| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Gabriel" |
| Date: |
30 Jan 2008 05:12:23 PM |
| Object: |
Can we prove God without the Bible? |
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/01/25/feedback-prove-God
A couple of small excerpts:
" .. Now I want to talk about the notion of neutrality: there is
no such thing. An atheist is not neutral when arguing against the
existence of God, nor is a Christian when arguing for the
existence of God. Each must presuppose a belief about God before
establishing the logic that allows arguments “for” or “against”
Him. .. "
" .. But perhaps the best evidence that the Bible is true is that
if it were not, the laws of logic and morality—and even our own
existence—would not be possible. Without a logical God, who
created everything including us in His own image (which is why we
are able to use the laws of logic), there is no reason to believe
there is any order, causality, or logic in the universe. For
example, the physical and chemical laws of nature (Jeremiah
33:25) are orderly and logical. It makes sense that an orderly
and logical God would create a universe that displays some of His
characteristics (Romans 1:20).
But if the universe were just a random cosmic accident, there is
no reason for it to follow certain laws, nor should there be any
reason we could understand any of it. There is no way for a
naturalist to explain why these laws exist or where they came
from. And to just say, “That’s just how it happened” is to take a
great leap of blind faith. Thus, both the Christian and the
non-Christian must place their faith somewhere as a starting
point; we choose to put our faith in God’s revealed, perfect
Word. .. "
.
|
|
| User: "Ghamph" |
|
| Title: Re: Can we prove God without the Bible? |
30 Jan 2008 05:40:51 PM |
|
|
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gv02q3l9f28q5ljj858b2n28ue324bnhib@4ax.com...
A couple of small excerpts:
Not small enough for me.
What a braindead moron.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Can we prove God without the Bible? |
01 Feb 2008 08:27:01 AM |
|
|
Ghamph wrote:
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gv02q3l9f28q5ljj858b2n28ue324bnhib@4ax.com...
A couple of small excerpts:
Not small enough for me.
What a braindead moron.
You can't prove it with or without it.
--
Blattus Slafaly ? 3 :) 7/8
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "john w" |
|
| Title: Re: Can we prove God without the Bible? |
30 Jan 2008 07:19:39 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:40:51 -0500, "Ghamph" <ghamph@localnet.com>
wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gv02q3l9f28q5ljj858b2n28ue324bnhib@4ax.com...
A couple of small excerpts:
Not small enough for me.
What a braindead moron.
What a brain dead comment!
From a brain dead TROLL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Can we prove God without the Bible? |
31 Jan 2008 04:43:29 AM |
|
|
"john w @yahoo.com>" <johnw<no>wrote about his last post:
What a brain dead comment!
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "walksalone" |
|
| Title: Re: Can we prove God without the Bible? |
02 Feb 2008 08:14:52 AM |
|
|
john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com> news:mg82q3ptgsdaa543tscehmi50451o9qjj3@
4ax.com
From: john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.bible,alt.religion.christian.baptist,alt.religion.christian.biblestud
y,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.christian.catholic,alt.talk.creatio
nism
Subject: Re: Can we prove God without the Bible?
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:19:39 -0800
Message-ID: <mg82q3ptgsdaa543tscehmi50451o9qjj3@4ax.com>
References: <gv02q3l9f28q5ljj858b2n28ue324bnhib@4ax.com>
<13q22jiqqf6v19e@corp.supernews.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080130-1, 01/30/2008), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Lines: 18
Organization: Qwest Communications Corporation
\\;jgJZ3o<SQQiQGTS3E:e_O4D96R52Ef81Bck6\
X-Complaints-To:
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:40:51 -0500, "Ghamph" <ghamph@localnet.com>
wrote:
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gv02q3l9f28q5ljj858b2n28ue324bnhib@4ax.com...
A couple of small excerpts:
Not small enough for me.
What a braindead moron.
What a brain dead comment!
Well, no one expects anything else from you.
From a brain dead TROLL
Of course you are, that's why you crosspost your drivel.
But, I was being redundant.
which wannabe this time jon jon, the brain deader that wants everyone to
know that yes, one can be paralyzed from the eyebrows up & still breath
without assistance?
walksalone who does not have a need to rub jw's nose in his mess, except,
xians don't seem to want to.
Which Jesus is the Jesus of xianity, these are known to have existed in
the right time frame.
Jesus ben Phiabi
Jesus ben Sec
Jesus ben Damneus
Jesus ben Gamaliel
Jesus ben Sirach
Jesus ben Pandira
Jesus ben Ananias.
Jesus ben Saphat
Jesus ben Gamala
Jesus ben Thebuth
Jesus ben Stada
Quintilian (AD 35-95, Decl 274)
'Whenever we crucify the guilty, the most crowded roads are chosen, where
most people can see and be moved by this fear. For penalties relate not
so much to retribution as to their exemplary effect.'
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Weldon" |
|
| Title: Re: Can we prove God without the Bible? |
30 Jan 2008 06:58:18 PM |
|
|
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gv02q3l9f28q5ljj858b2n28ue324bnhib@4ax.com...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/01/25/feedback-prove-God
A couple of small excerpts:
" .. Now I want to talk about the notion of neutrality: there is
-crap snipped
Using AIG as a source automatically means you lost the argument.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "theSalamander" |
|
| Title: Re: Can we prove God without the Bible? |
31 Jan 2008 11:41:39 AM |
|
|
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gv02q3l9f28q5ljj858b2n28ue324bnhib@4ax.com...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/01/25/feedback-prove-God
A couple of small excerpts:
" .. Now I want to talk about the notion of neutrality: there is
no such thing. An atheist is not neutral when arguing against the
existence of God, nor is a Christian when arguing for the
existence of God. Each must presuppose a belief about God before
establishing the logic that allows arguments "for" or "against"
Him. .. "
" .. But perhaps the best evidence that the Bible is true is that
if it were not, the laws of logic and morality-and even our own
existence-would not be possible.
What utter nonsense.
