One Nation Under God?

[TemplarKormac]

No, I'm not trying to start a fight. Invariably though, I will be flamed for this OP; in fact I fully expect to. But I have a few questions for liberal secularists and atheists. I simply just want to ask them a few things and state my mind. Honestly. Namely about their aversion to God in general, about their contention that they either don't believe in him, or that he isn't real. I encourage them to respond to this, to talk to me. I really want to know what drives this. But anyways, here goes nothin'.

Question and Thoughts:

1. How can you be offended by a God you don't believe in or think exists?

2. Why do some of you want to strike the phrase "under God" from the pledge? The history or the motives behind the pledge or the phrase are irrelevant, simply because there's an underlying principle involved. Moreover, I believe you are being irrational.

3. You question why a Christian believes in a God they can't see, but you yourself are offended by a God you don't believe in, or which exists. So:

a) How is that possible?

b) How is it logical?

c) How, ultimately, is that rational?

4. Regardless of what you think, we believe life has a purpose and meaning, that courage, love, and honor aside from other things are real, yet they aren't manifested in physical form at all. Should they then be discounted as not being real either? This is the rationale you use to disprove the existence of God.

5. We see these traits and emotions via the actions of others, but we don't necessarily see these things happening inside of them. That doesn't mean they should be discounted as being unreal or nonexistent.

6. Professor Antony Flew

Professor Antony Flew was a Professor at Oxford and one of the most prominent Atheists of his generation. For 50 years he championed atheism, stating that "one should presuppose atheism until empirical evidence of a God surfaces," but in 2004, he converted to deism, being compelled to do so by the theory of intelligent design. He later commissioned a book in 2007 majorly written by Roy Abraham Vargese There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind which incited New York Times Religious Historian, Mark Oppenheimer to claim the man was in "mental decline" and that he had Vargese do most of the work. He acknowledged that he did have him do most of the work because in fact he was 84 at the time. But he also unabashedly criticized Oppenheimer for drawing attention away from the real premise of the book: the collapse of rationalism. He had this to say about atheists who accused him of betrayal:

I have been denounced by my fellow unbelievers for stupidity, betrayal, senility and everything you can think of and none of them have read a word that I have ever written.

7) What do you make of Mr. Flew's metamorphosis into a deist from devout atheist? Do you believe he did this in light of his senility or old age? I would think it incredibly bigoted to take down a man for revising his positions on religion, soon as they no longer matched yours.

8) And finally, what do you make of his belief in intelligent design, something courts all across America have forbade schools to teach?

"The philosophical question that has not been answered in origin-of-life studies is this: How can a universe of mindless matter produce beings with intrinsic ends, self-replication capabilities, and 'coded chemistry'? Here we are not dealing with biology, but an entirely different category of problem."

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No one has an ‘aversion to god,’ one can’t have an ‘aversion’ to something that doesn’t exist as perceived by theists.

What those free from faith find offensive are the arrogance and intolerance exhibited by many Christians and other theists, and the hypocrisy exhibited by most Christians concerning that arrogance and propensity to judge others and seek to disadvantage others politically, such as the animus many Christians have toward gay Americans.

And with regard to ‘under god,’ you’ve again failed to do your research and have succeeded in only in exhibiting your ignorance of the law.

In recent years the courts have consistently held that ‘under god’ and ‘in god we trust’ do not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and those free from faith agree with those rulings. It was never the intent of the Framers to remove all religion from government, but to maintain a wall of separation between church and state prohibiting the codification of subjective religious dogma into secular law.

Consequently, the premise of your thread fails, and you exhibit a naïve and uninformed perception of the issue, as those free from faith are not ‘offended’ by a god that doesn’t exist; rather, they are appropriately offended by the ignorance and hate exhibited by many Christians, which is both logical and rational on their part.

If Christians actually acted like Christians, and followed the precepts of their faith, then there’d be no conflict at all.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No one has an ‘aversion to god,’ one can’t have an ‘aversion’ to something that doesn’t exist as perceived by theists.

