| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
25 Dec 2005 11:41:00 PM |
| Object: |
God loves those atheists |
Fresh from triumphs over the evil Boy Scouts and school prayer, the ACLU is
moving on to have Atheism, the faith of Michael Newdow, established as our
national religion. Newdow is trying to get "under God" out of the pledge of
allegiance and "In God We Trust" off our money. Also they are working to
remove every symbol of the Christian religion, such as Christmas trees, from
public property.
They are correct that the Constitution forbids the state from favoring one
religious faith over another. But my dictionary defines "faith" as a "firm
belief in something for which there is no proof." That makes Atheism a
religion; Atheists can no more prove there is no god than other religions
can prove there is. Yet they firmly believe there is none.
There lies the problem: While other religions may exhibit their faith in God
with a cross, crescent or menorah, Atheists demonstrate their faith that
there is no god by displaying nothing. Consequently, when judges remove all
other religious symbols from public property, the space is filled with
nothing the symbol of only one faith ... Atheism.
To avoid violating the Constitution, we need to fill public spaces with all
religious symbols crosses, Christmas trees, menorahs, crescents and ... some
empty space for Atheists. Atheist children could, while others pray, think
nothing.
To be fair, I must note that I am a Christian. But I also find the Jews' Ten
Commandments pretty good guidance to try to live by. And Christmas,
celebrating the life of a Jew who preached decency, goodness, kindness,
forgiveness and generosity, can't be all bad. It brings so much joy to so
many.
Atheists offer in exchange, well, nothing. Nevertheless, according to
Christians, God loves them anyway.
.
|
|
| User: "Paul Duca" |
|
| Title: Re: God loves those atheists |
26 Dec 2005 04:12:31 PM |
|
|
And we know how useful God's love is...
Paul
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: God loves those atheists |
31 Dec 2005 12:50:13 AM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
Fresh from triumphs over the evil Boy Scouts and school prayer, the ACLU is
moving on to have Atheism, the faith of Michael Newdow, established as our
national religion. Newdow is trying to get "under God" out of the pledge of
allegiance and "In God We Trust" off our money. Also they are working to
remove every symbol of the Christian religion, such as Christmas trees, from
public property.
Consipracy theory.
I might add that "under God" should not be in the "pledge of
allegiance" under the current administration, and "Scams R us" should
replace "In God We Trust". This isn't a religious issue. It is
"truth in advertising."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Parsifal" |
|
| Title: Re: God loves those atheists |
26 Dec 2005 03:48:41 AM |
|
|
*That makes Atheism a
*religion; Atheists can no more prove there is no god than other
religions
*can prove there is. Yet they firmly believe there is none.
As it been said numerous times in this newsgroup: atheism isn't a
belief, it's an absence of belief. Is baldness a hair style? Is not
collecting stamps a hobby?
Again, J Young, why do you care so much about what people believe into
or do not believe into? Why don't you care about your own self: there's
space for improvement, believe me!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: God loves those atheists |
26 Dec 2005 10:30:45 AM |
|
|
"Parsifal" <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135590520.958735.148450@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
*That makes Atheism a
*religion; Atheists can no more prove there is no god than other
religions
*can prove there is. Yet they firmly believe there is none.
As it been said numerous times in this newsgroup: atheism isn't a
belief, it's an absence of belief. Is baldness a hair style? Is not
collecting stamps a hobby?
Again, J Young, why do you care so much about what people believe into
or do not believe into? Why don't you care about your own self: there's
space for improvement, believe me!
Unfortunately very few people understand logic. You can't prove a negative.
You can't 'prove' Santa does not exist. You can only conclude it is logical
to
assume Santa does not exist because there is NO OBJECTIVE VERIFIABLE
EVIDENCE
for his existence. The same logic applies to gods.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: God loves those atheists |
26 Dec 2005 03:37:20 PM |
|
|
Bill wrote:
"Parsifal" <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135590520.958735.148450@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
*That makes Atheism a
*religion; Atheists can no more prove there is no god than other
religions
*can prove there is. Yet they firmly believe there is none.
As it been said numerous times in this newsgroup: atheism isn't a
belief, it's an absence of belief. Is baldness a hair style? Is not
collecting stamps a hobby?
Again, J Young, why do you care so much about what people believe
into or do not believe into? Why don't you care about your own
self: there's space for improvement, believe me!
Unfortunately very few people understand logic. You can't prove a
negative.
