| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Son of man" |
| Date: |
15 Jun 2005 12:48:34 PM |
| Object: |
I was thinking about "One nation under God" |
I really don't see why atheists should have a problem with it.
It is their view that "God" doesn't exist.
Just because something doesn't exist is no reason not to believe in it, or
to try to censure it.
The "one nation under God" doesn't attempt to define a particular God or try
to link God to any particular religion or belief system.
Accross all religions, "God" is certainly implied to mean "the Highest
ideals and principles" irregardless of whether a buddhist may recognize
those highest ideals and principles to be fully realized in the Buddha, or a
Christian recognizes them in Christ and his Father, or a Muslim in Allah and
a Jew in Yahweh.
Whether or not the various particluar belief systems do uphold all the
highest ideals and principles isn't really the issue with "one nation under
God" since it does not attempt to link God to any particular belief system.
And even if it is the atheist view that there is no Highest being who
possesses the highest ideals and principles, still it should not be
offensive to say "one nation under God" because what that statement is
really implying is "one nation guided by the Highest ideals and principles."
So what's wrong with that?
.
|
|
| User: "Muad Dib" |
|
| Title: Re: I was thinking about "One nation under God" |
16 Jun 2005 05:01:02 PM |
|
|
"Son of man" <sonofman1@comcast.net> scrivened in
news:g4OdnVcHRfVm9C3fRVn-qA@comcast.com:
I really don't see why atheists should have a problem with it.
It is their view that "God" doesn't exist.
Just because something doesn't exist is no reason not to believe in
it, or to try to censure it.
The "one nation under God" doesn't attempt to define a particular God
or try to link God to any particular religion or belief system.
Accross all religions, "God" is certainly implied to mean "the Highest
ideals and principles" irregardless of whether a buddhist may
recognize those highest ideals and principles to be fully realized in
the Buddha, or a Christian recognizes them in Christ and his Father,
or a Muslim in Allah and a Jew in Yahweh.
Whether or not the various particluar belief systems do uphold all the
highest ideals and principles isn't really the issue with "one nation
under God" since it does not attempt to link God to any particular
belief system. And even if it is the atheist view that there is no
Highest being who possesses the highest ideals and principles, still
it should not be offensive to say "one nation under God" because what
that statement is really implying is "one nation guided by the Highest
ideals and principles."
So what's wrong with that?
If you really don't see why it would be rather crass for atheists to live
in "one nation under god", then I suggest you get back on the special bus-
there's windows want licking.
--
The Bible
If you're going to write a good bit of fantasy fiction, at least put some
goblins or trolls in it, you dumb cunts. Given the choice between this
bollocks and the Lord of the Rings, which one do you think we're going to
go for? The Bible with its bunch of bearded nomad hippies talking shite, or
something with fucking battles and dragons?
And I think you're forgetting the first page, which should read: 'All
characters in this book are fictitious and any resemblance to any real
persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental'.
I liked the bit when God and Jesus have a lightsaber duel on a bridge
though.
Quote from Cunts Corner "http://www.holymoly.co.uk/cc/index.php?alpha=t"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Santolina chamaecyparissus" |
|
| Title: Re: I was thinking about "One nation under God" |
15 Jun 2005 09:12:02 PM |
|
|
"Son of man" <sonofman1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:g4OdnVcHRfVm9C3fRVn-qA@comcast.com...
I really don't see why atheists should have a problem with it.
It is their view that "God" doesn't exist.
Wrong.
Just because something doesn't exist is no reason not to believe in it, or
to try to censure it.
Everybody has the right to believe in whatever they want on their own time.
The "one nation under God" doesn't attempt to define a particular God or
try
to link God to any particular religion or belief system.
Wrong. God with a capital "G" is the proper name of a 3000 year old tribal
deity with buttocks.
Accross all religions, "God" is certainly implied to mean "the Highest
ideals and principles"
Wrong. The 3000 year old tribal deity enshrined on the nation's coinage was
an unapologetic genocidal maniac who also issued a copious set of demands
that His followers had to observe on pain of death.
irregardless of whether a buddhist may recognize
those highest ideals and principles to be fully realized in the Buddha, or
a
Christian recognizes them in Christ and his Father, or a Muslim in Allah
and
a Jew in Yahweh.