Without a logical God, who
created everything including us in His own image (which is why we
are able to use the laws of logic), there is no reason to believe
there is any order, causality, or logic in the universe.
What utter nonsense.
For
example, the physical and chemical laws of nature (Jeremiah
33:25) are orderly and logical. It makes sense that an orderly
and logical God would create a universe that displays some of His
characteristics (Romans 1:20).
But if the universe were just a random cosmic accident, there is
no reason for it to follow certain laws, nor should there be any
reason we could understand any of it.
And exactly what rules out the existence of physics if the universe was not
created by your model of God?
There is no way for a
naturalist to explain why these laws exist or where they came
from.
Sure there is...the laws exist because the universe's physical properties
cause and prohibit certain things. As to the origin of the universe, surely
better to say "We don't know yet, but let's keep trying" than "I'll just
assume Goddidit"
And to just say, "That's just how it happened" is to take a
great leap of blind faith. Thus, both the Christian and the
non-Christian must place their faith somewhere as a starting
point; we choose to put our faith in God's revealed, perfect
Word. .. "
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim" |
|
| Title: Re: Can we prove God without the Bible? |
30 Jan 2008 05:41:37 PM |
|
|
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gv02q3l9f28q5ljj858b2n28ue324bnhib@4ax.com...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/01/25/feedback-prove-God
A couple of small excerpts:
" .. Now I want to talk about the notion of neutrality: there is
no such thing. An atheist is not neutral when arguing against the
existence of God, nor is a Christian when arguing for the
existence of God. Each must presuppose a belief about God before
establishing the logic that allows arguments "for" or "against"
Him. .. "
there is NO SUCH THING as the christian god
It is easy to prove to yourself that God is imaginary. The evidence is all
around you.
http://godisimaginary.com/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thurisaz the Einherjer" |
|
| Title: Re: Can we prove God without the Bible? |
30 Jan 2008 10:04:21 PM |
|
|
Ah, the usual worthless junk.
Gee, no need to prove another time how braindead you are babbliel. But if
you absolutely insist on it...
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
.
|
|
|
| User: "john w" |
|
| Title: Re: Can we prove God without the Bible? |
31 Jan 2008 01:32:19 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 05:04:21 +0100, Thurisaz the Einherjer
<MAILTOsecretary@carcosa.de> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Ah, the usual worthless junk.
Gee, no need to prove another time how braindead you are babbliel. But if
you absolutely insist on it...
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
"Clever."
NOT
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elmer" |
|
| Title: Re: Can we prove God without the Bible? |
30 Jan 2008 06:26:57 PM |
|
|
Gabriel wrote:
(snip)
" .. But perhaps the best evidence that the Bible is true is that
if it were not, the laws of logic and morality—and even our own
existence—would not be possible.
But perhaps the best evidence that the Koran is true is that if it were not, the
laws of logic and morality—and even our own existence—would not be possible.
Nope, I don't see the logic here.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Midwinter" |
|
| Title: Re: Can we prove God without the Bible? |
30 Jan 2008 07:00:40 PM |
|
|
Elmer <nylicens@frontiernet.net> said :
" .. But perhaps the best evidence that the Bible is true is that
if it were not, the laws of logic and morality-and even our own
existence-would not be possible.
But perhaps the best evidence that the Koran is true is that if it
were not, the laws of logic and morality-and even our own
existence-would not be possible.
Nope, I don't see the logic here.
Are you a True Believer? To a True Believer, the statement Gabriel made
would seem logically flawless: the Bible says it is true, therefore it must
be true because we know that the Bible is true. We know the Bible is true
because the Bible says it is, and since we know the Bible is true we can
conclude it must be true when it says it's true - otherwise it wouldn't be
true and we know it is true therefore it must be true.
To most people - even most Christians - this would be obvious, and
desperate, circular reasoning. For a True Believer, it's all that's
required because it simply confirms what they already know.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Can we prove God without the Bible? |
01 Feb 2008 06:37:01 AM |
|
|
Gabriel wrote:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/01/25/feedback-prove-God
A couple of small excerpts:
" .. Now I want to talk about the notion of neutrality: there is
no such thing. An atheist is not neutral when arguing against the
existence of God, nor is a Christian when arguing for the
existence of God. Each must presuppose a belief about God before
establishing the logic that allows arguments “for” or “against”
Him. .. "
" .. But perhaps the best evidence that the Bible is true is that
if it were not, the laws of logic and morality½and even our own
existence½would not be possible. .........
................Arrant banal stupidity from a brainwashed moron
Without a logical God,
ROFL Logical You HAVE to be joking !
something we only heard about over two thousand years ago and not taday
is LOGICAL
Get a brain
who
created everything including us in His own image (which is why we
are able to use the laws of logic),
does that 'creation' include the 1 in 400,000 human fetus that arrive
grossly deformed, so gross the parents are not allowed to see it ?
but you wont address these points as they threaten your futile belief
system
there is no reason to believe
there is any order, causality, or logic in the universe. For
example, the physical and chemical laws of nature (Jeremiah
33:25) are orderly and logical. It makes sense that an orderly
and logical God would create a universe that displays some of His
characteristics (Romans 1:20).
But if the universe were just a random cosmic accident, there is
no reason for it to follow certain laws, nor should there be any
reason we could understand any of it. There is no way for a
naturalist to explain why these laws exist or where they came
from. And to just say, “That£s just how it happened” is to take a
great leap of blind faith. Thus, both the Christian and the
non-Christian must place their faith somewhere as a starting
point; we choose to put our faith in God£s revealed, perfect
Word. .. "
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Can we prove God without the Bible? |
01 Feb 2008 07:18:23 AM |
|
|
Gabriel wrote:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/01/25/feedback-prove-God
A couple of small excerpts:
" .. Now I want to talk about the notion of neutrality: there is
no such thing. An atheist is not neutral when arguing against the
existence of God, nor is a Christian when arguing for the
existence of God. Each must presuppose a belief about God before
establishing the logic that allows arguments “for” or “against”
Him. .. "
That's why the true definition of atheist is a "NON" believer .... NOT a
disbeliever.