From the very first sentence, you made my point, via your circular reasoning.

What those free from faith find offensive are the arrogance and intolerance exhibited by many Christians and other theists, and the hypocrisy exhibited by most Christians concerning that arrogance and propensity to judge others and seek to disadvantage others politically, such as the animus many Christians have toward gay Americans.

Thusly, you see Christians and other theists as arrogant and judgmental, yet are doing the same thing?

And with regard to ‘under god,’ you’ve again failed to do your research and have succeeded in only in exhibiting your ignorance of the law.

In recent years the courts have consistently held that ‘under god’ and ‘in god we trust’ do not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and those free from faith agree with those rulings. It was never the intent of the Framers to remove all religion from government, but to maintain a wall of separation between church and state prohibiting the codification of subjective religious dogma into secular law.

Actually, you have no clue about the law, and I find it funny you are lecturing me. Moreover, you misunderstand the Founders intent behind the establishment clause... to be more succinct, you only want to recognize one half: Separation of religion from government. The other half is separation of government from religion. Meaning government cannot impose itself or codify secular restrictions on the religious laws or freedoms of others. The Establishment Clause works two ways.

Consequently, the premise of your thread fails, and you exhibit a naïve and uninformed perception of the issue, as those free from faith are not ‘offended’ by a god that doesn’t exist; rather, they are appropriately offended by the ignorance and hate exhibited by many Christians, which is both logical and rational on their part.

No, Clayton, you proceeded to dodge my thread and make completely unbased assumptions about people of faith. You are truly ignorant of religion, and it's ironic you lecture me on naivete. You did little more than issue forth ad hominem. Very shameful indeed.

If Christians actually acted like Christians, and followed the precepts of their faith, then there’d be no conflict at all.

How would you know? Alas you aren't a Christian, but assume to know how one should act? You want to know the real cause of this conflict? This. You presuming to tell them how to be Christians. If both sides, namely yours, learned to tolerate one another without passing judgement, yes, there'd be no conflict whatsoever.

 

[Disir]

1. That's nonsensical.

2. Actually, one nation under god does have a history and it does, in fact, matter. I am against the pledge altogether and not just one line. Having children recite it on a daily basis is a form of brainwashing and you know it. The concepts in that pledge are not going to be understood because they deal with abstract thinking which doesn't begin to develop until between the ages of 12-15.

3. Again nonsensical and should have been combined with 1.

4. and 5. should have been combined. Emotions are chemical reactions.

6. and 7. I have never paid attention to Anthony Flew. Ever. His conversion is not my concern. Further, for every individual that alters his/her position there are several more heading the opposite way.

I think there is some misconception that atheists spend mass quantities of time reading or attending lectures by and for atheists. I do not. You won't find me at Youtube responding to videos. I am not attending an atheist conference. Not that there is anything wrong with it. I just have other things to do.

8. Intelligent design is not science. It's BS and I don't care who believes in it. You want that? You keep that in a religious private school that doesn't accept public funds. Keep it out of the public schools.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No, I'm not trying to start a fight. Invariably though, I will be flamed for this OP; in fact I fully expect to. But I have a few questions for liberal secularists and atheists. I simply just want to ask them a few things and state my mind. Honestly. Namely about their aversion to God in general, about their contention that they either don't believe in him, or that he isn't real. I encourage them to respond to this, to talk to me. I really want to know what drives this. But anyways, here goes nothin'.

Question and Thoughts:

1. How can you be offended by a God you don't believe in or think exists?

2. Why do some of you want to strike the phrase "under God" from the pledge? The history or the motives behind the pledge or the phrase are irrelevant, simply because there's an underlying principle involved. Moreover, I believe you are being irrational.

3. You question why a Christian believes in a God they can't see, but you yourself are offended by a God you don't believe in, or which exists. So:

a) How is that possible?

b) How is it logical?

c) How, ultimately, is that rational?