I'm glad you feel that way, but the 3000 year old tribal deity enshrined on
the nation's coinage was a "jealous" god, hence unrelated to your ecumenical
swell guy.
Whether or not the various particluar belief systems do uphold all the
highest ideals and principles isn't really the issue with "one nation
under
God" since it does not attempt to link God to any particular belief
system.
Yes it does.
And even if it is the atheist view that there is no Highest being who
possesses the highest ideals and principles, still it should not be
offensive to say "one nation under God" because what that statement is
really implying is "one nation guided by the Highest ideals and
principles."
Wrong, for the reasons I've just given.
So what's wrong with that?
So just have the fucking coins say "One Nation Governed by High Ideals and
Principles". Don't drag the 3000 year old tribal deity with buttocks into
it.
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rally_Round" |
|
| Title: Re: I was thinking about "One nation under God" |
15 Jun 2005 12:58:56 PM |
|
|
"Son of man" <sonofman1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:g4OdnVcHRfVm9C3fRVn-qA@comcast.com...
I really don't see why atheists should have a problem with it.
It is their view that "God" doesn't exist.
Just because something doesn't exist is no reason not to believe in it, or
to try to censure it
<snip>
Re-read this part: "Just because something doesn't exist is no reason
not to believe in it,..."
Keep reading that over and over. When you see the problem with it, lemme
know.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: I was thinking about "One nation under God" |
15 Jun 2005 01:06:56 PM |
|
|
We need to nominate this to the qoute of the month
.
|
|
|
| User: "Son of man" |
|
| Title: Re: I was thinking about "One nation under God" |
15 Jun 2005 01:23:23 PM |
|
|
<lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:1118858815.968763.17940@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
We need to nominate this to the qoute of the month
To understand the meaning of the quote you'll need to read the rest. On it's
own it seems not to make much sense.
Example...in a recent movie the main hero character said, "Just because some
things aren't true doesn't mean we shouldn't believe in them and live by
them. Even though it may not always be true we should believe that good
always triumphs over evil."
Makes sense to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rally_Round" |
|
| Title: Re: I was thinking about "One nation under God" |
15 Jun 2005 02:02:26 PM |
|
|
"Son of man" <sonofman1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ILydnWGMDry47y3fRVn-gA@comcast.com...
<lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:1118858815.968763.17940@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
We need to nominate this to the qoute of the month
To understand the meaning of the quote you'll need to read the rest. On
it's
own it seems not to make much sense.
Example...in a recent movie the main hero character said, "Just because
some
things aren't true doesn't mean we shouldn't believe in them and live by
them. Even though it may not always be true we should believe that good
always triumphs over evil."
Makes sense to me.
No, not the same.
Just because the easter bunny does not exist doesn't mean we should not
believe in it.
Think about that.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Son of man" |
|
| Title: Re: I was thinking about "One nation under God" |
15 Jun 2005 02:06:11 PM |
|
|
"Rally_Round" <Rally_Round@mail.newsfeeds.net.com> wrote in message
news:42b07ac9_1@spool9-east.superfeed.net...
"Son of man" <sonofman1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ILydnWGMDry47y3fRVn-gA@comcast.com...
<lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:1118858815.968763.17940@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
We need to nominate this to the qoute of the month
To understand the meaning of the quote you'll need to read the rest. On
it's
own it seems not to make much sense.
Example...in a recent movie the main hero character said, "Just because
some
things aren't true doesn't mean we shouldn't believe in them and live by
them. Even though it may not always be true we should believe that good
always triumphs over evil."
Makes sense to me.
No, not the same.
Just because the easter bunny does not exist doesn't mean we should not
believe in it.
Think about that.
The Easter Bunny doesn't represent the wholesome ideal as does God, whether
God or the Easter Bunny exists or not.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rally_Round" |
|
| Title: Re: I was thinking about "One nation under God" |
15 Jun 2005 03:02:12 PM |
|
|
"Son of man" <sonofman1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7JGdnXG7F6Sx4S3fRVn-vA@comcast.com...
"Rally_Round" <Rally_Round@mail.newsfeeds.net.com> wrote in message
news:42b07ac9_1@spool9-east.superfeed.net...
"Son of man" <sonofman1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ILydnWGMDry47y3fRVn-gA@comcast.com...
<lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:1118858815.968763.17940@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
We need to nominate this to the qoute of the month
To understand the meaning of the quote you'll need to read the rest. On
it's
own it seems not to make much sense.