You can't 'prove' Santa does not exist. You can only conclude it is
logical to
assume Santa does not exist because there is NO OBJECTIVE VERIFIABLE
EVIDENCE
for his existence. The same logic applies to gods.
----
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and consciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truly independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the
only such god, that he is is immortal and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truly necessary, except
those that can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above.
A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a
definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are not important here.
Christianity claims one may attain salvation
only through Jesus, Islam claims the Christian
dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous.
Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a
personal, creator, omni-everything god. I have
coined a term, The Grand God of Grand Theologies
for this sort of god, this sort of theological
system of expansive claims for god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have
adopted this class of god as their basic
attributes concerning the nature of god. But it
is important to remember here that what is being
discussed here is a class of gods, not particular
gods or specific gods.
THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
their basic definitions of what god is at god's
most basic level.
A big problem with this class of gods is, it
collapses rather easily into internal self-
contradiction.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or
omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes
back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is
still popular, and is championed most notably
today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by other
theologians.
God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do
evil. Ability to do evil is less evil than
lacking free will.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
this good nature is not allowed to count
against god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count
against man's free will than it does for god's
free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will
and god does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free
will, thus free will is not a true necessity
at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and
can give man a god like free will and a
god-like good nature incapable of moral evil,
god must do so or god is not moral, not
omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist, or it does and we can
have a god like free will and a god like good
nature. Either way, free will cannot explain away
the existence of evil. This free will defense
then, is a failed argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god. In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.
The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is
incoherent and contradictory as a theory.
THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defense, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man. All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
necessary.
Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims
and viability of an entire class of possible
gods,
all secondary and tertiary claims for such a god
of
this class also fail, as do dogmas or secondary
or tertiary claims.
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined,
specific gods cannot, nor can claims such as this
or that Grand God sent this or that revelation to
man or some prophet or did this or that.
God is thus disproven and is utter irrelevant
to anything real and existant.
***********
--
Wassail, Happy Holidays, Merry Solstice, Happy
Saturnalia, mull the wine and pass the eggnog.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Arthur" |
|
| Title: Re: God loves those atheists |
26 Dec 2005 07:59:24 AM |
|
|
"Parsifal" <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135590520.958735.148450@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
*That makes Atheism a
*religion; Atheists can no more prove there is no god than other
religions
*can prove there is. Yet they firmly believe there is none.
I know that no human being exists or existed who is 50 meters (about 150
feet) tall. Do I need to prove this in order for this to be true?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Arthur" |
|
| Title: Re: God loves those atheists |
26 Dec 2005 01:08:43 PM |
|
|
Bitter Debate Over 'Birthright Citizenship'
Published: 12/26/05, 1:25 PM EDT
NEW YORK (AP) - A proposal to change long-standing federal policy and deny
citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants on U.S. soil ran aground
this month in Congress, but it is sure to resurface - kindling bitter debate
even if it fails to become law.
At issue is "birthright citizenship" - provided for since the Constitution's
14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.
Section 1 of that amendment, drafted with freed slaves in mind, says: "All
persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
Some conservatives in Congress, as well as advocacy groups seeking to crack
down on illegal immigration, say the amendment has been misapplied over the
years, that it was never intended to grant citizenship automatically to
babies of illegal immigrants. Thus they contend that federal legislation,
rather than a difficult-to-achieve constitutional amendment, would be
sufficient to end birthright citizenship.
With more than 70 co-sponsors, Georgia Republican Rep. Nathan Deal tried to
include a revocation of birthright citizenship in an immigration bill passed
by the House in mid-December. GOP House leaders did not let the proposal
come to a vote.
"Most Americans feel it doesn't make any sense for people to come into the
country illegally, give birth and have a new U.S. citizen," said Ira Mehlman
of the Federation of American Immigration Reform, which backs Deal's
proposal. "But the advocates for illegal immigrants will make a fuss;
they'll claim you're punishing the children, and I suspect the leadership
doesn't want to deal with that."
Deal has said he will continue pushing the issue, describing birthright
citizenship as "a huge magnet" attracting illegal immigrants. He cited
estimates - challenged by immigrant advocates - that roughly 10 percent of
births in the United States, or close to 400,000 a year, are babies born to
illegal immigrants.
"It's an issue that we are very concerned about," said Michele Waslin,
director of immigration policy research for the National Council of La Raza,
a Hispanic advocacy organization that opposes any effort to revoke
birthright citizenship.