4. Regardless of what you think, we believe life has a purpose and meaning, that courage, love, and honor aside from other things are real, yet they aren't manifested in physical form at all. Should they then be discounted as not being real either? This is the rationale you use to disprove the existence of God.

5. We see these traits and emotions via the actions of others, but we don't necessarily see these things happening inside of them. That doesn't mean they should be discounted as being unreal or nonexistent.

6. Professor Antony Flew

Professor Antony Flew was a Professor at Oxford and one of the most prominent Atheists of his generation. For 50 years he championed atheism, stating that "one should presuppose atheism until empirical evidence of a God surfaces," but in 2004, he converted to deism, being compelled to do so by the theory of intelligent design. He later commissioned a book in 2007 majorly written by Roy Abraham Vargese There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind which incited New York Times Religious Historian, Mark Oppenheimer to claim the man was in "mental decline" and that he had Vargese do most of the work. He acknowledged that he did have him do most of the work because in fact he was 84 at the time. But he also unabashedly criticized Oppenheimer for drawing attention away from the real premise of the book: the collapse of rationalism. He had this to say about atheists who accused him of betrayal:

I have been denounced by my fellow unbelievers for stupidity, betrayal, senility and everything you can think of and none of them have read a word that I have ever written.

7) What do you make of Mr. Flew's metamorphosis into a deist from devout atheist? Do you believe he did this in light of his senility or old age? I would think it incredibly bigoted to take down a man for revising his positions on religion, soon as they no longer matched yours.

8) And finally, what do you make of his belief in intelligent design, something courts all across America have forbade schools to teach?

"The philosophical question that has not been answered in origin-of-life studies is this: How can a universe of mindless matter produce beings with intrinsic ends, self-replication capabilities, and 'coded chemistry'? Here we are not dealing with biology, but an entirely different category of problem."

Under god was added to the pledge in 1954 as a knee jerk reactionary change because of the red scare.

If the country was just fine with the pledge sans the deity reference for most of it's existence what's the problem with going back to the original verbiage?

 

[TemplarKormac]

1. That's nonsensical.

2. Actually, one nation under god does have a history and it does, in fact, matter. I am against the pledge altogether and not just one line. Having children recite it on a daily basis is a form of brainwashing and you know it. The concepts in that pledge are not going to be understood because they deal with abstract thinking which doesn't begin to develop until between the ages of 12-15.

3. Again nonsensical and should have been combined with 1.

4. and 5. should have been combined. Emotions are chemical reactions.

6. and 7. I have never paid attention to Anthony Flew. Ever. His conversion is not my concern. Further, for every individual that alters his/her position there are several more heading the opposite way.

I think there is some misconception that atheists spend mass quantities of time reading or attending lectures by and for atheists. I do not. You won't find me at Youtube responding to videos. I am not attending an atheist conference. Not that there is anything wrong with it. I just have other things to do.

8. Intelligent design is not science. It's BS and I don't care who believes in it. You want that? You keep that in a religious private school that doesn't accept public funds. Keep it out of the public schools.

1. On what grounds? You say God doesn't exist, however you manage to be offended by something that doesn't exist. Just how do you manage that?

2. Actually, it doesn't. This is scapegoat reasoning used to escape answering the question.

3. Again, on what grounds? Is this what you're passing off as an argument?

4 and 5. Actually yes they are, but I'm working on the atheistic logic that "if it cannot be seen, it cannot be believed, and therefore one must presuppose it's nonexistence until it's existence is empirically proven." It furthermore reveals a double standard of reasoning atheists hold about God.

6 and 7. That is good to know.

