were atheists. And given the large number of religious affiliations it is no surprise that they created the right to religious freedom. They never would have reached consensus without it. ...there are 204 unique individuals in this group of "Founding Fathers." These are the people who did one or more of the following: - signed the Declaration of Independence - signed the Articles of Confederation - attended the Constitutional Convention of 1787 - signed the Constitution of the United States of America - served as Senators in the First Federal Congress (1789-1791) - served as U.S. Representatives in the First Federal Congress The religious affiliations of these individuals are summarized below. Obviously this is a very restrictive set of names, and does not include everyone who could be considered an "American Founding Father." But most of the major figures that people generally think of in this context are included using these criteria, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Hancock, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and more. Religious Affiliation of U.S. Founding Fathers -- # of Founding Fathers -- % of Founding Fathers Episcopalian/Anglican -- 88 -- 54.7% Presbyterian-- 30-- 18.6% Congregationalist-- 27-- 16.8% Quaker-- 7 --4.3% Dutch Reformed/German Reformed-- 6 --3.7% Lutheran-- 5-- 3.1% Catholic-- 3-- 1.9% Huguenot --3 --1.9% Unitarian-- 3 --1.9% Methodist-- 2 --1.2% Calvinist-- 1 --0.6% TOTAL-- 204 http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html Edited June 26, 2011 by zapatos
Brainteaserfan Posted June 26, 2011 Posted June 26, 2011 Even the US and state Constitutions wouldn't stop citizens from killing. I'd hate to drag up gangs and mass murderers, but there are also examples of these in US history. I never claimed the 10 commandments would stop Jews from killing. I simply said they were additional limits on behavior. There will always be people who do not follow any given set of rules. However, let's not fool ourselves into believing that secular law will control all behavior either. Interestingly enough (in regards to the US), none of those men were atheists. And given the large number of religious affiliations it is no surprise that they created the right to religious freedom. They never would have reached consensus without it. http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html Neat! However, it's interesting that 54% were Anglican. I'd expect different denominations that disagreed more with the Church of England. I'd also have expected one or two atheists.
Moontanman Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 (edited) So we are going to do dueling links to information? All I can say is the link saying the founding fathers were Christian was... shall we say, less than objective? It's a religious site that promotes, can we all say it together, religion of all things How about this one? http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html or this one http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html or this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism we could do this all day or we could read the constitution and see what it says about religion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_the_United_States The United States of America is not a Christian Country in any sense of the word and is in fact prohibited by law from promoting any religion, I think that many of the religious nuts in our country should think about this very carefully because who is to say that if indeed this country or any country for that matter does indeed promote the Christian religion who is to say it will be their particular brand of Christianity the Government endorses Edited June 27, 2011 by Moontanman
Brainteaserfan Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 So we are going to do dueling links to information? All I can say is the link saying the founding fathers were Christian was... shall we say, less than objective? It's a religious site that promotes, can we all say it together, religion of all things How about this one? http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html or this one http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html or this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism we could do this all day or we could read the constitution and see what it says about religion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_the_United_States The United States of America is not a Christian Country in any sense of the word and is in fact prohibited by law from promoting any religion, I think that many of the religious nuts in our country should think about this very carefully because who is to say that if indeed this country or any country for that matter does indeed promote the Christian religion who is to say it will be their particular brand of Christianity the Government endorses Actually, the US is not prohibited by law from promoting a religion. The founding documents guarantee freedom of religion, which is completely different from not lawfully promoting Christianity. In recent revisions of the pledge of allegiance, God is mentioned "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." and in founding documents http://blog.mlive.com/citpat_opinion/2007/11/founding_documents_do_mention.html?mobRedir=false
zapatos Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 So we are going to do dueling links to information? All I can say is the link saying the founding fathers were Christian was... shall we say, less than objective? It's a religious site that promotes, can we all say it together, religion of all things How about this one? http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html or this one http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html or this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism we could do this all day or we could read the constitution and see what it says about religion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_the_United_States The United States of America is not a Christian Country in any sense of the word and is in fact prohibited by law from promoting any religion, I think that many of the religious nuts in our country should think about this very carefully because who is to say that if indeed this country or any country for that matter does indeed promote the Christian religion who is to say it will be their particular brand of Christianity the Government endorses Ok, so I opened your first link and found this: None of the Founding Fathers were atheists. So which is correct? My site, that said none of the founding fathers were atheists? Or your site, that said none of the founding fathers were atheists? I'm afraid I don't see your point.