A disbeliever would, first, have to admit that there is something that needs
to be disbelieved.
The atheist makes no such assumption.
That would be more like an "anti-theist".
This, then, makes the comment about "no such thing as neutrality" nothing
more than a strawman argument.
" .. But perhaps the best evidence that the Bible is true is that
if it were not, the laws of logic and morality½and even our own
existence½would not be possible. .........
.
|
|
|
| User: "adman" |
|
| Title: Re: Can we prove God without the Bible? |
01 Feb 2008 08:05:01 AM |
|
|
"John Smith" <bobsyoungbro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:z_Eoj.68278$75.20566@trnddc05...
Gabriel wrote:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/01/25/feedback-prove-God
A couple of small excerpts:
" .. Now I want to talk about the notion of neutrality: there is
no such thing. An atheist is not neutral when arguing against the
existence of God, nor is a Christian when arguing for the
existence of God. Each must presuppose a belief about God before
establishing the logic that allows arguments "for" or "against"
Him. .. "
That's why the true definition of atheist is a "NON" believer .... NOT a
disbeliever.
A disbeliever would, first, have to admit that there is something that
needs to be disbelieved.
The atheist makes no such assumption.
Sure they do.
" atheist activist Michael Newdow is renewing his fight to remove reference
to God from the Pledge of Allegiance,"
(worldnet daily)
Newdow obviously admits there must be a God because he does not want his
daughter pledging to it. If God does not exist, then the words would mean
nothing
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Can we prove God without the Bible? |
01 Feb 2008 10:08:11 AM |
|
|
"adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote in message
news:LFFoj.89096$K27.9920@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"John Smith" <bobsyoungbro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:z_Eoj.68278$75.20566@trnddc05...
Gabriel wrote:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/01/25/feedback-prove-God
A couple of small excerpts:
" .. Now I want to talk about the notion of neutrality: there is
no such thing. An atheist is not neutral when arguing against the
existence of God, nor is a Christian when arguing for the
existence of God. Each must presuppose a belief about God before
establishing the logic that allows arguments "for" or "against"
Him. .. "
That's why the true definition of atheist is a "NON" believer .... NOT a
disbeliever.
A disbeliever would, first, have to admit that there is something that
needs to be disbelieved.
The atheist makes no such assumption.
Sure they do.
" atheist activist Michael Newdow is renewing his fight to remove
reference to God from the Pledge of Allegiance,"
(worldnet daily)
Newdow obviously admits there must be a God because he does not want his
daughter pledging to it. If God does not exist, then the words would mean
nothing
He does no such thing.
The Constitution of the United States never admits to a god, but it protects
us ALL from government forced religion.
Your "logic" is the same as - giving up your civil and Constitutional rights
because you never use them anyway.
.
|
|
|
| User: "adman" |
|
| Title: Re: Can we prove God without the Bible? |
01 Feb 2008 10:29:20 AM |
|
|
"John Smith" <bobsyoungbro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:LtHoj.3247$K%.1274@trnddc04...
"adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote in message
news:LFFoj.89096$K27.9920@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"John Smith" <bobsyoungbro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:z_Eoj.68278$75.20566@trnddc05...
Gabriel wrote:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/01/25/feedback-prove-God
A couple of small excerpts:
" .. Now I want to talk about the notion of neutrality: there is
no such thing. An atheist is not neutral when arguing against the
existence of God, nor is a Christian when arguing for the
existence of God. Each must presuppose a belief about God before
establishing the logic that allows arguments "for" or "against"
Him. .. "
That's why the true definition of atheist is a "NON" believer .... NOT a
disbeliever.
A disbeliever would, first, have to admit that there is something that
needs to be disbelieved.
The atheist makes no such assumption.
Sure they do.
" atheist activist Michael Newdow is renewing his fight to remove
reference to God from the Pledge of Allegiance,"
(worldnet daily)
Newdow obviously admits there must be a God because he does not want his
daughter pledging to it. If God does not exist, then the words would mean
nothing
He does no such thing.
The Constitution of the United States never admits to a god, but it
protects us ALL from government forced religion.
The constitutation authors do indeed admit to a God though.
However i agree that the constitutation does protect us from having religion
forced upon any of us. A good thing imho.
But that was not my point. If Newdow does not believe in God then the words
should mean nothing to him and he should have no intrest either way if they
are in the pledge or not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Can we prove God without the Bible? |
01 Feb 2008 07:12:05 PM |
|
|
"adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote in message
news:0NHoj.89184$K27.38078@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"John Smith" <bobsyoungbro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:LtHoj.3247$K%.1274@trnddc04...
"adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote in message
news:LFFoj.89096$K27.9920@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"John Smith" <bobsyoungbro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:z_Eoj.68278$75.20566@trnddc05...
Gabriel wrote:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/01/25/feedback-prove-God
A couple of small excerpts:
" .. Now I want to talk about the notion of neutrality: there is
no such thing. An atheist is not neutral when arguing against the
existence of God, nor is a Christian when arguing for the
existence of God. Each must presuppose a belief about God before
establishing the logic that allows arguments "for" or "against"
Him. .. "
That's why the true definition of atheist is a "NON" believer .... NOT
a disbeliever.
A disbeliever would, first, have to admit that there is something that
needs to be disbelieved.
The atheist makes no such assumption.
Sure they do.
" atheist activist Michael Newdow is renewing his fight to remove
reference to God from the Pledge of Allegiance,"
(worldnet daily)
Newdow obviously admits there must be a God because he does not want his
daughter pledging to it. If God does not exist, then the words would
mean nothing
He does no such thing.
The Constitution of the United States never admits to a god, but it
protects us ALL from government forced religion.
The constitutation authors do indeed admit to a God though.
Some do .. some don't.
Doesn't matter!
The LAW they wrote does not reccognize ANY god - or even the existance OF
god.
However i agree that the constitutation does protect us from having
religion forced upon any of us. A good thing imho.