8. On what grounds? Say, if a Christian's taxpayer dollars go to paying for a child's education, shouldn't the school be able to teach or at least elaborate on intelligent design? But hey, they can teach and elaborate on the teachings of just about every other religion in the world, no consequences.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No, I'm not trying to start a fight. Invariably though, I will be flamed for this OP; in fact I fully expect to. But I have a few questions for liberal secularists and atheists. I simply just want to ask them a few things and state my mind. Honestly. Namely about their aversion to God in general, about their contention that they either don't believe in him, or that he isn't real. I encourage them to respond to this, to talk to me. I really want to know what drives this. But anyways, here goes nothin'.

Question and Thoughts:

1. How can you be offended by a God you don't believe in or think exists?

2. Why do some of you want to strike the phrase "under God" from the pledge? The history or the motives behind the pledge or the phrase are irrelevant, simply because there's an underlying principle involved. Moreover, I believe you are being irrational.

3. You question why a Christian believes in a God they can't see, but you yourself are offended by a God you don't believe in, or which exists. So:

a) How is that possible?

b) How is it logical?

c) How, ultimately, is that rational?

4. Regardless of what you think, we believe life has a purpose and meaning, that courage, love, and honor aside from other things are real, yet they aren't manifested in physical form at all. Should they then be discounted as not being real either? This is the rationale you use to disprove the existence of God.

5. We see these traits and emotions via the actions of others, but we don't necessarily see these things happening inside of them. That doesn't mean they should be discounted as being unreal or nonexistent.

6. Professor Antony Flew

Professor Antony Flew was a Professor at Oxford and one of the most prominent Atheists of his generation. For 50 years he championed atheism, stating that "one should presuppose atheism until empirical evidence of a God surfaces," but in 2004, he converted to deism, being compelled to do so by the theory of intelligent design. He later commissioned a book in 2007 majorly written by Roy Abraham Vargese There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind which incited New York Times Religious Historian, Mark Oppenheimer to claim the man was in "mental decline" and that he had Vargese do most of the work. He acknowledged that he did have him do most of the work because in fact he was 84 at the time. But he also unabashedly criticized Oppenheimer for drawing attention away from the real premise of the book: the collapse of rationalism. He had this to say about atheists who accused him of betrayal:

I have been denounced by my fellow unbelievers for stupidity, betrayal, senility and everything you can think of and none of them have read a word that I have ever written.

7) What do you make of Mr. Flew's metamorphosis into a deist from devout atheist? Do you believe he did this in light of his senility or old age? I would think it incredibly bigoted to take down a man for revising his positions on religion, soon as they no longer matched yours.

8) And finally, what do you make of his belief in intelligent design, something courts all across America have forbade schools to teach?

"The philosophical question that has not been answered in origin-of-life studies is this: How can a universe of mindless matter produce beings with intrinsic ends, self-replication capabilities, and 'coded chemistry'? Here we are not dealing with biology, but an entirely different category of problem."

Under god was added to the pledge in 1954 as a knee jerk reactionary change because of the red scare.

If the country was just fine with the pledge sans the deity reference for most of it's existence what's the problem with going back to the original verbiage?

83% of the country is Christian. You would have a host of problems.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90356

 

[Skull Pilot]

No, I'm not trying to start a fight. Invariably though, I will be flamed for this OP; in fact I fully expect to. But I have a few questions for liberal secularists and atheists. I simply just want to ask them a few things and state my mind. Honestly. Namely about their aversion to God in general, about their contention that they either don't believe in him, or that he isn't real. I encourage them to respond to this, to talk to me. I really want to know what drives this. But anyways, here goes nothin'.

Question and Thoughts:

1. How can you be offended by a God you don't believe in or think exists?

2. Why do some of you want to strike the phrase "under God" from the pledge? The history or the motives behind the pledge or the phrase are irrelevant, simply because there's an underlying principle involved. Moreover, I believe you are being irrational.

3. You question why a Christian believes in a God they can't see, but you yourself are offended by a God you don't believe in, or which exists. So:

a) How is that possible?

b) How is it logical?

c) How, ultimately, is that rational?

