POLL: Civil War in the US?

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Well, you can twist the semantics around any way you please, but it still doesn't make atheism a religion. Most atheists would say that there is no proof that God exists, therefore I don't believe in God. It's a distinct LACK of faith that atheists believe what they do. Sure it's a "religious viewpoint" but everyone has some kind of opinion concerning religion, it doesn't necessarily make them religious.

again your simply sidestepping the very valid point that atheism is a religious viewpoint. no semantic game on my part, one on yours however.

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Further, atheism doesn't qualify for tax breaks, doesn't have any churches, and certainly isn't recognized as a religion by the government. Can you say that about true religions like Christians, Muslims or Judaism? Nope.

again your forgetting buddhism is an atheistic religion with the same rights and privilages as others. if atheists want a tax break they can do the things other religious views do, perhaps time would be spent doing that than fighting to remove the rights of people that disagree with you.

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Finally, you cannot prove a NEGATIVE. I don't know how many times that is stressed around here. Therefore an atheist could NEVER prove that God doesn't exist. On the flip side, you could certainly prove that God did exist, assuming you had some sort of evidence - like him manifesting himself in an unquestionable way. Until he does, or some other irrefutable proof surfaces, most atheists are going to assume there is no God.

irrelevant. the point is beliving in something you cannot prove is an act of faith, WHY you cannot prove it does not matter in the context of the point i made, only the fact it cannot be proved.

besides a negative CAN be proved! your buying into a modern day myth. for example: someone could make the claim that there is no blue pen in my bedroom, to prove it all they would have to do is search the room. it can be incredible hard to prove a negative, but not impossible. if my logic is fualty in this statement could you show me where? can you demonstrate it?

as for God manifesting Himself, he has to me i have the proof i need, it is possible my perception is fooling me, but it is also just as possible your lack of perception is fooling you as well.

 

[DealMonkey]

Shad0whawk - I've answered your question (see above), now answer mine:

Are these "atheists," who are bringing the ten commandments cases before the nation's courts, asking for the government to place plaques or monuments that read "THERE IS NO GOD" in our nation's courthouses and public squares? Yes or no?

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: rjain
DM: there's a difference between an agnostic and an atheist. An atheist makes a negative statement that we KNOW that no gods can exist. A theist makes a positive statement that we KNOW that there must be gods. An agnostic simply searches for information so that we can better understand which statement is more accurate.

negative or positive, both are definitive, exclusive claims.

agnosticism is merely an assumption man cannot know...hence the "A" in front of the "gnostic" it also makes a definitive claim in saying man can not know one way or the other

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: GrGr

No, atheism is the absence of belief, or faith, in a god, or gods. or religious systems or religious world views. To claim that atheism is a religious viewpoint is a logical fallacy. You are ascribing something to atheism which it by definition cannot have. Atheists do not believe there is no god, they are convinced there is no god. The word belief does not come into the argument for atheist since their view is the equal of absence of belief in any religious sense. Ok? An atheist can believe in abstracts like justice, truth, fair play, common sense etc. That does not mean that they believe in the absence of God. You cannot believe in the absence of something that does not exist. That would be like believing in a double negation, in other words absurd.

ROFL!!! talk about a semantic game!!!

GrGr, being "convinced" about something is no different than "beleiving" in something..generally one has to be convinced about something to beleive in it, they co-exist in a cause and effect relationship, being convinced about something results in you believing it. you cannot have one without the other, you do not make any sense here.

could you perhaps provide me with an example of someone "convinced" about something but at the same time not believing in it? lets use your logic in a sentence.



ROFL!!!

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: GrGr

No, atheism is the absence of belief, or faith, in a god, or gods. or religious systems or religious world views. To claim that atheism is a religious viewpoint is a logical fallacy. You are ascribing something to atheism which it by definition cannot have. Atheists do not believe there is no god, they are convinced there is no god. The word belief does not come into the argument for atheist since their view is the equal of absence of belief in any religious sense. Ok? An atheist can believe in abstracts like justice, truth, fair play, common sense etc. That does not mean that they believe in the absence of God. You cannot believe in the absence of something that does not exist. That would be like believing in a double negation, in other words absurd.

ROFL!!! talk about a semantic game!!!

