The existence of God.....and politics

[JFK_USA]

This thread is full of thinking people. It has yet to be spoiled. Did someone. Cast a spell or something?

Well done, everyone. I'm impressed.

Well PC hasn't found the thread.... YET.

 

[nat4900]

That's part of religious freedom. The traditional swearing in exercise doesn't force people to worship a certain God. It only indicates that the majority of sane people agree that swearing before a deity of their choice indicates the intent to tell the truth or the acknowledgement of the seriousness of their testimony. Atheists need to acknowledge the fact that the majority of Americans are comfortable with the tradition and aren't afraid of some government cabal that might force them to worship a being superior to themselves. Lighten up atheists, affording the majority of Americans their 1st Amendment right to acknowledge a supreme being doesn't take away your right to do the opposite.

I was NOT arguing against the traditional swearing in of elected people....My point was and is that although we call ourselves secular, we have a predisposition toward religious beliefs.

 

[LoneLaugher]

While all of you brainiacs have been solving the worlds problems over here....I've been arguing religion with some of the weakest minds I've ever met in another thread. I need a shower.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Who did Rep. Ellison refer to when he said "so help me God"?

 

[Derideo_Te]

It doesn't matter in a political sense whether God exists. All that matters is that the greatest document ever written, the U.S. Constitution, guarantees the people the freedom to express their religious beliefs without government interference.

That is indeed true....Yet, look at what and who we swear to....from placing our hand on a Bible to ending our oath with, "....so help me God."

I watched a trustee in her 80's was being sworn in tell the Mayor "I don't do that part".

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It doesn't matter in a political sense whether God exists. All that matters is that the greatest document ever written, the U.S. Constitution, guarantees the people the freedom to express their religious beliefs without government interference.

That is indeed true....Yet, look at what and who we swear to....from placing our hand on a Bible to ending our oath with, "....so help me God."

That's part of religious freedom. The traditional swearing in exercise doesn't force people to worship a certain God. It only indicates that the majority of sane people agree that swearing before a deity of their choice indicates the intent to tell the truth or the acknowledgement of the seriousness of their testimony. Atheists need to acknowledge the fact that the majority of Americans are comfortable with the tradition and aren't afraid of some government cabal that might force them to worship a being superior to themselves. Lighten up atheists, affording the majority of Americans their 1st Amendment right to acknowledge a supreme being doesn't take away your right to do the opposite.

This fails as a straw man fallacy.

No one takes issue with what theists might or not not believe, nor does anyone take issue with religious expression in government that conforms with Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

You're the only one who needs to 'lighten up,' you're the only one seeking to contrive a 'controversy' where none exists.

 

[Derideo_Te]

not only the original sin alluded to in the Bible, but also a "debt" on all of us for Christ's sacrifice

Gee, some dude two thousand years made the "ultimate sacrifice" for me so now I am beholden to do what he said?

I can see why Joseph Smith got away with starting his own religion if people will believe inanities of that nature.

 

[nat4900]

Who did Rep. Ellison refer to when he said "so help me God"?

Indeed, but you may now have started another "scandal" for right wingers claiming that he had his fingers crossed the whole time. (lol)

 

[BluesLegend]

Since our current understanding of the universe is at best scratching at the surface, its arrogant ignorance to declare there is no God.

My imaginary Flying Spaghetti Monster is more real than your imaginary God.

Speaking of ignorant ^^^

 

[nat4900]

Gee, some dude two thousand years made the "ultimate sacrifice" for me so now I am beholden to do what he said?

You bet.....and had Jesus been born in the 20th century many of us would now be wearing little, gold electric chairs around our necks..

 

[PratchettFan]

]What if I just ask for proof to support the claim it doesn't exist or that it does exist?

That challenge doesn't bother dogmatists. They will assert their beliefs as proven fact, when they cannot prove it empirically.
If there is a God, He would be beyond what our finite minds could grasp. If there is not, how could anyone 'know' that definitively? The universe is too vast & mysterious to be defined by dogmatic assertions.

I agree. Which is why assertions should not be made. Either side of the issue is only dogma.

 

[PratchettFan]

"Proof" of the existence or absence of God is an impossible task. The best you can do is examine the circumstantial evidence and draw conclusions from that. And that, just like in a court of law, is not an exact science. I don't buy into he various formal major religions and believe they have all caused their share of human suffering. Granted they have all done various levels of good also, you can debate whether the good outweighs the bad. I do believe there is a God, but do not believe he,she or it intervenes in human or weather events and definitely NOT sports events.