4. Regardless of what you think, we believe life has a purpose and meaning, that courage, love, and honor aside from other things are real, yet they aren't manifested in physical form at all. Should they then be discounted as not being real either? This is the rationale you use to disprove the existence of God.

5. We see these traits and emotions via the actions of others, but we don't necessarily see these things happening inside of them. That doesn't mean they should be discounted as being unreal or nonexistent.

6. Professor Antony Flew

Professor Antony Flew was a Professor at Oxford and one of the most prominent Atheists of his generation. For 50 years he championed atheism, stating that "one should presuppose atheism until empirical evidence of a God surfaces," but in 2004, he converted to deism, being compelled to do so by the theory of intelligent design. He later commissioned a book in 2007 majorly written by Roy Abraham Vargese There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind which incited New York Times Religious Historian, Mark Oppenheimer to claim the man was in "mental decline" and that he had Vargese do most of the work. He acknowledged that he did have him do most of the work because in fact he was 84 at the time. But he also unabashedly criticized Oppenheimer for drawing attention away from the real premise of the book: the collapse of rationalism. He had this to say about atheists who accused him of betrayal:



7) What do you make of Mr. Flew's metamorphosis into a deist from devout atheist? Do you believe he did this in light of his senility or old age? I would think it incredibly bigoted to take down a man for revising his positions on religion, soon as they no longer matched yours.

8) And finally, what do you make of his belief in intelligent design, something courts all across America have forbade schools to teach?

Under god was added to the pledge in 1954 as a knee jerk reactionary change because of the red scare.

If the country was just fine with the pledge sans the deity reference for most of it's existence what's the problem with going back to the original verbiage?

83% of the country is Christian. You would have a host of problems.

And they were christian before we decide to be afraid of communism. Christians didn't have a problem with the original verbiage did they?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Under god was added to the pledge in 1954 as a knee jerk reactionary change because of the red scare.

If the country was just fine with the pledge sans the deity reference for most of it's existence what's the problem with going back to the original verbiage?

83% of the country is Christian. You would have a host of problems.

And they were christian before we decide to be afraid of communism. Christians didn't have a problem with the original verbiage did they?

"In God We Trust" appeared on American money as early as 1864. So, am I to assume atheists of that era had no issue with it? Plus striking "under god" would violate Federal law.

4 U.S. Code § 4 Pledge of allegiance to the flag; manner of delivery

"The following is designated as the pledge of allegiance to the flag, ‘I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all’. Such pledge should be rendered by standing with the right hand over the heart. However, civilians will always show full respect to the flag when the pledge is given by merely standing at attention, men removing the headdress. Persons in uniform shall render the military salute."

 

[Skull Pilot]

83% of the country is Christian. You would have a host of problems.

And they were christian before we decide to be afraid of communism. Christians didn't have a problem with the original verbiage did they?

"In God We Trust" appeared on American money as early as 1864. So, am I to assume atheists of that era had no issue with it? Plus striking "under god" would violate Federal law.

4 U.S. Code § 4 Pledge of allegiance to the flag; manner of delivery

"The following is designated as the pledge of allegiance to the flag, ‘I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all’. Such pledge should be rendered by standing with the right hand over the heart. However, civilians will always show full respect to the flag when the pledge is given by merely standing at attention, men removing the headdress. Persons in uniform shall render the military salute."

Federal law added under god so federal law could just as easily restore the pledge to its original form.

I always opted out of the under god part as a student now I opt out of the pledge entirely.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And they were christian before we decide to be afraid of communism. Christians didn't have a problem with the original verbiage did they?

"In God We Trust" appeared on American money as early as 1864. So, am I to assume atheists of that era had no issue with it? Plus striking "under god" would violate Federal law.

4 U.S. Code § 4 Pledge of allegiance to the flag; manner of delivery

"The following is designated as the pledge of allegiance to the flag, ‘I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all’. Such pledge should be rendered by standing with the right hand over the heart. However, civilians will always show full respect to the flag when the pledge is given by merely standing at attention, men removing the headdress. Persons in uniform shall render the military salute."