GrGr, being "convinced" about something is no different than "beleiving" in something..generally one has to be convinced about something to beleive in it, they co-exist in a cause and effect relationship, being convinced about something results in you believing it. you cannot have one without the other, you do not make any sense here.

could you perhaps provide me with an example of someone "convinced" about something but at the same time not believing in it? lets use your logic in a sentence.



ROFL!!!

According to you it would be impossible for a person not to have a Religious viewpiont which is proposterous.

 

[Nocturnal]

It sure is a possibility. John Titor, the man who claims to be from the future, made a prophecy that there would be a Civil war in the USA which will start in 2004. We just have to wait and see, I guess.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: GrGr

No, atheism is the absence of belief, or faith, in a god, or gods. or religious systems or religious world views. To claim that atheism is a religious viewpoint is a logical fallacy. You are ascribing something to atheism which it by definition cannot have. Atheists do not believe there is no god, they are convinced there is no god. The word belief does not come into the argument for atheist since their view is the equal of absence of belief in any religious sense. Ok? An atheist can believe in abstracts like justice, truth, fair play, common sense etc. That does not mean that they believe in the absence of God. You cannot believe in the absence of something that does not exist. That would be like believing in a double negation, in other words absurd.

ROFL!!! talk about a semantic game!!!

GrGr, being "convinced" about something is no different than "beleiving" in something..generally one has to be convinced about something to beleive in it, they co-exist in a cause and effect relationship, being convinced about something results in you believing it. you cannot have one without the other, you do not make any sense here.

could you perhaps provide me with an example of someone "convinced" about something but at the same time not believing in it? lets use your logic in a sentence.



ROFL!!!

There is a reason you do not say when you are praying: I am convinced Jesus is the son of God and that he will save me/us. Instead you are saying: I believe in Jesus Christ our saviour (or words to that effect). Belief implies faith, conviction does not. See the difference? Conviction is beyond faith. Atheists do not have faith that God does not exist. They are convinced there is no God.

 

[DealMonkey]

Here's my theory: Let's assume Shad0whawk's argument that "atheism is a religion" (or religious viewpoint, whatever) is valid. If that was the case, for atheists to ask the government to promulgate their religious beliefs, they would have to be asking for the government to declare "THERE IS NO GOD."

But that's NOT what the atheists are doing. They're asking for the government to remain neutral in this dispute, by not only ignoring the atheist's beliefs (that there is NO god) but all other religious beliefs as well (that there is a god).

THAT'S how the government remains neutral. By not taking ANYONE'S side in the matter. To insist that atheists are somehow requiring the government to officiate their "beliefs" is missing the point and not understanding the situation.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Here's my theory: Let's assume Shad0whawk's argument that "atheism is a religion" (or religious viewpoint, whatever) is valid. If that was the case, for atheists to ask the government to promulgate their religious beliefs, they would have to be asking for the government to declare "THERE IS NO GOD."

But that's NOT what the atheists are doing. They're asking for the government to remain neutral in this dispute, by not only ignoring the atheist's beliefs (that there is NO god) but all other religious beliefs as well (that there is a god).

THAT'S how the government remains neutral. By not taking ANYONE'S side in the matter. To insist that atheists are somehow requiring the government to officiate their "beliefs" is missing the point and not understanding the situation.

Yes, that is what Shad0whawk is missing. He is presenting us with a False Dilemma (a logic fallacy). Nobody is "prohibiting the free exercise", for him or other religious believers, of their religion by removing illegal texts and objects form public places.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: GrGr
Yes, that is what Shad0whawk is missing. He is presenting us with a False Dilemma (a logic fallacy). Nobody is "prohibiting the free exercise", for him or other religious believers, of their religion by removing illegal texts and objects form public places.

Just as you and others are presenting the logical fallacy that their(monuments etc) presence somehow "establishes" religion. Freedom OF, is not freedom FROM.

Nobody is preventing you from having your beliefs by there being a statue, monument, word, etc on gov't property.

That's all I'll say. This issue is being beaten into the ground about as bad as the Iraq legality issue.

CkG

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: GrGr
Yes, that is what Shad0whawk is missing. He is presenting us with a False Dilemma (a logic fallacy). Nobody is "prohibiting the free exercise", for him or other religious believers, of their religion by removing illegal texts and objects form public places.

Just as you and others are presenting the logical fallacy that their(monuments etc) presence somehow "establishes" religion. Freedom OF, is not freedom FROM.