"This was always seen in the past as some extreme, wacko proposal that never
goes anywhere," she said. "But these so-called wacko proposals are becoming
more and more mainstream - it's becoming more acceptable to have a
discussion about it."
Alvaro Huerta of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles
said his organization opposes Deal's proposal and is girding for a battle
for public opinion.
"This is red meat for conservatives," he said. "They throw out these issues
they know aren't winning issues, and they create an environment of
anti-immigrant sentiment. We need to do better job of educating people why
it's wrong."
According to a survey last month by Rasmussen Reports, a nonpartisan public
opinion research firm, 49 percent of Americans favor ending birthright
citizenship, and 41 percent favor keeping it. The margin of error was plus
or minus 4 percentage points.
Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., a leading proponent of tougher measures to stop
illegal immigration, believes public opinion could shift further in favor of
Deal's measure.
"Any issue that has a `damn right' response, you can go with," Tancredo
said. "You ask if we should stop illegal immigrants from coming onto this
country and having a baby here who is an American citizen, and most people
say, `Damn right.'"
However, Tancredo acknowledged that Deal's measure faces major obstacles.
Though he believes the House GOP leadership will eventually allow the
proposal to come to a vote, Tancredo said it could flounder in the Senate or
draw a veto from President Bush, who has sought to steer a middle course on
some immigration issues.
The best strategy, Tancredo suggested, might be to avoid presenting the
measure as a separate, stand-alone bill and instead add it to a broader
piece of legislation that the Senate could not disregard.
Tancredo, Deal and others have noted that the United States is among the
relatively few wealthy nations that allow birthright citizenship.
However, Lucas Guttentag, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's
Immigrants' Rights Project, said some Western European nations with
different policies have suffered problems.
"Look at Germany - the children of guest workers are not citizens," he said.
"That creates enormous social and racial tensions. That's the opposite of
where we want to go."
Guttentag also said the federal courts would probably strike down any
measure that challenged the 14th Amendment's citizenship guarantees.
"It's a far-fetched, fundamentally misguided and unconstitutional proposal,"
he said. "It's not the kind of proposal that gets taken seriously by those
who actually want to grapple with immigration issues."
Some critics of current policy refer to U.S.-born children of illegal
immigrants as "anchor babies" because - when they reach adulthood - they can
sponsor their parents for legal permanent residency. Immigrants-rights
groups say the number of such cases is smaller than critics allege, but
authoritative statistics are scarce.
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:FradnblqNcT6HzLeRVn-jQ@giganews.com...
Fresh from triumphs over the evil Boy Scouts and school prayer, the ACLU
is
moving on to have Atheism, the faith of Michael Newdow, established as our
national religion. Newdow is trying to get "under God" out of the pledge
of
allegiance and "In God We Trust" off our money. Also they are working to
remove every symbol of the Christian religion, such as Christmas trees,
from
public property.
They are correct that the Constitution forbids the state from favoring one
religious faith over another. But my dictionary defines "faith" as a "firm
belief in something for which there is no proof." That makes Atheism a
religion; Atheists can no more prove there is no god than other religions
can prove there is. Yet they firmly believe there is none.
There lies the problem: While other religions may exhibit their faith in
God
with a cross, crescent or menorah, Atheists demonstrate their faith that
there is no god by displaying nothing. Consequently, when judges remove
all
other religious symbols from public property, the space is filled with
nothing the symbol of only one faith ... Atheism.
To avoid violating the Constitution, we need to fill public spaces with
all
religious symbols crosses, Christmas trees, menorahs, crescents and ...
some
empty space for Atheists. Atheist children could, while others pray, think
nothing.
To be fair, I must note that I am a Christian. But I also find the Jews'
Ten
Commandments pretty good guidance to try to live by. And Christmas,
celebrating the life of a Jew who preached decency, goodness, kindness,
forgiveness and generosity, can't be all bad. It brings so much joy to so
many.
Atheists offer in exchange, well, nothing. Nevertheless, according to
Christians, God loves them anyway.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: God loves those atheists |
26 Dec 2005 03:06:33 PM |
|
|
In <vaXrf.4874$dZ1.461@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, "Frank Arthur"
<Art@Arthurian.com> wrote:
Bitter Debate Over 'Birthright Citizenship'
Published: 12/26/05, 1:25 PM EDT
NEW YORK (AP) - A proposal to change long-standing federal policy and deny
citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants on U.S. soil ran aground
this month in Congress, but it is sure to resurface - kindling bitter
debate even if it fails to become law.