But that was not my point. If Newdow does not believe in God then the
words should mean nothing to him and he should have no intrest either way
if they are in the pledge or not.
Your point was totally irrational.
I do not believe in the Roman Catholic religion ... and certainly not in
their pope.
I would fight tooth and nail to keep ANY mention of their religion and its
leader out of our legal and governmental system.
Suppose we take your argument a little further ...... it would be harmless
to add propaganda honoring Aldolph Hitler into the pledge.
Since he's dead anyway, the praise means nothing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "adman" |
|
| Title: Re: Can we prove God without the Bible? |
01 Feb 2008 07:15:17 PM |
|
|
"John Smith" <bobsyoungbro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:FrPoj.7422$hF2.4585@trnddc02...
|
| "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote in message
| news:0NHoj.89184$K27.38078@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
| >
| > "John Smith" <bobsyoungbro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:LtHoj.3247$K%.1274@trnddc04...
| >>
| >> "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote in message
| >> news:LFFoj.89096$K27.9920@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
| >>>
| >>> "John Smith" <bobsyoungbro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| >>> news:z_Eoj.68278$75.20566@trnddc05...
| >>>>
| >>>>
| >>>>>
| >>>>>
| >>>>> Gabriel wrote:
| >>>>>
| >>>>>>
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/01/25/feedback-prove-God
| >>>>>>
| >>>>>> A couple of small excerpts:
| >>>>>>
| >>>>>> " .. Now I want to talk about the notion of neutrality: there is
| >>>>>> no such thing. An atheist is not neutral when arguing against the
| >>>>>> existence of God, nor is a Christian when arguing for the
| >>>>>> existence of God. Each must presuppose a belief about God before
| >>>>>> establishing the logic that allows arguments "for" or "against"
| >>>>>> Him. .. "
| >>>>
| >>>> That's why the true definition of atheist is a "NON" believer ....
NOT
| >>>> a disbeliever.
| >>>> A disbeliever would, first, have to admit that there is something
that
| >>>> needs to be disbelieved.
| >>>> The atheist makes no such assumption.
| >>>
| >>> Sure they do.
| >>> " atheist activist Michael Newdow is renewing his fight to remove
| >>> reference to God from the Pledge of Allegiance,"
| >>> (worldnet daily)
| >>>
| >>> Newdow obviously admits there must be a God because he does not want
his
| >>> daughter pledging to it. If God does not exist, then the words would
| >>> mean nothing
| >>
| >> He does no such thing.
| >> The Constitution of the United States never admits to a god, but it
| >> protects us ALL from government forced religion.
| >
| > The constitutation authors do indeed admit to a God though.
|
| Some do .. some don't.
| Doesn't matter!
| The LAW they wrote does not reccognize ANY god - or even the existance OF
| god.
|
| >
| > However i agree that the constitutation does protect us from having
| > religion forced upon any of us. A good thing imho.
| >
| > But that was not my point. If Newdow does not believe in God then the
| > words should mean nothing to him and he should have no intrest either
way
| > if they are in the pledge or not.
|
| Your point was totally irrational.
| I do not believe in the Roman Catholic religion ... and certainly not in
| their pope.
| I would fight tooth and nail to keep ANY mention of their religion and its
| leader out of our legal and governmental system.
|
| Suppose we take your argument a little further ...... it would be harmless
| to add propaganda honoring Aldolph Hitler into the pledge.
| Since he's dead anyway, the praise means nothing.
you are taking the conversation a bit too far.
|
|
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Can we prove God without the Bible? |
01 Feb 2008 07:24:53 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 19:15:17 -0600, in alt.talk.creationism
"adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote in
<kuPoj.70338$N67.8083@bignews5.bellsouth.net>:
"John Smith" <bobsyoungbro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:FrPoj.7422$hF2.4585@trnddc02...
|
| "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote in message
| news:0NHoj.89184$K27.38078@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
| >
| > "John Smith" <bobsyoungbro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:LtHoj.3247$K%.1274@trnddc04...
| >>
| >> "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote in message
| >> news:LFFoj.89096$K27.9920@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
| >>>
| >>> "John Smith" <bobsyoungbro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| >>> news:z_Eoj.68278$75.20566@trnddc05...
| >>>>
| >>>>
| >>>>>
| >>>>>
| >>>>> Gabriel wrote:
| >>>>>
| >>>>>>
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/01/25/feedback-prove-God
| >>>>>>
| >>>>>> A couple of small excerpts:
| >>>>>>
| >>>>>> " .. Now I want to talk about the notion of neutrality: there is
| >>>>>> no such thing. An atheist is not neutral when arguing against the
| >>>>>> existence of God, nor is a Christian when arguing for the
| >>>>>> existence of God. Each must presuppose a belief about God before
| >>>>>> establishing the logic that allows arguments "for" or "against"
| >>>>>> Him. .. "
| >>>>
| >>>> That's why the true definition of atheist is a "NON" believer ....
NOT
| >>>> a disbeliever.
| >>>> A disbeliever would, first, have to admit that there is something
that
| >>>> needs to be disbelieved.
| >>>> The atheist makes no such assumption.
| >>>
| >>> Sure they do.
| >>> " atheist activist Michael Newdow is renewing his fight to remove
| >>> reference to God from the Pledge of Allegiance,"
| >>> (worldnet daily)
| >>>
| >>> Newdow obviously admits there must be a God because he does not want
his
| >>> daughter pledging to it. If God does not exist, then the words would
| >>> mean nothing
| >>
| >> He does no such thing.
| >> The Constitution of the United States never admits to a god, but it
| >> protects us ALL from government forced religion.
| >
| > The constitutation authors do indeed admit to a God though.
|
| Some do .. some don't.
| Doesn't matter!
| The LAW they wrote does not reccognize ANY god - or even the existance OF
| god.
|
| >
| > However i agree that the constitutation does protect us from having
| > religion forced upon any of us. A good thing imho.
| >
| > But that was not my point. If Newdow does not believe in God then the
| > words should mean nothing to him and he should have no intrest either
way
| > if they are in the pledge or not.
|
| Your point was totally irrational.
| I do not believe in the Roman Catholic religion ... and certainly not in
| their pope.
| I would fight tooth and nail to keep ANY mention of their religion and its
| leader out of our legal and governmental system.
|
| Suppose we take your argument a little further ...... it would be harmless
| to add propaganda honoring Aldolph Hitler into the pledge.
| Since he's dead anyway, the praise means nothing.
you are taking the conversation a bit too far.