Nobody is preventing you from having your beliefs by there being a statue, monument, word, etc on gov't property.

That's all I'll say. This issue is being beaten into the ground about as bad as the Iraq legality issue.

CkG

LOL could you imagine the Hub Bub if there were a Monument to Atheism in a Courthouse next to the 10 Commandments? Even a Monument to Islam would send the "Fundies" off!

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Here's my theory: Let's assume Shad0whawk's argument that "atheism is a religion" (or religious viewpoint, whatever) is valid. If that was the case, for atheists to ask the government to promulgate their religious beliefs, they would have to be asking for the government to declare "THERE IS NO GOD."

again, your unable to demonstrate it's invalidity. and again your sidestepping what i am saying and formulating a strawman to knock down instead. my point is that the government is bound by it's own laws, so in order to to keep the law that says "congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" just as that forbid discrimination are applicable to the govt itself, so is the law stating the govt cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion...the govt it not above the law.

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
But that's NOT what the atheists are doing. They're asking for the government to remain neutral in this dispute, by not only ignoring the atheist's beliefs (that there is NO god) but all other religious beliefs as well (that there is a god).

they are not asking the govt to remain neutral, what a sham argument! they want them gone because THEY do not want them there! how is that neutral?

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
THAT'S how the government remains neutral. By not taking ANYONE'S side in the matter. To insist that atheists are somehow requiring the government to officiate their "beliefs" is missing the point and not understanding the situation.

forbidding the display of monuments from differing views at the behest of people from an opposing view is VERY much taking sides! how ridiculous to say that is being neutral!

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: GrGr
Yes, that is what Shad0whawk is missing. He is presenting us with a False Dilemma (a logic fallacy). Nobody is "prohibiting the free exercise", for him or other religious believers, of their religion by removing illegal texts and objects form public places.

Just as you and others are presenting the logical fallacy that their(monuments etc) presence somehow "establishes" religion. Freedom OF, is not freedom FROM.

Nobody is preventing you from having your beliefs by there being a statue, monument, word, etc on gov't property.

That's all I'll say. This issue is being beaten into the ground about as bad as the Iraq legality issue.

CkG

In that case don't you think it is discriminating towards other religions not to have their symbols equally visible in the public room and on government property. Wherever there is a Christian symbol or text there should also be a Muslim one and a Buddhist one etc. Don't you think?

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: GrGr
Yes, that is what Shad0whawk is missing. He is presenting us with a False Dilemma (a logic fallacy). Nobody is "prohibiting the free exercise", for him or other religious believers, of their religion by removing illegal texts and objects form public places.

so your saying that forbidding the display of religious objects is not prohibitng the free exercise of religion..thta is about as asinine as your "convinced is not the same as believe" diatribe.

time for school.

read the following sentences and see if they convey the same idea.

"billy is convinced there is no God"

"billy believes there is no God"

"after being convinced there is no God, billy believed it"

it is simple cause and effect. to believe something one has to first be convinced of it.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: GrGr

In that case don't you think it is discriminating towards other religions not to have their symbols equally visible in the public room and on government property. Wherever there is a Christian symbol or text there should also be a Muslim one and a Buddhist one etc. Don't you think?

i think the fed govt should stay out of it and local communities should decide(and pay for it themselves), rather than having federally mandated atheism forced on them.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: GrGr
Yes, that is what Shad0whawk is missing. He is presenting us with a False Dilemma (a logic fallacy). Nobody is "prohibiting the free exercise", for him or other religious believers, of their religion by removing illegal texts and objects form public places.

Just as you and others are presenting the logical fallacy that their(monuments etc) presence somehow "establishes" religion. Freedom OF, is not freedom FROM.

Nobody is preventing you from having your beliefs by there being a statue, monument, word, etc on gov't property.

That's all I'll say. This issue is being beaten into the ground about as bad as the Iraq legality issue.

CkG

In that case don't you think it is discriminating towards other religions not to have their symbols equally visible in the public room and on government property. Wherever there is a Christian symbol or text there should also be a Muslim one and a Buddhist one etc. Don't you think?