Example...in a recent movie the main hero character said, "Just because
some
things aren't true doesn't mean we shouldn't believe in them and live
by
them. Even though it may not always be true we should believe that good
always triumphs over evil."
Makes sense to me.
No, not the same.
Just because the easter bunny does not exist doesn't mean we should
not
believe in it.
Think about that.
The Easter Bunny doesn't represent the wholesome ideal as does God,
whether
God or the Easter Bunny exists or not.
Believing in a thing is not the same as believing in what one thinks
that thing represents. Even so, if what you associate with it exists, and
the thing itself does not, then you are basing a reality on nothingness, and
cheapening the associated value.
Wholesomeness is a real thing. The easter bunny is not. Thinking that
wholesomeness comes from the easter bunny puts you in the psyche ward.
Saying that we should believe in a thing even if it does not exist will
do that too. How *can you do that anyway? Not without some measure of
insanity.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Son of man" |
|
| Title: Re: I was thinking about "One nation under God" |
15 Jun 2005 04:12:02 PM |
|
|
"Rally_Round" <Rally_Round@mail.newsfeeds.net.com> wrote in message
news:42b088cf_3@spool9-east.superfeed.net...
"Son of man" <sonofman1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7JGdnXG7F6Sx4S3fRVn-vA@comcast.com...
"Rally_Round" <Rally_Round@mail.newsfeeds.net.com> wrote in message
news:42b07ac9_1@spool9-east.superfeed.net...
"Son of man" <sonofman1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ILydnWGMDry47y3fRVn-gA@comcast.com...
<lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:1118858815.968763.17940@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
We need to nominate this to the qoute of the month
To understand the meaning of the quote you'll need to read the rest.
On
it's
own it seems not to make much sense.
Example...in a recent movie the main hero character said, "Just
because
some
things aren't true doesn't mean we shouldn't believe in them and live
by
them. Even though it may not always be true we should believe that
good
always triumphs over evil."
Makes sense to me.
No, not the same.
Just because the easter bunny does not exist doesn't mean we should
not
believe in it.
Think about that.
The Easter Bunny doesn't represent the wholesome ideal as does God,
whether
God or the Easter Bunny exists or not.
Believing in a thing is not the same as believing in what one thinks
that thing represents. Even so, if what you associate with it exists, and
the thing itself does not, then you are basing a reality on nothingness
I never said it does not exist. That's another matter of debate.
, and
cheapening the associated value.
Wholesomeness is a real thing. The easter bunny is not. Thinking that
wholesomeness comes from the easter bunny puts you in the psyche ward.
Saying that we should believe in a thing even if it does not exist will
do that too. How *can you do that anyway? Not without some measure of
insanity.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: I was thinking about "One nation under God" |
15 Jun 2005 02:23:19 PM |
|
|
"Son of man" <sonofman1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7JGdnXG7F6Sx4S3fRVn-vA@comcast.com...
snip
The Easter Bunny doesn't represent the wholesome ideal as does God,
whether
God or the Easter Bunny exists or not.
What makes you think this god represents a wholesome idea (how about
defining that while you're at it) and which god are you talking about?
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: I was thinking about "One nation under God" |
15 Jun 2005 08:55:42 PM |
|
|
Son of man wrote:
"Rally_Round" <Rally_Round@mail.newsfeeds.net.com> wrote in message
news:42b07ac9_1@spool9-east.superfeed.net...
"Son of man" <sonofman1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ILydnWGMDry47y3fRVn-gA@comcast.com...
<lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:1118858815.968763.17940@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
We need to nominate this to the qoute of the month
To understand the meaning of the quote you'll need to read the rest. On
it's
own it seems not to make much sense.
Example...in a recent movie the main hero character said, "Just because
some
things aren't true doesn't mean we shouldn't believe in them and live by
them. Even though it may not always be true we should believe that good
always triumphs over evil."
Makes sense to me.
No, not the same.
Just because the easter bunny does not exist doesn't mean we should not
believe in it.
Think about that.
The Easter Bunny doesn't represent the wholesome ideal as does God, whether
God or the Easter Bunny exists or not.
For me God does not represent wholesome ideals.
Read the Bible or the Koran and you see a violent evil God - hardly an
ideal.
The Emperor Caligula was a god - he also does not represent wholesome
ideals.
