Compare & Contrast - State vs. Sponsored Religion?

[☭proletarian☭]

So it requires FAITH to know there isn't a MONSTER in your closet at night not just COMMON SENSE!!!???

Stop being obtuse, one can show by currently accepted scientific method what the contents of your closet are (even at night), however the same cannot be said regarding the existence or non-existence of a "creator".

Fail.


You cannot prove the absence of the monster. You can only point to a lack of evidence for an invisible undetectable supernatural monster in the closet that created the universe and forgive your sins.

That being said, logic lends more credence to the existence of a "creator" because after all the universe does exist and supposing it didn't come into existence by some form of an act of creation one is left with an assumption that it just came about spontaneously which is illogical.

Fail. You assume it came into existence. You must demonstrate that the universe came into existence (and no, BBT doesn't propose any such thing) before you can address how it came into being. Then you must demonstrate where your creator came from and that it exists at all. After all, M-Theory and others can easily explain the emergence of our universe, assuming they continue to stand up to scrutiny as they have.

 

[MIPS]

Your logic is illogical. If god would not have made the universe would he not exist? You are arguing that the mere existence of a universe is proof of god...which, of course, logically it isn't.

Learn how to read, nowhere did I state that was "proof" of anything, what I said was "lends more credence" which is not even close to saying "proof".... not to mention you seem to ignore the possibility that "god" (your words not mine I said "creator") exists within the boundaries of our Universe which doesn't necessarily need to be true anymore than the "creator" of a fish tank needs to live inside of it to have created it.

Nice try.... thanks for playing.

1) I am not arguing for or against the existence of god and

Here's a hint, neither Am I, since I do not care whether other people believe in a creator or not since it neither affects me or my beliefs, or the existence or non existence of a creator.

2) the question is 'logical' which your argument isn't. If you are going to argue "lends more credence" you should at least show how.

I already did, just because you cannot either understand the premise or just refuse to accept it neither diminishes the poignancy of it nor invalidates it, all it does is demonstrate that you a probably narrow-minded.

You don't, only make the baseless assumption that spontaneous is illogical. But why? That's the question begged...

You don't believe the universe coming into existence spontaneously is illogical? How about at the very least counter-intuitive?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Stop being obtuse, one can show by currently accepted scientific method what the contents of your closet are (even at night), however the same cannot be said regarding the existence or non-existence of a "creator". That being said, logic lends more credence to the existence of a "creator" because after all the universe does exist and supposing it didn't come into existence by some form of an act of creation one is left with an assumption that it just came about spontaneously which is illogical.

That is just circular. Who created the creator?

Your question goes to the nature of a creator not it's existence or non-existence, one could easily answer your question by stating (for example) that the "creator" exists outside of the dimension that we know as TIME and thus does not require a "beginning" or an "end".

The universe always existed. There is no dimension of 'time'. 'Time' is merely a means of measuring change in the state of the universe. For instance, to say that something took ten seconds is to say that its change correlated with a given amount of radiative decay of a given substance. Time exists as a means of understanding the interplay of various aspects of the universe. It is not a dimension through which we travel.


Or


The universe emerged through the collision of two branes. These branes exist in the 11th dimension, where time as we know it does not exist. Time as we experience is an aspect of this particular 'universe' which exists only on the surface of this particular brane..


Or


This universe is but one of the multiverse emerging within the 'quantum foam' that gives rise to 'bubble universes' along the lines of the Lamda Colt (sp?) model. Since the sum total of the universe is actually 0, nothing is exactly what came into being, meaning the universe could easily come into being without violating the First Rule of Thermodynamics (which would only apply within this universe anyway).


Or

Thermodynaics is only proven to apply within the universe. Therefore the rules of the universe did not apply to whatever the universe may have emerged from. Therefore, there is no reason the universe could not suddenly create itself.


Or..

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Atheism is not a religion. An atheist, in not believing in God, has no dog in the fight of belief systems.
NO ONE can prove that my religous beliefs are false. NO ONE. That is because all religous beliefs are beliefs only and can not be proven.
Please inform us where, ANYWHERE,are there any references whatsoever to God in the US Constitution.
The Founders had EVERY oppurtunity to put it in and voted that down. Contrary to popular opinion, we are not a nation of man and his religions, we are a nation of LAWS.
If you want to have a religous government of any form, they do it the religous and God way in Iran. Delta is ready when you are.

Atheism is a religion the same way zero is a number. If the state enforces atheism that is in fact a state sponsored religion.

Besides, you dodged my point that the state does not promote Christianity. Secondly, majority rules, the minority can't whine about the majority's religious preferences. They could, but no one would care. Like NAMBLA or other fucked-up people, the majority doesn't need to allow/consider their whines.