Federal law added under god so federal law could just as easily restore the pledge to its original form.

I always opted out of the under god part as a student now I opt out of the pledge entirely.

But congress, nor the courts will ever vote or rule to strike the phrase. There's 71 years of legal precedent ruling in favor of the phrase to consider, since that law was passed in 1942. In Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School District, the 9th Circuit court of appeals ruled in 2007 that the phrase did not violate the establishment clause. So did Freedom from Religion Foundation v. Hanover School District in 2010.

 

[jillian]

[

But congress, nor the courts will ever vote or rule to strike the phrase. There's 71 years of legal precedent ruling in favor of the phrase to consider, since that law was passed in 1942.

one... 78% of the country identifies as christian. while a large number, that is not equal to what you said. nor does it represent the fundies who rant all day on this board who want to turn the country into a theocracy. moreover, this is a SECULAR COUNTRY.... which is largely chrisitan. that does not mean that you get to impose your religion on everyone else. that's pretty much the point.

most people also do not believe that religion is science.

now that we got that straight. the phrase "under god" does not belong in the pledge. that was inserted by a bunch of anti-commie types during the cold war.

so let's move on. it's simply an irrelevancy.

and for the record, i don't want our children to be morons who think dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans. you can't compete in the world if your kids haven't been given actual information. if you have a problem with that, you can always live in iran.

 

[Skull Pilot]

"In God We Trust" appeared on American money as early as 1864. So, am I to assume atheists of that era had no issue with it? Plus striking "under god" would violate Federal law.

4 U.S. Code § 4 Pledge of allegiance to the flag; manner of delivery

Federal law added under god so federal law could just as easily restore the pledge to its original form.

I always opted out of the under god part as a student now I opt out of the pledge entirely.

But congress, nor the courts will ever vote or rule to strike the phrase. There's 71 years of legal precedent ruling in favor of the phrase to consider, since that law was passed in 1942.

Yeah change is bad I get it even though the change from the original was good.

More contradictions.

 

[Disir]

1. That's nonsensical.

2. Actually, one nation under god does have a history and it does, in fact, matter. I am against the pledge altogether and not just one line. Having children recite it on a daily basis is a form of brainwashing and you know it. The concepts in that pledge are not going to be understood because they deal with abstract thinking which doesn't begin to develop until between the ages of 12-15.

3. Again nonsensical and should have been combined with 1.

4. and 5. should have been combined. Emotions are chemical reactions.

6. and 7. I have never paid attention to Anthony Flew. Ever. His conversion is not my concern. Further, for every individual that alters his/her position there are several more heading the opposite way.

I think there is some misconception that atheists spend mass quantities of time reading or attending lectures by and for atheists. I do not. You won't find me at Youtube responding to videos. I am not attending an atheist conference. Not that there is anything wrong with it. I just have other things to do.

8. Intelligent design is not science. It's BS and I don't care who believes in it. You want that? You keep that in a religious private school that doesn't accept public funds. Keep it out of the public schools.

1. On what grounds? You say God doesn't exist, however you manage to be offended by something that doesn't exist. Just how do you manage that?

2. Actually, it doesn't. This is scapegoat reasoning used to escape answering the question.

3. Again, on what grounds? Is this what you're passing off as an argument?

4 and 5. Actually yes they are, but I'm working on the atheistic logic that "if it cannot be seen, it cannot be believed, and therefore one must presuppose it's nonexistence until it's existence is empirically proven." It furthermore reveals a double standard of reasoning atheists hold about God.

6 and 7. That is good to know.

8. On what grounds? Say, if a Christian's taxpayer dollars go to paying for a child's education, shouldn't the school be able to teach or at least elaborate on intelligent design? But hey, they can teach and elaborate on the teachings of just about every other religion in the world, no consequences.

1. & 3 Again. It's nonsensical. No one is offended. The followers can be sketchy. You're getting ready to break into the persecution complex.