When you make something your god you debase yourself and spit upon your
ideals.
That is my sincerely held belief.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Son of man" |
|
| Title: Re: I was thinking about "One nation under God" |
16 Jun 2005 06:55:39 AM |
|
|
"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1118886942.182775.143040@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Son of man wrote:
"Rally_Round" <Rally_Round@mail.newsfeeds.net.com> wrote in message
news:42b07ac9_1@spool9-east.superfeed.net...
"Son of man" <sonofman1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ILydnWGMDry47y3fRVn-gA@comcast.com...
<lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:1118858815.968763.17940@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
We need to nominate this to the qoute of the month
To understand the meaning of the quote you'll need to read the rest.
On
it's
own it seems not to make much sense.
Example...in a recent movie the main hero character said, "Just
because
some
things aren't true doesn't mean we shouldn't believe in them and live
by
them. Even though it may not always be true we should believe that
good
always triumphs over evil."
Makes sense to me.
No, not the same.
Just because the easter bunny does not exist doesn't mean we should
not
believe in it.
Think about that.
The Easter Bunny doesn't represent the wholesome ideal as does God,
whether
God or the Easter Bunny exists or not.
For me God does not represent wholesome ideals.
Read the Bible or the Koran and you see a violent evil God - hardly an
ideal.
I view the New Testament as opposing the Old. The Old Testament's God is a
deceiver imo.
I understand atheists hostility towards the Bible because it is largely
presented as one God in both Old and New. But a more careful comparison and
analysis of OT and NT reveals the deception.
Take a look at this preview :
http://books.iuniverse.com/viewbooks.asp?isbn=0595348874&page=fm1
Especially the last two pages, and you'll start to make the connection.
The Emperor Caligula was a god - he also does not represent wholesome
ideals.
When you make something your god you debase yourself and spit upon your
ideals.
That is my sincerely held belief.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: I was thinking about "One nation under God" |
16 Jun 2005 08:02:20 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 07:55:39 -0400, "Son of man"
<sonofman1@comcast.net> wrote:
I understand atheists hostility towards the Bible because it is largely
presented as one God in both Old and New. But a more careful comparison and
analysis of OT and NT reveals the deception.
You understand nothing, moron. That is just arrogantly,
condescendingly stupid on your part.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Evelyn Ruut" |
|
| Title: Re: I was thinking about "One nation under God" |
15 Jun 2005 04:10:56 PM |
|
|
"Son of man" <sonofman1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ILydnWGMDry47y3fRVn-gA@comcast.com...
<lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:1118858815.968763.17940@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
We need to nominate this to the qoute of the month
To understand the meaning of the quote you'll need to read the rest. On
it's own it seems not to make much sense.
Example...in a recent movie the main hero character said, "Just because
some things aren't true doesn't mean we shouldn't believe in them and live
by them. Even though it may not always be true we should believe that good
always triumphs over evil."
Makes sense to me.
Aha! Yes.... the film was "Secondhand Lions"..... that was an excellent
quote, actually. The whole movie was excellent.
--
Best Regards,
Evelyn
(to reply to me personally, remove 'sox')
.
|
|
|
| User: "Son of man" |
|
| Title: Re: I was thinking about "One nation under God" |
15 Jun 2005 04:26:19 PM |
|
|
"Evelyn Ruut" <mama-lionsox@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:AP0se.10018$jU5.2577260@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Son of man" <sonofman1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ILydnWGMDry47y3fRVn-gA@comcast.com...
<lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:1118858815.968763.17940@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
We need to nominate this to the qoute of the month
To understand the meaning of the quote you'll need to read the rest. On
it's own it seems not to make much sense.
Example...in a recent movie the main hero character said, "Just because
some things aren't true doesn't mean we shouldn't believe in them and
live by them. Even though it may not always be true we should believe
that good always triumphs over evil."
Makes sense to me.
Aha! Yes.... the film was "Secondhand Lions"..... that was an excellent
quote, actually. The whole movie was excellent.
I was trying to remember the name. And I can't believe I forgot the name of
the actor too, Robert Duvall.
--
Best Regards,
Evelyn
(to reply to me personally, remove 'sox')
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: I was thinking about "One nation under God" |
15 Jun 2005 08:35:19 PM |
|
|
"Son of man" <sonofman1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:g4OdnVcHRfVm9C3fRVn-qA@comcast.com...