But who is arguing for state-enforced atheism? No one.

State-enforced atheism is a logical impossibility.

 

[MIPS]

So it requires FAITH to know there isn't a MONSTER in your closet at night not just COMMON SENSE!!!???

Stop being obtuse, one can show by currently accepted scientific method what the contents of your closet are (even at night), however the same cannot be said regarding the existence or non-existence of a "creator".

Fail.


You cannot prove the absence of the monster. You can only point to a lack of evidence for an invisible undetectable supernatural monster in the closet that created the universe and forgive your sins.

ROFLMAO! let me guess, you're 6 years old and sleep with the lights on?

Reason called and left you a message "Get Real".

Fail. You assume it came into existence. You must demonstrate that the universe came into existence (and no, BBT doesn't propose any such thing) before you can address how it came into being. Then you must demonstrate where your creator came from and that it exists at all. After all, M-Theory and others can easily explain the emergence of our universe, assuming they continue to stand up to scrutiny as they have.

LOL, thanks for the trip into the irrelevant, however if you cannot accept the premise that the universe exists and had a beginning , I cannot help you since I'm an engineer not a psychiatrist.

Furthermore M-Theory doesn't explain nor does it even attempt to explain the question at hand, it's simply an extension of the plethora of theories that are attempting to unify quantum mechanics and relativity, what I think you meant to refer to was a subcomponent of M-theory commonly known as brane cosmology which simply hypothesizes that our universe is part of a larger hyper-dimensional "multiverse" and it does not attempt to address the origins of said "multiverse", so no it doesn't "easily explain" anything relative to the current discussion.

 

[manifold]

IMO, suggesting that atheism requires faith cheapens the meaning and value of faith itself.

Carry on

 

[MIPS]

That is just circular. Who created the creator?

Your question goes to the nature of a creator not it's existence or non-existence, one could easily answer your question by stating (for example) that the "creator" exists outside of the dimension that we know as TIME and thus does not require a "beginning" or an "end".

The universe always existed. There is no dimension of 'time'. 'Time' is merely a means of measuring change in the state of the universe. For instance, to say that something took ten seconds is to say that its change correlated with a given amount of radiative decay of a given substance. Time exists as a means of understanding the interplay of various aspects of the universe. It is not a dimension through which we travel.


Or


The universe emerged through the collision of two branes. These branes exist in the 11th dimension, where time as we know it does not exist. Time as we experience is an aspect of this particular 'universe' which exists only on the surface of this particular brane..


Or


This universe is but one of the multiverse emerging within the 'quantum foam' that gives rise to 'bubble universes' along the lines of the Lamda Colt (sp?) model. Since the sum total of the universe is actually 0, nothing is exactly what came into being, meaning the universe could easily come into being without violating the First Rule of Thermodynamics (which would only apply within this universe anyway).


Or

Thermodynaics is only proven to apply within the universe. Therefore the rules of the universe did not apply to whatever the universe may have emerged from. Therefore, there is no reason the universe could not suddenly create itself.


Or..

... What if the Universe (or Multiverse if you prefer) is the creator? You apparently didn't catch on to the fact that I make no assertions as to the nature of the creator, I only stated I believed that one exists.

It appears to me that you are valiantly attempting to convince yourself of something, I notice this tendency among atheists and find it both amusing and ironic, since I realize that being narrow minded enough to exclude even the possibility of the existence of a creator requires leaps of faith not easily acceptable to most people but the fact that atheists find it necessary to preach their point of view just as hard as any dyed in the wool theist is nothing if not pure irony.

 

[MIPS]

IMO, suggesting that atheism requires faith cheapens the meaning and value of faith itself.

Carry on

LOL, care to explain your assertion?

 

[ihopehefails]

It doesn't violate the first amendment however it might not be a good idea to 'sponsor' some religions but that is for the democratic process to decide.

 

[manifold]

IMO, suggesting that atheism requires faith cheapens the meaning and value of faith itself.

Carry on

LOL, care to explain your assertion?

Your outburst of uncontrolled laughter aside, my assertion is self-explanatory.

If I used any words you don't understand, I can recommend a remedial dictionary.

 

[MIPS]

IMO, suggesting that atheism requires faith cheapens the meaning and value of faith itself.

Carry on

LOL, care to explain your assertion?

Your outburst of uncontrolled laughter aside, my assertion is self-explanatory.

If I used any words you don't understand, I can recommend a remedial dictionary.

I see, so you cannot or will not elucidate with respect to your earlier assertion, which is it? and why make it in the first place? just desperate for attention or something?