There is. The Athiests want all Religious symbols removed from the Federal Cemetery property including such symbols as the men & women with the Star of David.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: GrGr
Yes, that is what Shad0whawk is missing. He is presenting us with a False Dilemma (a logic fallacy). Nobody is "prohibiting the free exercise", for him or other religious believers, of their religion by removing illegal texts and objects form public places.

Just as you and others are presenting the logical fallacy that their(monuments etc) presence somehow "establishes" religion. Freedom OF, is not freedom FROM.

Nobody is preventing you from having your beliefs by there being a statue, monument, word, etc on gov't property.

That's all I'll say. This issue is being beaten into the ground about as bad as the Iraq legality issue.

CkG

In that case don't you think it is discriminating towards other religions not to have their symbols equally visible in the public room and on government property. Wherever there is a Christian symbol or text there should also be a Muslim one and a Buddhist one etc. Don't you think?

There is. The Athiests want all Religious symbols removed from the Federal Cemetery property including such symbols as the men & women with the Star of David.

Correction, a few nutjobs who happen to be Atheists want all Religious Symbols Removed from the Federal Cemetary. Christians and Muslims don't corner the market on whackos you know. For every Shad0hawk there is an Atheist nutjob to counter him. Neither is capable of reasoning with an open mind, it's either their way or no way.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
again, your unable to demonstrate it's invalidity. and again your sidestepping what i am saying and formulating a strawman to knock down instead. my point is that the government is bound by it's own laws, so in order to to keep the law that says "congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" just as that forbid discrimination are applicable to the govt itself, so is the law stating the govt cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion...the govt it not above the law.

No one's suggesting that you cannot practice your religion only that the government cannot promote it for you. You obviously don't understand the First Amendment.

Furthermore, there's no straw man here, because you specifically asked "I'd really like to know how you think that having the government promulgate your religious beliefs is somehow religiously neutral." I responded to that question by stating that in order for atheists to have the government promote their beliefs, the government would have to have the words "There is no God" stamped on currency and plastered on monuments on public grounds. That's not happening, so clearly the atheists are not getting their "religious viewpoint" promoted via the government. Your argument is moot.

they are not asking the govt to remain neutral, what a sham argument! they want them gone because THEY do not want them there! how is that neutral?

Because, again you don't understand the word "neutral." If you did you wouldn't ask such questions. The absense of taking a side in this dispute IS neutral. Having Christian monuments on government property is NOT neutral. That's taking a side.

forbidding the display of monuments from differing views at the behest of people from an opposing view is VERY much taking sides! how ridiculous to say that is being neutral!

Because the only way to remain neutral IS NOT TO TAKE A SIDE IN THE FIRST PLACE. I don't know how much clearer I can make that. If one group puts up a monument and other groups don't, it appears that government is taking sides.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: GrGr

In that case don't you think it is discriminating towards other religions not to have their symbols equally visible in the public room and on government property. Wherever there is a Christian symbol or text there should also be a Muslim one and a Buddhist one etc. Don't you think?

i think the fed govt should stay out of it and local communities should decide(and pay for it themselves), rather than having federally mandated atheism forced on them.

It doesn't matter if local communities decide and/or pay for it themselves. Here's an example: If your neighbors meet and decide to fund the construction of a large Star of David monument made out of stone and transported it to your front yard one day, what do you think people driving by your house would think? They would wonder when you converted to Judaism. It's the same thing that happens when a Christian monument goes up on government property. People walking by it wonder when Christianity became our government-sanctioned religion. The government is then establishing a religion by making it appear state or federally sanctioned. Lending it government credibility.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: GrGr
Yes, that is what Shad0whawk is missing. He is presenting us with a False Dilemma (a logic fallacy). Nobody is "prohibiting the free exercise", for him or other religious believers, of their religion by removing illegal texts and objects form public places.

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
so your saying that forbidding the display of religious objects is not prohibitng the free exercise of religion..thta is about as asinine as your "convinced is not the same as believe" diatribe.

It is not a matter of forbidding the display, the display already is forbidden. Huge difference.

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

time for school.

read the following sentences and see if they convey the same idea.

"billy is convinced there is no God"

"billy believes there is no God"

"after being convinced there is no God, billy believed it"

it is simple cause and effect. to believe something one has to first be convinced of it.