No, he's just following your lead.
.
|
|
|
| User: "adman" |
|
| Title: Re: Can we prove God without the Bible? |
01 Feb 2008 08:00:20 PM |
|
|
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:jih7q3l5i1vogo0nhbvud2d1d3q0k3ar30@4ax.com...
| On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 19:15:17 -0600, in alt.talk.creationism
| "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote in
| <kuPoj.70338$N67.8083@bignews5.bellsouth.net>:
| >
| >"John Smith" <bobsyoungbro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| >news:FrPoj.7422$hF2.4585@trnddc02...
| >|
| >| "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote in message
| >| news:0NHoj.89184$K27.38078@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
| >| >
| >| > "John Smith" <bobsyoungbro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| >| > news:LtHoj.3247$K%.1274@trnddc04...
| >| >>
| >| >> "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote in message
| >| >> news:LFFoj.89096$K27.9920@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
| >| >>>
| >| >>> "John Smith" <bobsyoungbro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| >| >>> news:z_Eoj.68278$75.20566@trnddc05...
| >| >>>>
| >| >>>>
| >| >>>>>
| >| >>>>>
| >| >>>>> Gabriel wrote:
| >| >>>>>
| >| >>>>>>
| >http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/01/25/feedback-prove-God
| >| >>>>>>
| >| >>>>>> A couple of small excerpts:
| >| >>>>>>
| >| >>>>>> " .. Now I want to talk about the notion of neutrality: there is
| >| >>>>>> no such thing. An atheist is not neutral when arguing against
the
| >| >>>>>> existence of God, nor is a Christian when arguing for the
| >| >>>>>> existence of God. Each must presuppose a belief about God before
| >| >>>>>> establishing the logic that allows arguments "for" or "against"
| >| >>>>>> Him. .. "
| >| >>>>
| >| >>>> That's why the true definition of atheist is a "NON" believer ....
| >NOT
| >| >>>> a disbeliever.
| >| >>>> A disbeliever would, first, have to admit that there is something
| >that
| >| >>>> needs to be disbelieved.
| >| >>>> The atheist makes no such assumption.
| >| >>>
| >| >>> Sure they do.
| >| >>> " atheist activist Michael Newdow is renewing his fight to remove
| >| >>> reference to God from the Pledge of Allegiance,"
| >| >>> (worldnet daily)
| >| >>>
| >| >>> Newdow obviously admits there must be a God because he does not
want
| >his
| >| >>> daughter pledging to it. If God does not exist, then the words
would
| >| >>> mean nothing
| >| >>
| >| >> He does no such thing.
| >| >> The Constitution of the United States never admits to a god, but it
| >| >> protects us ALL from government forced religion.
| >| >
| >| > The constitutation authors do indeed admit to a God though.
| >|
| >| Some do .. some don't.
| >| Doesn't matter!
| >| The LAW they wrote does not reccognize ANY god - or even the existance
OF
| >| god.
| >|
| >| >
| >| > However i agree that the constitutation does protect us from having
| >| > religion forced upon any of us. A good thing imho.
| >| >
| >| > But that was not my point. If Newdow does not believe in God then the
| >| > words should mean nothing to him and he should have no intrest either
| >way
| >| > if they are in the pledge or not.
| >|
| >| Your point was totally irrational.
| >| I do not believe in the Roman Catholic religion ... and certainly not
in
| >| their pope.
| >| I would fight tooth and nail to keep ANY mention of their religion and
its
| >| leader out of our legal and governmental system.
| >|
| >| Suppose we take your argument a little further ...... it would be
harmless
| >| to add propaganda honoring Aldolph Hitler into the pledge.
| >| Since he's dead anyway, the praise means nothing.
| >
| >you are taking the conversation a bit too far.
|
| No, he's just following your lead.
dont look like it
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: Can we prove God without the Bible? |
02 Feb 2008 07:10:26 PM |
|
|
adman wrote:
"John Smith" <bobsyoungbro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:FrPoj.7422$hF2.4585@trnddc02...
|
| "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote in message
| news:0NHoj.89184$K27.38078@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
| >
| > "John Smith" <bobsyoungbro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:LtHoj.3247$K%.1274@trnddc04...
| >>
| >> "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote in message
| >> news:LFFoj.89096$K27.9920@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
| >>>
| >>> "John Smith" <bobsyoungbro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| >>> news:z_Eoj.68278$75.20566@trnddc05...
| >>>>
| >>>>
| >>>>>
| >>>>>
| >>>>> Gabriel wrote:
| >>>>>
| >>>>>>
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/01/25/feedback-prove-God
| >>>>>>
| >>>>>> A couple of small excerpts:
| >>>>>>
| >>>>>> " .. Now I want to talk about the notion of neutrality: there is
| >>>>>> no such thing. An atheist is not neutral when arguing against the
| >>>>>> existence of God, nor is a Christian when arguing for the
| >>>>>> existence of God. Each must presuppose a belief about God before
| >>>>>> establishing the logic that allows arguments "for" or "against"
| >>>>>> Him. .. "
| >>>>
| >>>> That's why the true definition of atheist is a "NON" believer ....