I really don't see why atheists should have a problem with it.
It is their view that "God" doesn't exist.
Just because something doesn't exist is no reason not to believe in it, or
to try to censure it.
The "one nation under God" doesn't attempt to define a particular God
Yes it does. It defines the US as being under the god whose name is "God".
That refers to Yahweh. Therefore the Pledge is an insult to all who do not
believe in Yahweh.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: I was thinking about "One nation under God" |
15 Jun 2005 12:52:55 PM |
|
|
"Son of man" <sonofman1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:g4OdnVcHRfVm9C3fRVn-qA@comcast.com...
I really don't see why atheists should have a problem with it.
It is their view that "God" doesn't exist.
Right, so to us, the statement is a lie.
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Son of man" |
|
| Title: Re: I was thinking about "One nation under God" |
15 Jun 2005 01:17:23 PM |
|
|
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:3hb88dFe47quU1@individual.net...
"Son of man" <sonofman1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:g4OdnVcHRfVm9C3fRVn-qA@comcast.com...
I really don't see why atheists should have a problem with it.
It is their view that "God" doesn't exist.
Right, so to us, the statement is a lie.
The statement is an expression of an ideal, it's not a statement of fact and
isn't necessarily a lie, even though it isn't necessarily the truth either.
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: I was thinking about "One nation under God" |
15 Jun 2005 01:48:48 PM |
|
|
"Son of man" <sonofman1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:o6mdnTvZ4egh7S3fRVn-sw@comcast.com...
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:3hb88dFe47quU1@individual.net...
"Son of man" <sonofman1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:g4OdnVcHRfVm9C3fRVn-qA@comcast.com...
I really don't see why atheists should have a problem with it.
It is their view that "God" doesn't exist.
Right, so to us, the statement is a lie.
The statement is an expression of an ideal, it's not a statement of fact
and
isn't necessarily a lie, even though it isn't necessarily the truth
either.
Well, you WERE posing this question to
atheists...............................
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Son of man" |
|
| Title: Re: I was thinking about "One nation under God" |
15 Jun 2005 01:52:13 PM |
|
|
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:3hbbh7Ffkcm2U1@individual.net...
"Son of man" <sonofman1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:o6mdnTvZ4egh7S3fRVn-sw@comcast.com...
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:3hb88dFe47quU1@individual.net...
"Son of man" <sonofman1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:g4OdnVcHRfVm9C3fRVn-qA@comcast.com...
I really don't see why atheists should have a problem with it.
It is their view that "God" doesn't exist.
Right, so to us, the statement is a lie.
The statement is an expression of an ideal, it's not a statement of fact
and
isn't necessarily a lie, even though it isn't necessarily the truth
either.
Well, you WERE posing this question to
atheists...............................
So although athesists do not believe in God, that doesn't imply they
themselves don't aspire to be the God-ideal. So what's different or wrong
about a nation aspiring to be under a God-ideal?
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: I was thinking about "One nation under God" |
15 Jun 2005 01:58:47 PM |
|
|
"Son of man" <sonofman1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:dJKdnTEnqa175S3fRVn-gg@comcast.com...
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:3hbbh7Ffkcm2U1@individual.net...
"Son of man" <sonofman1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:o6mdnTvZ4egh7S3fRVn-sw@comcast.com...
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:3hb88dFe47quU1@individual.net...
"Son of man" <sonofman1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:g4OdnVcHRfVm9C3fRVn-qA@comcast.com...
I really don't see why atheists should have a problem with it.
It is their view that "God" doesn't exist.
Right, so to us, the statement is a lie.
The statement is an expression of an ideal, it's not a statement of
fact
and
isn't necessarily a lie, even though it isn't necessarily the truth
either.
Well, you WERE posing this question to
atheists...............................
So although athesists do not believe in God, that doesn't imply they
themselves don't aspire to be the God-ideal.
What exactly is this "god ideal" and why would people who don't believe in
this god take it seriously?
So what's different or wrong
about a nation aspiring to be under a God-ideal?
See above.
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "655321" |
|
| Title: Re: I was thinking about "One nation under God" |
15 Jun 2005 08:18:59 PM |
|
|
On 2005-06-15 11:52:13 -0700, "Son of man" <sonofman1@comcast.net> said:
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:3hbbh7Ffkcm2U1@individual.net...