Yeah, let's let the current admin tamper with citizenship. *That'll turn
out well...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
So much for that "storm of the century" excuse
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A3992495C
NO held hostage by oil corporations,
ANWR demanded as ransom
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J5C92195C
White House balks at spending on US citizens,
needs more billions for Iraq!
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D93595C
(Tell me again how much we spent bailing out the S&Ls?)
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Watch Dog" |
|
| Title: Re: God loves those atheists |
26 Dec 2005 12:36:04 AM |
|
|
I can't get all exercised over "In God We Trust" being on our money,
although I don't think it was ever a good idea (for the country OR for
God - it's an insult to pretend that God has any particular attachment
to our money). And I'm not an atheist.
But I quite dislike bad, illogical, poorly thought-out arguments like J
Young's.
If our money says "In God We Trust," that is the state backing a
religious point of view. If the money were changed to read "These Is No
God," that would be the state backing an atheist point of view - also a
no-no.
But if our money has neither slogan on it, then the state is backing
neither a theist nor an atheist point of view. It is deciding that the
state, and particuarly our money, is not where these issues are
supposed to be decided.
If you're going around yelling "God Deosn't Exist!!!", then you're
pushing an atheist point of view ("down everyone's throat," to complete
the cliche). But if you just stand around quietly, you're not pushing
an atheist point of view, and may not even be an atheist. Not all
theists feel the need to proclaim their relgious views on their
bumpers, their clothes, or their money.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: God loves those atheists |
26 Dec 2005 06:37:43 AM |
|
|
In News FradnblqNcT6HzLeRVn-jQ@giganews.com,, J Young at
youngopinions@aol.com, typed this:
Fresh from triumphs over the evil Boy Scouts and school prayer, the
ACLU is moving on to have Atheism, the faith of Michael Newdow,
established as our national religion.
*****.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. – Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: God loves those atheists |
26 Dec 2005 10:44:04 AM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
<Snip>
They are correct that the Constitution forbids the state from favoring one
religious faith over another.
That would be true if the Constitution said, "Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of *a* religion..."
But the First Amendment doesn't say that. It says "Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
That means the Constitutions forbids the state from favoring religion,
period, as in from endorsing, supporting, encouraging religion in
general.
<Snip> The rest.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: God loves those atheists |
26 Dec 2005 03:36:41 PM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
Fresh from triumphs over the evil Boy Scouts and school prayer, the
ACLU is moving on to have Atheism, the faith of Michael Newdow,
established as our national religion. Newdow is trying to get "under
God" out of the pledge of allegiance and "In God We Trust" off our
money. Also they are working to remove every symbol of the Christian
religion, such as Christmas trees, from public property.
Hope he succeeds. We don't need no stupid
superstitions any more.
And you xians need to stop breaking the commanments of Jesus.
Matthew 5:33-7
33 "Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time,
Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord
thine oaths:
34 "But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is
God's throne:
35 "Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem;
for it is the city of the great King.
36 "Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make
one hair white or black.
37 "But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever
is more than these cometh of evil.
They are correct that the Constitution forbids the state from
favoring one religious faith over another. But my dictionary defines
"faith" as a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof."
That makes Atheism a religion; Atheists can no more prove there is
no god than other religions can prove there is. Yet they firmly
believe there is none.
There lies the problem: While other religions may exhibit their
faith in God with a cross, crescent or menorah, Atheists demonstrate
their faith that there is no god by displaying nothing.
Consequently, when judges remove all other religious symbols from
public property, the space is filled with nothing the symbol of only
one faith ... Atheism.
To avoid violating the Constitution, we need to fill public spaces
with all religious symbols crosses, Christmas trees, menorahs,
crescents and ... some empty space for Atheists. Atheist children
could, while others pray, think nothing.
To be fair, I must note that I am a Christian. But I also find the
Jews' Ten Commandments pretty good guidance to try to live by. And
Christmas, celebrating the life of a Jew who preached decency,
goodness, kindness, forgiveness and generosity, can't be all bad. It
brings so much joy to so many.
Atheists offer in exchange, well, nothing. Nevertheless, according
to Christians, God loves them anyway.
--
Wassail, Happy Holidays, Merry Solstice, Happy
Saturnalia, mull the wine and pass the eggnog.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian" |
|
| Title: Re: God loves those atheists |
25 Dec 2005 11:59:36 PM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
Fresh from triumphs over the evil Boy Scouts and school prayer, the ACLU
is moving on to have Atheism, the faith of Michael Newdow, established as
our national religion.