NOT
| >>>> a disbeliever.
| >>>> A disbeliever would, first, have to admit that there is something
that
| >>>> needs to be disbelieved.
| >>>> The atheist makes no such assumption.
| >>>
| >>> Sure they do.
| >>> " atheist activist Michael Newdow is renewing his fight to remove
| >>> reference to God from the Pledge of Allegiance,"
| >>> (worldnet daily)
| >>>
| >>> Newdow obviously admits there must be a God because he does not want
his
| >>> daughter pledging to it. If God does not exist, then the words would
| >>> mean nothing
| >>
| >> He does no such thing.
| >> The Constitution of the United States never admits to a god, but it
| >> protects us ALL from government forced religion.
| >
| > The constitutation authors do indeed admit to a God though.
|
| Some do .. some don't.
| Doesn't matter!
| The LAW they wrote does not reccognize ANY god - or even the existance OF
| god.
|
| >
| > However i agree that the constitutation does protect us from having
| > religion forced upon any of us. A good thing imho.
| >
| > But that was not my point. If Newdow does not believe in God then the
| > words should mean nothing to him and he should have no intrest either
way
| > if they are in the pledge or not.
|
| Your point was totally irrational.
| I do not believe in the Roman Catholic religion ... and certainly not in
| their pope.
| I would fight tooth and nail to keep ANY mention of their religion and its
| leader out of our legal and governmental system.
|
| Suppose we take your argument a little further ...... it would be harmless
| to add propaganda honoring Aldolph Hitler into the pledge.
| Since he's dead anyway, the praise means nothing.
you are taking the conversation a bit too far.
|
Not at all. Adding those two words was an obnoxious, desperate response
to the McCarthyism of the time - no godless commie pinko would say that!
It's just one more way of destroying our freedom in order to save it.
It didn't do any good, only harm.
.
|
|
|
| User: "adman" |
|
| Title: Re: Can we prove God without the Bible? |
02 Feb 2008 09:08:33 PM |
|
|
"cactus" <cactus@nonespam.com> wrote in message
news:6w8pj.5521$Ch6.4641@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
| adman wrote:
| > "John Smith" <bobsyoungbro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:FrPoj.7422$hF2.4585@trnddc02...
| > |
| > | "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote in message
| > | news:0NHoj.89184$K27.38078@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
| > | >
| > | > "John Smith" <bobsyoungbro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > | > news:LtHoj.3247$K%.1274@trnddc04...
| > | >>
| > | >> "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote in message
| > | >> news:LFFoj.89096$K27.9920@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
| > | >>>
| > | >>> "John Smith" <bobsyoungbro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > | >>> news:z_Eoj.68278$75.20566@trnddc05...
| > | >>>>
| > | >>>>
| > | >>>>>
| > | >>>>>
| > | >>>>> Gabriel wrote:
| > | >>>>>
| > | >>>>>>
| > http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/01/25/feedback-prove-God
| > | >>>>>>
| > | >>>>>> A couple of small excerpts:
| > | >>>>>>
| > | >>>>>> " .. Now I want to talk about the notion of neutrality: there
is
| > | >>>>>> no such thing. An atheist is not neutral when arguing against
the
| > | >>>>>> existence of God, nor is a Christian when arguing for the
| > | >>>>>> existence of God. Each must presuppose a belief about God
before
| > | >>>>>> establishing the logic that allows arguments "for" or "against"
| > | >>>>>> Him. .. "
| > | >>>>
| > | >>>> That's why the true definition of atheist is a "NON" believer
.....
| > NOT
| > | >>>> a disbeliever.
| > | >>>> A disbeliever would, first, have to admit that there is something
| > that
| > | >>>> needs to be disbelieved.
| > | >>>> The atheist makes no such assumption.
| > | >>>
| > | >>> Sure they do.
| > | >>> " atheist activist Michael Newdow is renewing his fight to remove
| > | >>> reference to God from the Pledge of Allegiance,"
| > | >>> (worldnet daily)
| > | >>>
| > | >>> Newdow obviously admits there must be a God because he does not
want
| > his
| > | >>> daughter pledging to it. If God does not exist, then the words
would
| > | >>> mean nothing
| > | >>
| > | >> He does no such thing.
| > | >> The Constitution of the United States never admits to a god, but it
| > | >> protects us ALL from government forced religion.
| > | >
| > | > The constitutation authors do indeed admit to a God though.
| > |
| > | Some do .. some don't.
| > | Doesn't matter!
| > | The LAW they wrote does not reccognize ANY god - or even the existance
OF
| > | god.
| > |
| > | >
| > | > However i agree that the constitutation does protect us from having
| > | > religion forced upon any of us. A good thing imho.
| > | >
| > | > But that was not my point. If Newdow does not believe in God then
the
| > | > words should mean nothing to him and he should have no intrest
either
| > way
| > | > if they are in the pledge or not.
| > |
| > | Your point was totally irrational.
| > | I do not believe in the Roman Catholic religion ... and certainly not
in
| > | their pope.
| > | I would fight tooth and nail to keep ANY mention of their religion and
its
| > | leader out of our legal and governmental system.
| > |
| > | Suppose we take your argument a little further ...... it would be
harmless
| > | to add propaganda honoring Aldolph Hitler into the pledge.
| > | Since he's dead anyway, the praise means nothing.
| >
| > you are taking the conversation a bit too far.
| > |
|
| Not at all. Adding those two words was an obnoxious, desperate response
| to the McCarthyism of the time - no godless commie pinko would say that!
| It's just one more way of destroying our freedom in order to save it.
| It didn't do any good, only harm.
I have said before that i *personally* do not believe the words belong in
the Pledge. But my original point is we have so many more dire issues in the
country to worry about. And if the Athiest truly want tollerence, then let
them show some freeking tollerence back for a change. So using Hittles as an
analogy is going a bit too far for a subject that simply does not warrent so
much effort.
Newdow is showboating
.