The problem is there is no circumstantial evidence. For something to be evidence it must have some relevance to the subject, and we can't even define what the subject is.

 

[MarathonMike]

Just speaking for myself, the existence of life is circumstantial evidence of God. Until someone recreates life from a blob of seam foam and lightning, I'm going with the big G.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Just speaking for myself, the existence of life is circumstantial evidence of God. Until someone recreates life from a blob of seam foam and lightning, I'm going with the big G.

Been done, just needed more cooking time.

 

[Political Junky]

I wonder if priests really believe they'll spend eternity in hellfire for having sex with women, men, or boys ... just a thought.

 

[BluesLegend]

I wonder if priests really believe they'll spend eternity in hellfire for having sex with women, men, or boys ... just a thought.

^^^ disturbing.

 

[AntiParty]

On another thread one of the usual right wing poster stated: "Prove to me that God does not exist..." Interesting challenge, if somewhat inane. In the political context, the poster was trying.....as usual and ad nauseum...to imply that Obama is a god-less president......which, were it "true," should actually be a confirmation that we are a secular nation and, as some other nutty right wingers have stated, if Obama were a closet-Muslim, that he would certainly NOT be god-less.

Anyway, the question reminded me of Blaise Pascal "answer" to such a query, called, Pascal's Wager....and it is important to especially note that Pascal was emphasizing the "wager" or "gamble" part of his theory......He stated:

If you don't believe in God and God indeed does not exist, there is no loss.

If you don't believe in God and God DOES exist, you're in deep trouble.

If you believe in God, and God does not exist, you've wasted some considerable time in your adoration of a non-existent god.

Finally, if you DO believe in God and God DOES exist, you've won whatever prize your adoration and religious beliefs claim to offer.

Are you then willing to "gamble"???

There have been about 2870 deities called "god". Every single group of followers is certain theirs is the only one. They make books written by MAN, not GOD.

It's fun to learn other religions because they all have the same "Golden Rule" yet they fight each other.
http://www.harryhiker.com/poster.gif

Meanwhile, Jellyfish seem to know what to do without a brain or a heart.
http://consolidatetimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/jellyfish-swimming-secrets.jpg

The maple tree, without a brain or heart makes a seed that can plant itself away from the mother tree via the use of Science/aircraft. Humans took generations to apply this technology that plants use.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/0f/b9/b1/0fb9b1eafdc922e97a6b25057a723bf1.jpg

Is the anteater random or did it evolve? Did ants get deeper and deeper?
http://easyscienceforkids.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/ant-eater-tongue.jpg

Dare I bring up bee's?

The world has a crazy balance that seems like design. It's certainly not random. We know evolution is real but to think evolution is fast is a joke, we have all read the forums here .

Last.
Freedom Of Religion is what you need to be discussing in Political Forums. Not Freedom to force your own religion. Simply Freedom of the 2870 religions.

We came to America to avoid religious execution and then did the very same thing to other religions we ran from.

 

[PratchettFan]

Just speaking for myself, the existence of life is circumstantial evidence of God. Until someone recreates life from a blob of seam foam and lightning, I'm going with the big G.

You are certainly free to go with whatever feels right. In the utter absence of evidence, you have no other choice. But life is only evidence of the existence of life.

 

[Agit8r]

Of course, one could just as easily wind up in the Muslim Hell, for believing that Jesus was God, because there is every bit the likelihood of that.

 

[amrchaos]

On another thread one of the usual right wing poster stated: "Prove to me that God does not exist..." Interesting challenge, if somewhat inane. In the political context, the poster was trying.....as usual and ad nauseum...to imply that Obama is a god-less president......which, were it "true," should actually be a confirmation that we are a secular nation and, as some other nutty right wingers have stated, if Obama were a closet-Muslim, that he would certainly NOT be god-less.

Anyway, the question reminded me of Blaise Pascal "answer" to such a query, called, Pascal's Wager....and it is important to especially note that Pascal was emphasizing the "wager" or "gamble" part of his theory......He stated:

If you don't believe in God and God indeed does not exist, there is no loss.

If you don't believe in God and God DOES exist, you're in deep trouble.

If you believe in God, and God does not exist, you've wasted some considerable time in your adoration of a non-existent god.

Finally, if you DO believe in God and God DOES exist, you've won whatever prize your adoration and religious beliefs claim to offer.

Are you then willing to "gamble"???

Question:
Which God is Pascal talking about? Did Pascal give a condition on believing in the wrong God?

If not, then obviously Pascal's wagers is an "off the cuff" friendly proposal not to be taken seriously.