PRATTs anyone?
...they are
working to remove every symbol of the Christian religion, such as
Christmas trees, from public property.
Like where for example? No anecdotal evidence fundie brat. Present facts.
...my dictionary defines "faith" as a "firm
belief in something for which there is no proof."
No decent dictionary provides such a definition. Newsflash fundie brat:
Lying, according to your holy book, will get you to Hell.
To be fair, I must note that I am a Christian.
Another lie. Fundie brat is no christian but a jebus cultist, a braindead
zealot. To claim that fundie brat is a christian is an insult to countless
millions of _non-zealous_ rational christians worldwide.
But I also find the Jews'
Ten Commandments pretty good guidance to try to live by.
Fundie brat admits that it is a peril to society and human welfare. "Kill
all unbelievers and never forget to sacrifice your monster gawd", that is
what it admits to adhere to (Ex 34).
Lock it up. If it resists, shoot it. All for the common good.
And Christmas...
...can't be all bad. It brings so much joy to so
many.
Argumentum ad populum fallacy.
By the same "reasoning", christianity must be false as the majority of
people don't believe in it. Oops.
Atheists offer in exchange, well, nothing. Nevertheless, according to
Christians, God loves them anyway.
The final lie of this posting. Remember how fundie brat admitted above that
it adheres to the "kill all unbelievers" commandments? So what is it - does
fundie brat willingly ***** in the face of its gawd, or is this gawd the
opposite of loving (according to the wholly babble it is indeed a sadistic
monster...)?
Summary: The usual worthless lies and ***** preaching. Another fundie
provides damn good arguments to forget its cult.
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove,
And gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer,
And fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
Why I am not a christian:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus/nojebus
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: God loves those atheists |
26 Dec 2005 08:30:27 AM |
|
|
"Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian" <MAILTOcommoner@carcosa.de> wrote in message
news:doo0s8$ogd$1@online.de...
J Young wrote:
Fresh from triumphs over the evil Boy Scouts and school prayer, the ACLU
is moving on to have Atheism, the faith of Michael Newdow, established as
our national religion.
PRATTs anyone?
Hey! What do my parents have to do with it?!?!?!
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: God loves those atheists |
26 Dec 2005 09:54:21 AM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
Fresh from triumphs over the evil Boy Scouts and school prayer, the ACLU is
moving on to have Atheism, the faith of Michael Newdow, established as our
national religion. Newdow is trying to get "under God" out of the pledge of
allegiance and "In God We Trust" off our money
Good for him. In a country with separation of church and state, the
government can NOT promote one religion over another so having those
references to a deity in the pledge and on the money is unconstitutional
IMHO. Besides, those were only added in the 50's [IIRC] when the "cold
war" against the "godless commies" was in full swing. Time to go back
to the original versions which made no mention of a deity.
<snip>
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: God loves those atheists |
26 Dec 2005 03:41:56 PM |
|
|
L. Michael Roberts wrote:
J Young wrote:
Fresh from triumphs over the evil Boy Scouts and school prayer, the
ACLU is moving on to have Atheism, the faith of Michael Newdow,
established as our national religion. Newdow is trying to get
"under God" out of the pledge of allegiance and "In God We Trust"
off our money
Good for him. In a country with separation of church and state, the
government can NOT promote one religion over another so having those
references to a deity in the pledge and on the money is
unconstitutional
IMHO. Besides, those were only added in the 50's [IIRC] when the
"cold
war" against the "godless commies" was in full swing. Time to go
back to the original versions which made no mention of a deity.
<snip>
Never thought of it that way, if we say "In god we trust" we exclude
those who believe in many gods, neo-pagans, some American Indians,
Hindus et al.
To pass Constitutional muster, the motto on money should read "In the
gods we trust". Its obviously pro-monotheistic otherwise and thus
illegal as it excludes some kinds of religion in favor of others.
--
Wassail, Happy Holidays, Merry Solstice, Happy
Saturnalia, mull the wine and pass the eggnog.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: God loves those atheists |
27 Dec 2005 12:13:14 AM |
|
|
wbarwell wrote:
L. Michael Roberts wrote:
J Young wrote:
Fresh from triumphs over the evil Boy Scouts and school prayer, the
ACLU is moving on to have Atheism, the faith of Michael Newdow,
established as our national religion. Newdow is trying to get
"under God" out of the pledge of allegiance and "In God We Trust"
off our money
Good for him. In a country with separation of church and state, the
government can NOT promote one religion over another so having those
references to a deity in the pledge and on the money is
unconstitutional
IMHO. Besides, those were only added in the 50's [IIRC] when the
"cold
war" against the "godless commies" was in full swing. Time to go
back to the original versions which made no mention of a deity.