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: Can we prove God without the Bible? |
03 Feb 2008 12:32:11 AM |
|
|
adman wrote:
"cactus" <cactus@nonespam.com> wrote in message
news:6w8pj.5521$Ch6.4641@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
| adman wrote:
| > "John Smith" <bobsyoungbro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:FrPoj.7422$hF2.4585@trnddc02...
| > |
| > | "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote in message
| > | news:0NHoj.89184$K27.38078@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
| > | >
| > | > "John Smith" <bobsyoungbro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > | > news:LtHoj.3247$K%.1274@trnddc04...
| > | >>
| > | >> "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote in message
| > | >> news:LFFoj.89096$K27.9920@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
| > | >>>
| > | >>> "John Smith" <bobsyoungbro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > | >>> news:z_Eoj.68278$75.20566@trnddc05...
| > | >>>>
| > | >>>>
| > | >>>>>
| > | >>>>>
| > | >>>>> Gabriel wrote:
| > | >>>>>
| > | >>>>>>
| > http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/01/25/feedback-prove-God
| > | >>>>>>
| > | >>>>>> A couple of small excerpts:
| > | >>>>>>
| > | >>>>>> " .. Now I want to talk about the notion of neutrality: there
is
| > | >>>>>> no such thing. An atheist is not neutral when arguing against
the
| > | >>>>>> existence of God, nor is a Christian when arguing for the
| > | >>>>>> existence of God. Each must presuppose a belief about God
before
| > | >>>>>> establishing the logic that allows arguments "for" or "against"
| > | >>>>>> Him. .. "
| > | >>>>
| > | >>>> That's why the true definition of atheist is a "NON" believer
....
| > NOT
| > | >>>> a disbeliever.
| > | >>>> A disbeliever would, first, have to admit that there is something
| > that
| > | >>>> needs to be disbelieved.
| > | >>>> The atheist makes no such assumption.
| > | >>>
| > | >>> Sure they do.
| > | >>> " atheist activist Michael Newdow is renewing his fight to remove
| > | >>> reference to God from the Pledge of Allegiance,"
| > | >>> (worldnet daily)
| > | >>>
| > | >>> Newdow obviously admits there must be a God because he does not
want
| > his
| > | >>> daughter pledging to it. If God does not exist, then the words
would
| > | >>> mean nothing
| > | >>
| > | >> He does no such thing.
| > | >> The Constitution of the United States never admits to a god, but it
| > | >> protects us ALL from government forced religion.
| > | >
| > | > The constitutation authors do indeed admit to a God though.
| > |
| > | Some do .. some don't.
| > | Doesn't matter!
| > | The LAW they wrote does not reccognize ANY god - or even the existance
OF
| > | god.
| > |
| > | >
| > | > However i agree that the constitutation does protect us from having
| > | > religion forced upon any of us. A good thing imho.
| > | >
| > | > But that was not my point. If Newdow does not believe in God then
the
| > | > words should mean nothing to him and he should have no intrest
either
| > way
| > | > if they are in the pledge or not.
| > |
| > | Your point was totally irrational.
| > | I do not believe in the Roman Catholic religion ... and certainly not
in
| > | their pope.
| > | I would fight tooth and nail to keep ANY mention of their religion and
its
| > | leader out of our legal and governmental system.
| > |
| > | Suppose we take your argument a little further ...... it would be
harmless
| > | to add propaganda honoring Aldolph Hitler into the pledge.
| > | Since he's dead anyway, the praise means nothing.
| >
| > you are taking the conversation a bit too far.
| > |
|
| Not at all. Adding those two words was an obnoxious, desperate response
| to the McCarthyism of the time - no godless commie pinko would say that!
| It's just one more way of destroying our freedom in order to save it.
| It didn't do any good, only harm.
I have said before that i *personally* do not believe the words belong in
the Pledge. But my original point is we have so many more dire issues in the
country to worry about. And if the Athiest truly want tollerence, then let
them show some freeking tollerence back for a change. So using Hittles as an
analogy is going a bit too far for a subject that simply does not warrent so
much effort.
Newdow is showboating
You don't understand it, and you never will. Try being a religious
minority sometime. Maybe it will make some sense after that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "adman" |
|
| Title: Re: Can we prove God without the Bible? |
03 Feb 2008 11:32:06 AM |
|
|
"cactus" <cactus@nonespam.com> wrote in message
news:kddpj.54099$Pv2.6524@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
| adman wrote:
| > "cactus" <cactus@nonespam.com> wrote in message
| >
| > Newdow is showboating
| >
|
| You don't understand it, and you never will. Try being a religious
| minority sometime. Maybe it will make some sense after that.
yes i understand it, and i have said twice i do not believe the words should
be in the pledge.
Where is the tollerance from the Athiests on this?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Can we prove God without the Bible? |
03 Feb 2008 01:22:30 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 11:32:06 -0600, in alt.talk.creationism
"adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote in
<7Umpj.89365$L%6.84644@bignews3.bellsouth.net>:
"cactus" <cactus@nonespam.com> wrote in message
news:kddpj.54099$Pv2.6524@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
| adman wrote:
| > "cactus" <cactus@nonespam.com> wrote in message
| >
| > Newdow is showboating
| >
|
| You don't understand it, and you never will. Try being a religious
| minority sometime. Maybe it will make some sense after that.
yes i understand it, and i have said twice i do not believe the words should
be in the pledge.
I don't believe you.
Where is the tollerance from the Athiests on this?
I tolerate it, but that doesn't mean I approve of this decision by
religious zealots to stomp all over our Constitution. Why do you?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: Can we prove God without the Bible? |
03 Feb 2008 12:25:24 PM |
|
|
adman wrote:
"cactus" <cactus@nonespam.com> wrote in message
news:kddpj.54099$Pv2.6524@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
| adman wrote:
| > "cactus" <cactus@nonespam.com> wrote in message
| >
| > Newdow is showboating
| >
|
| You don't understand it, and you never will. Try being a religious
| minority sometime. Maybe it will make some sense after that.
yes i understand it, and i have said twice i do not believe the words should
be in the pledge.
Where is the tollerance from the Athiests on this?
That is the tolerance towards everyone on this? It offends Muslims, it
offends Buddhists, and it offends Hindus.
Look around you - Christianity is only one religion, albeit hugely
fragmented. The only way to treat all religions equally is to keep all
official manifestations of any religion out of the government realm.