 

[RodISHI]

Rod wanted to have me post this to y'all after he read through this thread.

For whatever it's worth to anyone out there, God is a SPIRIT. God is not a religion. God is not a man. God is not faith. God is the sum of "all things true." Through God, who is a SPIRIT, lies the door to all dimensions whether they be past, present or future. There are quite a few although not all, who came from their mother's womb and were come into the world from between her legs. Though many of us but not all of us have since lost our mother to time, can we say that because she is not with us in flesh that she is not and since is not therefore never was?

If your mother knew you while you were in her womb can you say that you did not know her before the world was? Where was the world while you were in her womb? Where were you before you were in her womb? Do you know?

There are those who say that since they can not see it, touch it or smell it or hear it therefore it cannot be. Yet they too came in time and are now in time and will return in time. If you don't know what spirit you are of you cannot know what season you came from and what season you depart in. Time is merely a relative reference here in the world. Why do you argue State vs. Sponsored Religion if you do not know where you are from or where you are going.

Some have raised themselves up against their perception of what men have labeled Christianity. I profer that Christianity is a concept and not a religion. However, that would be another never ending argument.

If one in the world has ever truly loved anyone they are of God for God is love. Love is not a perception nor is it regulated by man. Christianity is a label and nothing more which was devised by others who were not men of faith or religion but who were in fact politicians who were merely being 'politically correct' for their time. The label stuck only as a reference to a certain people who these men and rulers considered a threat to their way of life. And such as we have even now.

Claiming State Sponsored Religion in the United States could at best be no more than the description of a tool which the dividers use to incite division and confusion. It is not a new thing nor will it ever be. But, those of you who must, feel free to argue on. After all, is that not what you are supposed to be doing while others steal your reward? Like the book says, "nothing new under the sun."

 

[Foxfyre]

Atheism is not a religion. An atheist, in not believing in God, has no dog in the fight of belief systems.
NO ONE can prove that my religous beliefs are false. NO ONE. That is because all religous beliefs are beliefs only and can not be proven.
Please inform us where, ANYWHERE,are there any references whatsoever to God in the US Constitution.
The Founders had EVERY oppurtunity to put it in and voted that down. Contrary to popular opinion, we are not a nation of man and his religions, we are a nation of LAWS.
If you want to have a religous government of any form, they do it the religous and God way in Iran. Delta is ready when you are.

The Founders did not use the word "God" to avoid any appearance of deference to any religion in the Constitution. A careful reading of their rationale, however, carried over the Declaration of Independence phrase: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". . .

, , ,is referenced in the Preamble of the Constitution in this phrase: ". . .to secure the Blessings of Liberty." "Blessings is capitalized."

The Preambles to every state in the union closely parallel that of the U.S. Constitution and 49 of the 50 states include the word "God' or "Creator" in the preamble of their state constitution. The other state references God further down in its constitution.

Further, in 2005, the U.S. 7ths Circuit Court of Appeals recognized Atheism as a religion and ordered that Atheists be able to hold their own religious gatherings in prison if such gatherings were allowed for other religious groups. Atheist groups are eligible for 501c3 tax exempt status to promote Atheism or practice Atheism. No one has presumed to persuade the Supreme Court to overrule that concept as everybody pretty well knows that any attempt to do so would fail even with a conservative majority on the high court.

I guess the rationale is that Atheism requires as much faith to not believe in God as Christianity or other religions need to believe.

So, in light of all that, Atheists would have a hard time denying that it was THEIR religion that was being promoted when all other religions are forbidden representation in the public arena.

 

[MIPS]

Further, in 2005, the U.S. 7ths Circuit Court of Appeals recognized Atheism as a religion and ordered that Atheists be able to hold their own religious gatherings in prison if such gatherings were allowed for other religious groups.

That strikes me as rather humorous since I cannot imagine what the topic of discussion at an "atheist gathering" would be .....

Something along the lines of

Keynote:"Hey folks god doesn't exist"
*applause*
"Meeting adjourned, same time, same place for next week folks"

?

 

[Foxfyre]

Further, in 2005, the U.S. 7ths Circuit Court of Appeals recognized Atheism as a religion and ordered that Atheists be able to hold their own religious gatherings in prison if such gatherings were allowed for other religious groups.

That strikes me as rather humorous since I cannot imagine what the topic of discussion at an "atheist gathering" would be .....

Something along the lines of

Keynote:"Hey folks god doesn't exist"
*applause*
"Meeting adjourned, same time, same place for next week folks"

?