<snip>
Never thought of it that way, if we say "In god we trust" we exclude
those who believe in many gods, neo-pagans, some American Indians,
Hindus et al.
To pass Constitutional muster, the motto on money should read "In the
gods we trust". Its obviously pro-monotheistic otherwise and thus
illegal as it excludes some kinds of religion in favor of others.
Or you could use the famous canadian motto that's printed on all our bills :
"THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER".
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Boy Toy" |
|
| Title: Re: God loves those atheists |
26 Dec 2005 01:14:05 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 10:54:21 -0500, "L. Michael Roberts"
<L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote in message
<yYydncpaYbKNjy3eRVn-iQ@golden.net>
J Young wrote:
Fresh from triumphs over the evil Boy Scouts and school prayer, the ACLU is
moving on to have Atheism, the faith of Michael Newdow, established as our
national religion. Newdow is trying to get "under God" out of the pledge of
allegiance and "In God We Trust" off our money
Good for him. In a country with separation of church and state, the
government can NOT promote one religion over another so having those
references to a deity in the pledge and on the money is unconstitutional
IMHO. Besides, those were only added in the 50's [IIRC] when the "cold
war" against the "godless commies" was in full swing. Time to go back
to the original versions which made no mention of a deity.
<snip>
I always thought the reason they put "In God We Trust" on U.S.
currency was that it was no longer backed by gold and the promise of
the government was worthless.
Somebody wrote a funny article about this a few years ago, but I can't
find it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: God loves those atheists |
27 Dec 2005 10:07:43 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 10:54:21 -0500, "L. Michael Roberts"
<L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote:
J Young wrote:
Fresh from triumphs over the evil Boy Scouts and school prayer, the ACLU is
moving on to have Atheism, the faith of Michael Newdow, established as our
national religion. Newdow is trying to get "under God" out of the pledge of
allegiance and "In God We Trust" off our money
Good for him. In a country with separation of church and state, the
government can NOT promote one religion over another so having those
references to a deity in the pledge and on the money is unconstitutional
IMHO. Besides, those were only added in the 50's [IIRC] when the "cold
war" against the "godless commies" was in full swing. Time to go back
to the original versions which made no mention of a deity.
Or even religion over non-religion.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Goodness Godless" |
|
| Title: Re: God loves those atheists |
26 Dec 2005 12:20:42 AM |
|
|
Oh! You a so soppy sometime Young! Are the Yuletime festivities getting to
your cold heart!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "satyr" |
|
| Title: Re: God loves those atheists |
26 Dec 2005 12:49:14 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 00:41:00 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
Fresh from triumphs over the evil Boy Scouts and school prayer, the ACLU is
moving on to have Atheism, the faith of Michael Newdow, established as our
national religion. Newdow is trying to get "under God" out of the pledge of
allegiance and "In God We Trust" off our money. Also they are working to
remove every symbol of the Christian religion, such as Christmas trees, from
public property.
The ACLU is only defending America's constitutionally based atheism.
It is clear that we have an atheistic constitution. Nowhere in the
document does it say "under God" or "In God We Trust." In fact, it
never uses the word, "God."
Now, you have two choices. You can acknowledge that America has an
atheistic constitution and is therefore officially an atheistic
nation. Or you can acknowledge that not putting the word "God" in a
document is not tantamount to endorsing atheism.
Which will it be?
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: God loves those atheists |
27 Dec 2005 10:14:41 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 18:49:14 GMT, satyr <RsEaMtOyVrE@infidels.org>
wrote:
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 00:41:00 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
Fresh from triumphs over the evil Boy Scouts and school prayer, the ACLU is
moving on to have Atheism, the faith of Michael Newdow, established as our
national religion. Newdow is trying to get "under God" out of the pledge of
allegiance and "In God We Trust" off our money. Also they are working to
remove every symbol of the Christian religion, such as Christmas trees, from
public property.
The ACLU is only defending America's constitutionally based atheism.
What "Constitutionally based atheism"?
The Constitution is secular.
Accommoddating people of all religions and none.