Including those words represents a failure to uphold the standards of
freedom on which our country was founded. It is patriotic to oppose them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "adman" |
|
| Title: Re: Can we prove God without the Bible? |
03 Feb 2008 06:08:25 PM |
|
|
"cactus" <cactus@nonespam.com> wrote in message
news:oGnpj.5266$5K1.3735@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
| adman wrote:
| > "cactus" <cactus@nonespam.com> wrote in message
| > news:kddpj.54099$Pv2.6524@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
| > | adman wrote:
| > | > "cactus" <cactus@nonespam.com> wrote in message
| > | >
| > | > Newdow is showboating
| > | >
| > |
| > | You don't understand it, and you never will. Try being a religious
| > | minority sometime. Maybe it will make some sense after that.
| >
| > yes i understand it, and i have said twice i do not believe the words
should
| > be in the pledge.
| >
| > Where is the tollerance from the Athiests on this?
|
| That is the tolerance towards everyone on this? It offends Muslims, it
| offends Buddhists, and it offends Hindus.
|
| Look around you - Christianity is only one religion, albeit hugely
| fragmented. The only way to treat all religions equally is to keep all
| official manifestations of any religion out of the government realm.
|
| Including those words represents a failure to uphold the standards of
| freedom on which our country was founded. It is patriotic to oppose them.
good point <s>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Can we prove God without the Bible? |
01 Feb 2008 11:41:01 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:29:20 -0600, in alt.talk.creationism
"adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote in
<0NHoj.89184$K27.38078@bignews6.bellsouth.net>:
"John Smith" <bobsyoungbro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:LtHoj.3247$K%.1274@trnddc04...
"adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote in message
news:LFFoj.89096$K27.9920@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"John Smith" <bobsyoungbro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:z_Eoj.68278$75.20566@trnddc05...
Gabriel wrote:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/01/25/feedback-prove-God
A couple of small excerpts:
" .. Now I want to talk about the notion of neutrality: there is
no such thing. An atheist is not neutral when arguing against the
existence of God, nor is a Christian when arguing for the
existence of God. Each must presuppose a belief about God before
establishing the logic that allows arguments "for" or "against"
Him. .. "
That's why the true definition of atheist is a "NON" believer .... NOT a
disbeliever.
A disbeliever would, first, have to admit that there is something that
needs to be disbelieved.
The atheist makes no such assumption.
Sure they do.
" atheist activist Michael Newdow is renewing his fight to remove
reference to God from the Pledge of Allegiance,"
(worldnet daily)
Newdow obviously admits there must be a God because he does not want his
daughter pledging to it. If God does not exist, then the words would mean
nothing
He does no such thing.
The Constitution of the United States never admits to a god, but it
protects us ALL from government forced religion.
The constitutation authors do indeed admit to a God though.
Maybe, maybe not, but there is nothing about a god in the Constitution.
However i agree that the constitutation does protect us from having religion
forced upon any of us. A good thing imho.
But that was not my point. If Newdow does not believe in God then the words
should mean nothing to him and he should have no intrest either way if they
are in the pledge or not.
Why? What gives religionists the right to use the government to try to
force their doctrines on others? Are you telling me that it is fine with
you if you have to listen to a recitation about Odin every day because
you don't believe in Odin?
.
|
|
|
| User: "adman" |
|
| Title: Re: Can we prove God without the Bible? |
01 Feb 2008 12:44:23 PM |
|
|
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:lam6q3t7bmq2jk7i54jhqt2fqb1ds6e7pe@4ax.com...
| On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:29:20 -0600, in alt.talk.creationism
| "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote in
| <0NHoj.89184$K27.38078@bignews6.bellsouth.net>:
| >
| >"John Smith" <bobsyoungbro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| >news:LtHoj.3247$K%.1274@trnddc04...
| >>
| >> "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote in message
| >> news:LFFoj.89096$K27.9920@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
| >>>
| >>> "John Smith" <bobsyoungbro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| >>> news:z_Eoj.68278$75.20566@trnddc05...
| >>>>
| >>>>
| >>>>>
| >>>>>
| >>>>> Gabriel wrote:
| >>>>>
| >>>>>>
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/01/25/feedback-prove-God
| >>>>>>
| >>>>>> A couple of small excerpts:
| >>>>>>
| >>>>>> " .. Now I want to talk about the notion of neutrality: there is
| >>>>>> no such thing. An atheist is not neutral when arguing against the
| >>>>>> existence of God, nor is a Christian when arguing for the
| >>>>>> existence of God. Each must presuppose a belief about God before
| >>>>>> establishing the logic that allows arguments "for" or "against"
| >>>>>> Him. .. "
| >>>>
| >>>> That's why the true definition of atheist is a "NON" believer ....
NOT a
| >>>> disbeliever.
| >>>> A disbeliever would, first, have to admit that there is something
that
| >>>> needs to be disbelieved.
| >>>> The atheist makes no such assumption.
| >>>
| >>> Sure they do.
| >>> " atheist activist Michael Newdow is renewing his fight to remove
| >>> reference to God from the Pledge of Allegiance,"
| >>> (worldnet daily)
| >>>
| >>> Newdow obviously admits there must be a God because he does not want
his
| >>> daughter pledging to it. If God does not exist, then the words would
mean
| >>> nothing
| >>
| >> He does no such thing.
| >> The Constitution of the United States never admits to a god, but it
| >> protects us ALL from government forced religion.
| >
| >The constitutation authors do indeed admit to a God though.
|
| Maybe, maybe not, but there is nothing about a god in the Constitution.
|
| >However i agree that the constitutation does protect us from having
religion
| >forced upon any of us. A good thing imho.
| >
| >But that was not my point. If Newdow does not believe in God then the
words
| >should mean nothing to him and he should have no intrest either way if
they
| >are in the pledge or not.
|
| Why? What gives religionists the right to use the government to try to
| force their doctrines on others? Are you telling me that it is fine with
| you if you have to listen to a recitation about Odin every day because
| you don't believe in Odin?
I understand your point. But you are not understanding mine. So what if the
pledge says "under God".
As a nation, we have bigger fish to fry
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