"Son of man" <sonofman1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:o6mdnTvZ4egh7S3fRVn-sw@comcast.com...
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:3hb88dFe47quU1@individual.net...
"Son of man" <sonofman1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:g4OdnVcHRfVm9C3fRVn-qA@comcast.com...
I really don't see why atheists should have a problem with it.
It is their view that "God" doesn't exist.
Right, so to us, the statement is a lie.
The statement is an expression of an ideal, it's not a statement of fact
and
isn't necessarily a lie, even though it isn't necessarily the truth
either.
Well, you WERE posing this question to
atheists...............................
So although athesists do not believe in God, that doesn't imply they
themselves don't aspire to be the God-ideal. So what's different or
wrong about a nation aspiring to be under a God-ideal?
The Christian "God-ideal," if it is based on the Biblegod, celebrates
vanity, brutality, genocide, fickleness, and jealousy. Oh, and a
little "love-thy-neighbor" whenever one is not involved in the former.
--
GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825 --
"Genocide is used sparingly by God in only extreme circumstances." -Jim Spaza
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dale" |
|
| Title: Re: I was thinking about "One nation under God" |
16 Jun 2005 12:20:32 AM |
|
|
"655321" <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote in message
news:2005061518185350073%DipthotDipthot@YahooYahooComCom...
[...]
The Christian "God-ideal," if it is based on the Biblegod, celebrates
vanity, brutality, genocide, fickleness, and jealousy. Oh, and a
little "love-thy-neighbor" whenever one is not involved in the former.
There's a Family Guy where Peter's ultra-Catholic dad moves in and makes
Stewie read the Bible. Like a latter-day Alexander de Large, Stewie enjoys
the stories of sex, violence, fraud and mayhem of the Good Book and
exclaims: "Oh, I _love_ God! He's so deliciously evil!"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: I was thinking about "One nation under God" |
16 Jun 2005 07:03:28 AM |
|
|
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in message
news:A_7se.2242$ks4.2089@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
"655321" <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote in message
news:2005061518185350073%DipthotDipthot@YahooYahooComCom...
[...]
The Christian "God-ideal," if it is based on the Biblegod, celebrates
vanity, brutality, genocide, fickleness, and jealousy. Oh, and a
little "love-thy-neighbor" whenever one is not involved in the former.
There's a Family Guy where Peter's ultra-Catholic dad moves in and makes
Stewie read the Bible. Like a latter-day Alexander de Large, Stewie enjoys
the stories of sex, violence, fraud and mayhem of the Good Book and
exclaims: "Oh, I _love_ God! He's so deliciously evil!"
LOL! That would make a good sig ;)
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: I was thinking about "One nation under God" |
15 Jun 2005 03:06:33 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 14:52:13 -0400, "Son of man"
<sonofman1@comcast.net> wrote:
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:3hbbh7Ffkcm2U1@individual.net...
"Son of man" <sonofman1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:o6mdnTvZ4egh7S3fRVn-sw@comcast.com...
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:3hb88dFe47quU1@individual.net...
"Son of man" <sonofman1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:g4OdnVcHRfVm9C3fRVn-qA@comcast.com...
I really don't see why atheists should have a problem with it.
It is their view that "God" doesn't exist.
Right, so to us, the statement is a lie.
The statement is an expression of an ideal, it's not a statement of fact
and
isn't necessarily a lie, even though it isn't necessarily the truth
either.
Well, you WERE posing this question to
atheists...............................
So although athesists do not believe in God, that doesn't imply they
themselves don't aspire to be the God-ideal. So what's different or wrong
about a nation aspiring to be under a God-ideal?
1. That's not what it says.
2. Why use the word "God" to mean something else especially when there
are better words for what you want?
3. Stop being dishonest.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Son of man" |
|
| Title: Re: I was thinking about "One nation under God" |
15 Jun 2005 04:10:42 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4g21b15qark7nflj98bg5jti5m3nnh68e6@4ax.com...
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 14:52:13 -0400, "Son of man"
<sonofman1@comcast.net> wrote:
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:3hbbh7Ffkcm2U1@individual.net...
"Son of man" <sonofman1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:o6mdnTvZ4egh7S3fRVn-sw@comcast.com...
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:3hb88dFe47quU1@individual.net...