Have you ever visited one of the organized internet websites for Atheists? They have their own doctrine, creed, political action groups, etc. etc. etc. plus their tax exempt status. Many are more fanatical and dogmatic than the most fundamentalist Christian or Muslim. The only thing they lack are a list of catechisms and I'm not sure those aren't there somewhere.

I am absolutely convinced that Atheism (capital A) is a religion as much as any other faith based concept is a religion. The true atheist, i.e. non religious person, isn't the least bit bothered by religion or any of its music, art, symbolism, history, or expressions. Some are indifferent to it or disintherested; some participate in it because they enjoy it much as we would enjoy the legends of Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny, etc.

The Atheist by contrast is compelled to discredit religion and express contempt for any belief in God. Many are attracted like magnets to a thread like this. Many are vocal, angry, and proactive. You'll find them liberally represented in the ACLU and like organizations determined to remove any evidence of religion from the public realm. Except Atheism of course.

 

[PeterS]

Learn how to read, nowhere did I state that was "proof" of anything, what I said was "lends more credence" which is not even close to saying "proof".... not to mention you seem to ignore the possibility that "god" (your words not mine I said "creator") exists within the boundaries of our Universe which doesn't necessarily need to be true anymore than the "creator" of a fish tank needs to live inside of it to have created it.

Nice try.... thanks for playing.

1) I am not arguing for or against the existence of god and

Here's a hint, neither Am I, since I do not care whether other people believe in a creator or not since it neither affects me or my beliefs, or the existence or non existence of a creator.

Then am I to assume that you are also arguing that intent illogical?

2) the question is 'logical' which your argument isn't. If you are going to argue "lends more credence" you should at least show how.

I already did, just because you cannot either understand the premise or just refuse to accept it neither diminishes the poignancy of it nor invalidates it, all it does is demonstrate that you a probably narrow-minded.

Where?

You don't, only make the baseless assumption that spontaneous is illogical. But why? That's the question begged...

You don't believe the universe coming into existence spontaneously is illogical? How about at the very least counter-intuitive?

Why is it counter intuitive? Last I checked there exists neither a proof nor disproof of god. Why then would natural creation of the universe be counter intuitive?

 

[Foxfyre]

I should have qualified my previous post that even an atheist (little 'a') is a non believer in God which does require a kind of faith. The truly non religious person doesn't believe and doesn't not believe. He just doesn't care one way or the other.

Sort of like most people think of ghosts. They don't know if they exist or not and they don't care.

 

[MIPS]

I should have qualified my previous post that even an atheist (little 'a') is a non believer in God which does require a kind of faith. The truly non religious person doesn't believe and doesn't not believe. He just doesn't care one way or the other.

I disagree since I personally believe that there is a creator yet I do not find that I require "religion" in order to facilitate my own contemplation and understanding as to the nature of the creator. IMHO Atheism does indeed require the same sort of "faith" that believing in the existence of a creator requires since there is no evidence (currently) to support the belief that a creator doesn't exist.

 

[MIPS]

1) I am not arguing for or against the existence of god and

Then am I to assume that you are also arguing that intent illogical?




Where?

You don't, only make the baseless assumption that spontaneous is illogical. But why? That's the question begged...

You don't believe the universe coming into existence spontaneously is illogical? How about at the very least counter-intuitive?

Why is it counter intuitive? Last I checked there exists neither a proof nor disproof of god. Why then would natural creation of the universe be counter intuitive?

Congratulations, you just answered your own question.

 

[Foxfyre]

I should have qualified my previous post that even an atheist (little 'a') is a non believer in God which does require a kind of faith. The truly non religious person doesn't believe and doesn't not believe. He just doesn't care one way or the other.

I disagree since I personally believe that there is a creator yet I do not find that I require "religion" in order to facilitate my own contemplation and understanding as to the nature of the creator. IMHO Atheism does indeed require the same sort of "faith" that believing in the existence of a creator requires since there is no evidence (currently) to support the belief that a creator doesn't exist.

But I didn't even mention religion in the point I made. You require faith in order to believe that God exists. An Atheist requires the same degree of faith in order to believe that God does not exist, Neither of you can use science or any other means to prove the validity of your faith to the other.

Of course since I am also a believer, I know that you have a much stronger basis for your belief than does the Atheist. You have the personal experience of God in your life. The Atheist has nothing to support his faith other than he does not wish to or cannot believe.

But the truly nonreligious neither believes nor disbelieves. He isn't even agnostic because he doesn't contemplate whether he believes or not. He doesn't think about it.
He doesn't care one way or the other. He has no point to prove, no case to make, no questions, and no prejudices which of all people on Earth makes him the most tolerant in matters of religion and faith.