Moontanman Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 (edited) Actually, the US is not prohibited by law from promoting a religion. The founding documents guarantee freedom of religion, which is completely different from not lawfully promoting Christianity. In recent revisions of the pledge of allegiance, God is mentioned "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." and in founding documents http://blog.mlive.com/citpat_opinion/2007/11/founding_documents_do_mention.html?mobRedir=false So any mention of God is automatically the Christian god? In what reality do you live? What about the Lord Krishna? or Allah, or any of the the other to numerous to count, gods goddesses and various deities made up by and asserted as absolute truth by so many people it becomes silly to argue the point gods? BTW i think that the addition of in god we trust on money and the addition of under god in the pledge is illegal and immoral due to the both the notion of promoting any one god over another and for the immoral reasons it was done, by McCarthy era red herring hunters.... Ok, so I opened your first link and found this: So which is correct? My site, that said none of the founding fathers were atheists? Or your site, that said none of the founding fathers were atheists? I'm afraid I don't see your point. I was afraid you wouldn't see my point and your assertion that any of my links said the founding fathers were atheists is indeed incorrect, they were deists, not atheists, the idea that any one who doesn't agree with your assessment of god is an atheist is indeed one of the prime lies promoted by creationists and really dishonest as all creationist apologetics are. Neat! However, it's interesting that 54% were Anglican. I'd expect different denominations that disagreed more with the Church of England. I'd also have expected one or two atheists. In the time frame of the American founding fathers to assert you were an Atheist would have been quite unhealthy and dangerous for any individual brave enough to assert such a thing. think about the time you are talking about, it hadn't been far too long since witches were burned and Catholics hanged, an atheist would have been low hanging fruit to say the least Edited June 27, 2011 by Moontanman
Brainteaserfan Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 So any mention of God is automatically the Christian god? In what reality do you live? What about the Lord Krishna? or Allah, or any of the the other to numerous to count, gods goddesses and various deities made up by and asserted as absolute truth by so many people it becomes silly to argue the point gods? BTW i think that the addition of in god we trust on money and the addition of under god in the pledge is illegal and immoral due to the both the notion of promoting any one god over another and for the immoral reasons it was done, by McCarthy era red herring hunters.... I was afraid you wouldn't see my point and your assertion that any of my links said the founding fathers were atheists is indeed incorrect, they were deists, not atheists, the idea that any one who doesn't agree with your assessment of god is an atheist is indeed one of the prime lies promoted by creationists and really dishonest as all creationist apologetics are. In the time frame of the American founding fathers to assert you were an Atheist would have been quite unhealthy and dangerous for any individual brave enough to assert such a thing. think about the time you are talking about, it hadn't been far too long since witches were burned and Catholics hanged, an atheist would have been low hanging fruit to say the least If 100% of those who wrote the founding documents claimed to be Christian, then don't you think that they might just be referring to the Christian God?
zapatos Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 I was afraid you wouldn't see my point and your assertion that any of my links said the founding fathers were atheists is indeed incorrect, they were deists, not atheists, the idea that any one who doesn't agree with your assessment of god is an atheist is indeed one of the prime lies promoted by creationists and really dishonest as all creationist apologetics are. I think you need to reread my post. I said: So which is correct? My site, that said none of the founding fathers were atheists? Or your site, that said none of the founding fathers were atheists? ...the idea that any one who doesn't agree with your assessment of god is an atheist is indeed one of the prime lies promoted by creationists ... Again, I must have missed it. Where have I or anyone else said anything about what my assessment of God is, much less that someone who disagrees with it is an atheist? Oh, or is this statement just because of the misunderstanding of what I said originally?
Moontanman Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 (edited) I think you need to reread my post. I said: Again, I must have missed it. Where have I or anyone else said anything about what my assessment of God is, much less that someone who disagrees with it is an atheist? Oh, or is this statement just because of the misunderstanding of what I said originally? I think you need to reread my post. I said: Again, I must have missed it. Where have I or anyone else said anything about what my assessment of God is, much less that someone who disagrees with it is an atheist? Oh, or is this statement just because of the misunderstanding of what I said originally? Ok, i apologize, i did indeed misread your statement but the fact remains that theist and deist are not the same thing and fact no Christian by definition can be a deist. Are both of you really trying to assert that your particular take on the mythology of theism is absolute truth and therefore really suitable for being required or even supported by a government that is based on freedom of religion? If you are then there is no more room for discussion, your path leads to an intellectual black hole from which nothing returns. If 100% of those who wrote the founding documents claimed to be Christian, then don't you think that they might just be referring to the Christian God? No, many of them claimed to be deists and by definition cannot be Christians. Edited June 27, 2011 by Moontanman
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now