"Son of man" <sonofman1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:g4OdnVcHRfVm9C3fRVn-qA@comcast.com...
I really don't see why atheists should have a problem with it.
It is their view that "God" doesn't exist.
Right, so to us, the statement is a lie.
The statement is an expression of an ideal, it's not a statement of
fact
and
isn't necessarily a lie, even though it isn't necessarily the truth
either.
Well, you WERE posing this question to
atheists...............................
So although athesists do not believe in God, that doesn't imply they
themselves don't aspire to be the God-ideal. So what's different or wrong
about a nation aspiring to be under a God-ideal?
1. That's not what it says.
2. Why use the word "God" to mean something else especially when there
are better words for what you want?
The way I see it, I guess the majority of people are theists and want "God"
to be included in the nation's pledge. Is it really that unreasonable?
3. Stop being dishonest.
Show me where I've ben dishonest. Just discussing the issue.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: I was thinking about "One nation under God" |
15 Jun 2005 04:14:10 PM |
|
|
In article <q-WdnRHBduDGBC3fRVn-1w@comcast.com> "Son of man" <sonofman1@comcast.net> writes:
{...}
The way I see it, I guess the majority of people are theists and want "God"
to be included in the nation's pledge. Is it really that unreasonable?
It's approximately as reasonable as requiring you, should you find yourself
in a Muslim country, to make a public oath affirming that "Allah akhbar"
(Allah is great)
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Son of man" |
|
| Title: Re: I was thinking about "One nation under God" |
15 Jun 2005 04:25:04 PM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:d8q5n2$4v6$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <q-WdnRHBduDGBC3fRVn-1w@comcast.com> "Son of man"
<sonofman1@comcast.net> writes:
{...}
The way I see it, I guess the majority of people are theists and want
"God"
to be included in the nation's pledge. Is it really that unreasonable?
It's approximately as reasonable as requiring you, should you find
yourself
in a Muslim country, to make a public oath affirming that "Allah akhbar"
(Allah is great)
I have no problem with saying that in any Muslim country, despite my being
Buddhist. I'm a guest and should respect the host so long as my actions
remain harmless.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dale" |
|
| Title: Re: I was thinking about "One nation under God" |
16 Jun 2005 12:12:23 AM |
|
|
"Son of man" <sonofman1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:s4adnf_JN4okAS3fRVn-rw@comcast.com...
[...]
I have no problem with saying that in any Muslim country, despite my being
Buddhist. I'm a guest and should respect the host so long as my actions
remain harmless.
A reasonable and charitable stance when being a guest in another country,
but citizens of the US should hold themselves to a higher standard. The US
is not just another country like all the rest. For all our faults, we are
the country of countries, we hold a place of distinction in the world that
no other country holds or could hold. Regardless of the totality of our
actions, the US is the standard bearer for freedom in the world, so its
citizens ought to be asked to do things that are hard, in the name of that
freedom. US citizens should be strong enough not to flinch when someone
desecrates a US flag, for example, and we should also be strong enough not
to indulge in some kind of God talk in our pledge of allegiance that may
exclude fellow citizens.
[fade in fife and drum playing "Yankee Doodle"]
Lisa Douglas: Olivah! Are you getting on your soapbox again?
Oliver Douglas: You mean you heard that too?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: I was thinking about "One nation under God" |
15 Jun 2005 04:31:04 PM |
|
|
In article <s4adnf_JN4okAS3fRVn-rw@comcast.com> "Son of man" <sonofman1@comcast.net> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:d8q5n2$4v6$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <q-WdnRHBduDGBC3fRVn-1w@comcast.com> "Son of man"
<sonofman1@comcast.net> writes:
{...}
The way I see it, I guess the majority of people are theists and want
"God"
to be included in the nation's pledge. Is it really that unreasonable?
It's approximately as reasonable as requiring you, should you find
yourself
in a Muslim country, to make a public oath affirming that "Allah akhbar"
(Allah is great)
I have no problem with saying that in any Muslim country, despite my being
Buddhist. I'm a guest and should respect the host so long as my actions
remain harmless.
Yeah? OK, and thanks for your answer. And I believe you.
I personally would be bothered. Not for going along with someone
else's ceremony -- I don't mind if someone wants to say grace
at the table -- but I do mind having to make an active public affirmation
of someone else's god, and I doubly mind having to pledge that
affirmation.
-- cry
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