Your first sentence that "Billy is convinced there is no God" is perfectly satisfactory to an atheist. The rest "Billy believes... etc" is just religious mumbo-jumbo from an atheist point of view. Billy does not have to believe that there is no God. He already is convinced that there is no God. So your entire argument is logical fallacy (slippery slope) A: "Billy is convinced there is no God" is enough in itself. B: "Billy believes there is no God" is redundant as is your conclusion C: "after being convinced there is no God, billy believed it".

You confess to the Christian Faith, don't you? You have faith and believe in your religion. Atheists do not have faith in their conviction that there is no God. It is this lack of "faith" and "belief" that disqualifies atheism as a religion. It is not a "semantic game". You are attributing values ("belief/faith") to atheists that, by definiton, are not and cannot be there. Religious people do not have "faith" and "belief" in their Conviction as such. They have "faith" and "belief" in the fact that their Conviction that there is a God is true. Atheists on the other hand have only their Conviction, and nothing else. Not "faith", nor "belief" nor "God".

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
There is. The Athiests want all Religious symbols removed from the Federal Cemetery property including such symbols as the men & women with the Star of David.

No, personally I would not have any problem with religious text and symbols in legitimately religious places like cemetaries. I was thinking more along the lines of public places like city halls and courts etc. However generally I think the Founding Fathers were correct in their views on religion and it's relationship to the state.

(I shortened the reply thread)

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
There is. The Athiests want all Religious symbols removed from the Federal Cemetery property including such symbols as the men & women with the Star of David.

No, personally I would not have any problem with religious text and symbols in legitimately religious places like cemetaries. I was thinking more along the lines of public places like city halls and courts etc. However generally I think the Founding Fathers were correct in their views on religion and it's relationship to the state.

(I shortened the reply thread)

If the Atheists don't believe there is a God then why do they care so much to have any references to God stricken from History? The History of those that believe in God and have writings supporting that in the History.

Changing the Country to a Godless Country to the Atheists wishes is exactly the same issue except that the Atheists do not have supporting writings that there is no God and that God is not referenced.

Technically as is the Country supports both views. It has done well for over 200 years, now all of a sudden you change it and you change the History as well as the Country. That will piss off a lot of people except the Atheists.

So our money should say "In Atheists We Trust".

 

[alchemize]

OK let's go back to the premise of the thread. Civil war. Generally any Civil war has 2+ sides.

What will the sides be? Which would you be on? How would you know who "the enemy" is?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: alchemize
OK let's go back to the premise of the thread. Civil war. Generally any Civil war has 2+ sides.

What will the sides be? Which would you be on? How would you know who "the enemy" is?

I guess according to those in this thread advocating the coming of a civil war, it will be: The Godless vs. God's Children. Sunday, Sunday, Sunday! Watch the Iron Atheist ride through the flames of eternal damnation! Brought to you by Coors Light and the New Ford F150!

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

No one's suggesting that you cannot practice your religion only that the government cannot promote it for you. You obviously don't understand the First Amendment.

i understand the 1st amendment perfectly,it applies to the government just as any law and must be followed within the government just as any other law. in fact that is why it's there the constitution is a limitation on the government, that is it's purpose. reconstructionists are trying to change this.

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Furthermore, there's no straw man here, because you specifically asked "I'd really like to know how you think that having the government promulgate your religious beliefs is somehow religiously neutral." I responded to that question by stating that in order for atheists to have the government promote their beliefs, the government would have to have the words "There is no God" stamped on currency and plastered on monuments on public grounds. That's not happening, so clearly the atheists are not getting their "religious viewpoint" promoted via the government. Your argument is moot.

LOL! you know as wel as i do many atheists want to do away with the national motto and any other reference to God. your argument here is pointless.

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Because, again you don't understand the word "neutral." If you did you wouldn't ask such questions. The absense of taking a side in this dispute IS neutral. Having Christian monuments on government property is NOT neutral. That's taking a side.

again we are tlaking about religion in general, every single time however others target christianity specifally....very strange, and it appears i understand the word neutral perfectly, you still have not explained how giving one group what they want at the expense of others is neutral, if the fed govt. was truly neutral it would do NOTHING.

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Because the only way to remain neutral IS NOT TO TAKE A SIDE IN THE FIRST PLACE. I don't know how much clearer I can make that. If one group puts up a monument and other groups don't, it appears that government is taking sides.

i am not talking about one group. you however are. other groups have the same rights, if they do not exercise them it is thier fault.