It is religiously neutral and recognises the freedom of the
individual.
It is clear that we have an atheistic constitution. Nowhere in the
It is clear that we have a secular Constitution, not an atheist one.
document does it say "under God" or "In God We Trust." In fact, it
never uses the word, "God."
Correct. But then it never uses the words Ahura Mazda, Zeus, Thor,
Mthras or Osiris either. What's your point?
Now, you have two choices. You can acknowledge that America has an
atheistic constitution and is therefore officially an atheistic
nation. Or you can acknowledge that not putting the word "God" in a
document is not tantamount to endorsing atheism.
This maks no sense.
Or you can admit that the Constitution says the government shall pass
no law concerning an establishment of religion.
It's not difficult.
Which will it be?
Look up "false dichotomy".
.
|
|
|
| User: "satyr" |
|
| Title: Re: God loves those atheists |
28 Dec 2005 01:00:32 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 11:14:41 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 18:49:14 GMT, satyr <RsEaMtOyVrE@infidels.org>
wrote:
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 00:41:00 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
Fresh from triumphs over the evil Boy Scouts and school prayer, the ACLU is
moving on to have Atheism, the faith of Michael Newdow, established as our
national religion. Newdow is trying to get "under God" out of the pledge of
allegiance and "In God We Trust" off our money. Also they are working to
remove every symbol of the Christian religion, such as Christmas trees, from
public property.
The ACLU is only defending America's constitutionally based atheism.
What "Constitutionally based atheism"?
The Constitution is secular.
Accommoddating people of all religions and none.
It is religiously neutral and recognises the freedom of the
individual.
It is clear that we have an atheistic constitution. Nowhere in the
It is clear that we have a secular Constitution, not an atheist one.
document does it say "under God" or "In God We Trust." In fact, it
never uses the word, "God."
Correct. But then it never uses the words Ahura Mazda, Zeus, Thor,
Mthras or Osiris either. What's your point?
Now, you have two choices. You can acknowledge that America has an
atheistic constitution and is therefore officially an atheistic
nation. Or you can acknowledge that not putting the word "God" in a
document is not tantamount to endorsing atheism.
This maks no sense.
Or you can admit that the Constitution says the government shall pass
no law concerning an establishment of religion.
It's not difficult.
Which will it be?
Look up "false dichotomy".
Not sure where you are coming from, Mr. Lee so I will give you the
benefit of the doubt.
Conservatives are screaming about atheists, secularists and other
non-Christians who want to remove "In God we Trust" and "Under God"
from our money and pledge. They argue that doing so is an endorsement
of atheism. My comment is that, if omitting these phrases constitutes
an endorsement of atheism, then the Constitution must also be
endorsing atheism and therefor endorsement of atheism is
constitutional. The alternate hypothesis (which I favor) is that
omitting these phrases makes our Constitution secular, not atheistic.
The corollary is that our pledge and money should be similarly
secular.
Either way, secular Constitution or atheistic Constitution, phrases
about God do not belong on our money.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: God loves those atheists |
28 Dec 2005 01:04:39 AM |
|
|
In News 9dd4r1lppg8mt4luiulilai831icl49fe6@4ax.com,, satyr at
RsEaMtOyVrE@infidels.org, typed this:
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 11:14:41 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 18:49:14 GMT, satyr <RsEaMtOyVrE@infidels.org>
wrote:
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 00:41:00 -0500, "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Fresh from triumphs over the evil Boy Scouts and school prayer,
the ACLU is moving on to have Atheism, the faith of Michael
Newdow, established as our national religion. Newdow is trying to
get "under God" out of the pledge of allegiance and "In God We
Trust" off our money. Also they are working to remove every symbol
of the Christian religion, such as Christmas trees, from public
property.
The ACLU is only defending America's constitutionally based atheism.
What "Constitutionally based atheism"?
The Constitution is secular.
Accommoddating people of all religions and none.
It is religiously neutral and recognises the freedom of the
individual.
It is clear that we have an atheistic constitution. Nowhere in the
It is clear that we have a secular Constitution, not an atheist one.
document does it say "under God" or "In God We Trust." In fact, it
never uses the word, "God."
Correct. But then it never uses the words Ahura Mazda, Zeus, Thor,
Mthras or Osiris either. What's your point?
Now, you have two choices. You can acknowledge that America has an
atheistic constitution and is therefore officially an atheistic
nation. Or you can acknowledge that not putting the word "God" in a
document is not tantamount to endorsing atheism.