2. It has nothing to do with scapegoating. It's brainwashing. And was inserted, intentionally, due to the red scare as was mentioned. It has a history. You just don't like it.

4 and 5:

8. The Establishment Clause.

 

[Geaux4it]

I live by faith, not by sight

-Geaux

 

[AVG-JOE]

One Nation Under God?

Step one is to define 'God'.

You'll find that as the definitions get more specific, unity of nation becomes less and less apparent.



By using the lovely and extremely generic term 'God', unity, at least on paper, can be preserved.

`​

 

[Disir]

 

[TemplarKormac]

1. That's nonsensical.

2. Actually, one nation under god does have a history and it does, in fact, matter. I am against the pledge altogether and not just one line. Having children recite it on a daily basis is a form of brainwashing and you know it. The concepts in that pledge are not going to be understood because they deal with abstract thinking which doesn't begin to develop until between the ages of 12-15.

3. Again nonsensical and should have been combined with 1.

4. and 5. should have been combined. Emotions are chemical reactions.

6. and 7. I have never paid attention to Anthony Flew. Ever. His conversion is not my concern. Further, for every individual that alters his/her position there are several more heading the opposite way.

I think there is some misconception that atheists spend mass quantities of time reading or attending lectures by and for atheists. I do not. You won't find me at Youtube responding to videos. I am not attending an atheist conference. Not that there is anything wrong with it. I just have other things to do.

8. Intelligent design is not science. It's BS and I don't care who believes in it. You want that? You keep that in a religious private school that doesn't accept public funds. Keep it out of the public schools.

1. On what grounds? You say God doesn't exist, however you manage to be offended by something that doesn't exist. Just how do you manage that?

2. Actually, it doesn't. This is scapegoat reasoning used to escape answering the question.

3. Again, on what grounds? Is this what you're passing off as an argument?

4 and 5. Actually yes they are, but I'm working on the atheistic logic that "if it cannot be seen, it cannot be believed, and therefore one must presuppose it's nonexistence until it's existence is empirically proven." It furthermore reveals a double standard of reasoning atheists hold about God.

6 and 7. That is good to know.

8. On what grounds? Say, if a Christian's taxpayer dollars go to paying for a child's education, shouldn't the school be able to teach or at least elaborate on intelligent design? But hey, they can teach and elaborate on the teachings of just about every other religion in the world, no consequences.

1. & 3 Again. It's nonsensical. No one is offended. The followers can be sketchy. You're getting ready to break into the persecution complex.

2. It has nothing to do with scapegoating. It's brainwashing. And was inserted, intentionally, due to the red scare as was mentioned. It has a history. You just don't like it.

4 and 5:

8. The Establishment Clause.

1 & 3. No, I'm calling you on your faulty logic. And how are we sketchy?

2. I know what the phrase was used for. I know that any court ruling striking it would violate the law. Sorry, the laws the law. Only Congress may change that law, though they can't even pass a jobs bill so amending the flag code is way, way down on the list.

4 and 5: And what is this supposed to represent?

8. Equal protection clause. If you're going to restrict the teaching of one religious teaching in school via the law you must restrict them all. But so far I haven't seen it. And yes the establishment clause, but not for what you think. Making rules or laws restricting the teaching of one religion in a school is making laws in respect to an establishment of religion, thusly unconstitutional.

 

[Geaux4it]

What is the over/under on the deniers accepting God in the 11th hour.

History has proven that many, many are not willing to take their last breath while denying God. Life becomes much more simpler when one is fading to black

-Geaux

 

[TemplarKormac]

One Nation Under God?

Step one is to define 'God'.

You'll find that as the definitions get more specific, unity of nation becomes less and less apparent.



By using the lovely and extremely generic term 'God', unity, at least on paper, can be preserved.

`​

Thank you, a rational response.

I agree with the first part. But why do most people construe 'God' to represent Judeo-Christian beliefs?