This maks no sense.
Or you can admit that the Constitution says the government shall pass
no law concerning an establishment of religion.
It's not difficult.
Which will it be?
Look up "false dichotomy".
Not sure where you are coming from, Mr. Lee so I will give you the
benefit of the doubt.
Conservatives are screaming about atheists, secularists and other
non-Christians who want to remove "In God we Trust" and "Under God"
from our money and pledge. They argue that doing so is an endorsement
of atheism. My comment is that, if omitting these phrases constitutes
an endorsement of atheism, then the Constitution must also be
endorsing atheism and therefor endorsement of atheism is
constitutional. The alternate hypothesis (which I favor) is that
omitting these phrases makes our Constitution secular, not atheistic.
The corollary is that our pledge and money should be similarly
secular.
Either way, secular Constitution or atheistic Constitution, phrases
about God do not belong on our money.
The opposite argument is that the inclusion, by law, of these phrases is an
endorsement of religion, specifically Christianity. That is most assuredly
unconsitutional.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: God loves those atheists |
26 Dec 2005 09:00:50 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 00:41:00 -0500, J Young wrote:
Fresh from triumphs over the evil Boy Scouts and school prayer, the ACLU is
moving on to have Atheism, the faith of Michael Newdow, established as our
national religion. Newdow is trying to get "under God" out of the pledge of
allegiance and "In God We Trust" off our money. Also they are working to
remove every symbol of the Christian religion, such as Christmas trees, from
public property.
That is so sad. If ONLY there were things like churchs and private
property where people could display religious symbols, without using
public funds, it would be different. Sadly, such is not the case. The
only way people can celebrate their religion is to have the government do
it for them. Perhaps someday, a government will be created that tries to
separate religion and government, to the benefit of each. People would be
able to worship as they see fit, and the government would stay out of the
way.
WOULDN'T THAT BE GREAT???
--
MarkA
(this space accidentally filled in)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Arthur" |
|
| Title: Re: God loves those atheists |
26 Dec 2005 06:43:55 AM |
|
|
The Christian Taliban would like to force their particular view of
Christianity on Americans. Like the Muslim Taliban who enforced their
religious police on Muslims in
Afghanistan. These beasts would like to be the religious police in the USA.
Thank God for the Constitution of the United States of America and the Bill
of Rights it cannot happen here.
I have examined all the known superstitions of the Word, and I do not find
in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They
are all alike, founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men,
women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt,
tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion?
To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support
roguery and error all over the world ...
The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for
enslaving mankind ... to filch wealth and power to themselves. [They], in
fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.
Thomas Jefferson
The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as
the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three
headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more
of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the
caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes;
fools and hypocrites. To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for
the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and
tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins
.... and you will have sins in abundance. I would not dare to dishonor my
Creator's name by [attaching] it to this filthy book [the Bible].
Thomas Paine
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:FradnblqNcT6HzLeRVn-jQ@giganews.com...
Fresh from triumphs over the evil Boy Scouts and school prayer, the ACLU
is
moving on to have Atheism, the faith of Michael Newdow, established as our
national religion. Newdow is trying to get "under God" out of the pledge
of
allegiance and "In God We Trust" off our money. Also they are working to
remove every symbol of the Christian religion, such as Christmas trees,
from
public property.
They are correct that the Constitution forbids the state from favoring one
religious faith over another. But my dictionary defines "faith" as a "firm
belief in something for which there is no proof." That makes Atheism a
religion; Atheists can no more prove there is no god than other religions
can prove there is. Yet they firmly believe there is none.
There lies the problem: While other religions may exhibit their faith in
God
with a cross, crescent or menorah, Atheists demonstrate their faith that
there is no god by displaying nothing. Consequently, when judges remove
all
other religious symbols from public property, the space is filled with
nothing the symbol of only one faith ... Atheism.
To avoid violating the Constitution, we need to fill public spaces with
all
religious symbols crosses, Christmas trees, menorahs, crescents and ...
some
empty space for Atheists. Atheist children could, while others pray, think
nothing.
To be fair, I must note that I am a Christian. But I also find the Jews'
Ten
Commandments pretty good guidance to try to live by. And Christmas,
celebrating the life of a Jew who preached decency, goodness, kindness,
forgiveness and generosity, can't be all bad. It brings so much joy to so
many.
Atheists offer in exchange, well, nothing. Nevertheless, according to
Christians, God loves them anyway.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
