The Founders on Religion

[Divine Wind]

Of course you can. You say a god exists its up to you to prove our claim. Beeeeeleeeeeeve me isn't proof.

I can absolutely say god or Bigfoot or ghosts don't exist. I am not obligated to provide proof of non existence, those that believe they exist are.

On the contrary, dear. I believe God exists and readily admit there is no proof either way.

Can you say the same? Obviously not. Your anger and resentment are, however, proof of personal quirks.

 

[Seawytch]

Of course you can. You say a god exists its up to you to prove our claim. Beeeeeleeeeeeve me isn't proof.

I can absolutely say god or Bigfoot or ghosts don't exist. I am not obligated to provide proof of non existence, those that believe they exist are.

On the contrary, dear. I believe God exists and readily admit there is no proof either way.

Can you say the same? Obviously not. Your anger and resentment are, however, proof of personal quirks.

Where do you glean anger? Can I admit there is no proof god exists? I did already. There is no proof god exists. And?

 

[Divine Wind]

Of course you can. You say a god exists its up to you to prove our claim. Beeeeeleeeeeeve me isn't proof.

I can absolutely say god or Bigfoot or ghosts don't exist. I am not obligated to provide proof of non existence, those that believe they exist are.

On the contrary, dear. I believe God exists and readily admit there is no proof either way.

Can you say the same? Obviously not. Your anger and resentment are, however, proof of personal quirks.

Where do you glean anger? Can I admit there is no proof god exists? I did already. There is no proof god exists. And?

Obviously your emotions are getting the better of you.

Consider a person who says "There is no evidence of extraterrestrial life, therefore there are no other lifeforms except from Earth". You and I can see the inherent flaw in that logic, yet if you demand they prove there is no other life, the putz person might retort "You can't prove a negative".

The fact remains the only logical position is to be an agnostic. To be either an atheist or a theist requires faith since there is no evidence to prove either position.

 

[Seawytch]

Of course you can. You say a god exists its up to you to prove our claim. Beeeeeleeeeeeve me isn't proof.

I can absolutely say god or Bigfoot or ghosts don't exist. I am not obligated to provide proof of non existence, those that believe they exist are.

On the contrary, dear. I believe God exists and readily admit there is no proof either way.

Can you say the same? Obviously not. Your anger and resentment are, however, proof of personal quirks.

Where do you glean anger? Can I admit there is no proof god exists? I did already. There is no proof god exists. And?

Obviously your emotions are getting the better of you.

Consider a person who says "There is no evidence of extraterrestrial life, therefore there are no other lifeforms except from Earth". You and I can see the inherent flaw in that logic, yet if you demand they prove there is no other life, the putz person might retort "You can't prove a negative".

The fact remains the only logical position is to be an agnostic. To be either an atheist or a theist requires faith since there is no evidence to prove either position.

I'm willing to be provided proof. I'm going to bet I'll get proof of life on other planets before I'm provided proof of a divine being.

 

[Divine Wind]

I'm willing to be provided proof. I'm going to bet I'll get proof of life on other planets before I'm provided proof of a divine being.

Me too. Agreed since one, if it exists, exists within the natural universe and the other outside of it.

Nonetheless, declaring "there is no God" is a matter of faith, not fact.

 

[thanatos144]

Correction yet another left-wing false narrative. This time it is the lie that the founders wanted to build a "secular nation" in which the government was "free from religion".

"And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?"

— George Washington Farewell Address (September 19, 1796)

Our country was founded on principles of accepting all religions and not subscribing to just one. If you want to be fair and integrate religion into our government then all religions would need equal representation, otherwise separating church and state and leaving religious practice to the privacy of our citizens is the best path and I believe our founders intent

More flawed logic of a regressive....The constitution DOES NOT say it has to treat all religions the same it says it cant stop the free exercise of it. The FEDERAL Government is not allowed to make a religion or force other in to worship of a religion. Massachusetts had a state religion for decades.

 

[thanatos144]

And just so all Russian Loving America Hating Cons know, George Washington was a Diest.

He believed in a creator, but he did not believe that such creator ever interacted with mankind.

There is no god. god does not exist. god is not real.

If you support der GroppenFuhrer's fucking buddy's interference in our countries election, then you support a non-believer who is plainly fucking this country over.

Where did you get this piece of wisdom???? From Howard Zinn?

 

[thanatos144]

Correction yet another left-wing false narrative. This time it is the lie that the founders wanted to build a "secular nation" in which the government was "free from religion".

"And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?"

— George Washington Farewell Address (September 19, 1796)

Our country was founded on principles of accepting all religions and not subscribing to just one. If you want to be fair and integrate religion into our government then all religions would need equal representation, otherwise separating church and state and leaving religious practice to the privacy of our citizens is the best path and I believe our founders intent

^^^That^^

Gee another zero sum regressive getting it wrong.

 

[thanatos144]

[*Jump to State Laws...the ones that make you bake for gays (the one for blacks is Federal) are states laws.

States' Rights

I'm sorry - when we say "church in government" to you interpret that to mean FEDERAL only?

I'm sorry, when you say "church in government" I have no idea what you're saying. What does "church in government" mean to you? How much religion do you want to see in our government? Whose religion?

Do you support the Federal PA laws or don't you? You, a "states' rights" guy, only seem to attack and snivel about the state laws in half the states that require the baking of a cake for a gay couple and never about Federal law in all 50 that requires the baking of a cake for, say, an interracial couple.

And no - this is not about "Public Accommodation Laws". This is about ALL of it, my dear. Everything. Those were just some examples. I also mentioned corrupt maniacs like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama. Convenient how you missed that, uh?

Yes, I was doing you a favor by ignoring the completely insane parts of your post. That's getting harder to do.

No. Public Accomadation laws violate the right to private property...Government buildings can't discriminate, but you should be able to serve who you want, and not serve who you want, if you own the business...that is why some Republicans didn't support the 64 Civil Rights act....in that one area it went too far....

So why aren't "some Republicans" trying to get it repealed? Why challenge State law that requires gays to be served in about 25 states and not the law that requires blacks or Jews to be served in all 50? Could it be because the SCOTUS already found it to be Constitutional?

Homosexuality is a choice being a different race is not.... Now that I have educated you we both know you will ignore all actual truth like all regressives.

 

[Seawytch]

[*Jump to State Laws...the ones that make you bake for gays (the one for blacks is Federal) are states laws.

States' Rights

I'm sorry - when we say "church in government" to you interpret that to mean FEDERAL only?

I'm sorry, when you say "church in government" I have no idea what you're saying. What does "church in government" mean to you? How much religion do you want to see in our government? Whose religion?

Do you support the Federal PA laws or don't you? You, a "states' rights" guy, only seem to attack and snivel about the state laws in half the states that require the baking of a cake for a gay couple and never about Federal law in all 50 that requires the baking of a cake for, say, an interracial couple.

And no - this is not about "Public Accommodation Laws". This is about ALL of it, my dear. Everything. Those were just some examples. I also mentioned corrupt maniacs like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama. Convenient how you missed that, uh?

Yes, I was doing you a favor by ignoring the completely insane parts of your post. That's getting harder to do.

No. Public Accomadation laws violate the right to private property...Government buildings can't discriminate, but you should be able to serve who you want, and not serve who you want, if you own the business...that is why some Republicans didn't support the 64 Civil Rights act....in that one area it went too far....

So why aren't "some Republicans" trying to get it repealed? Why challenge State law that requires gays to be served in about 25 states and not the law that requires blacks or Jews to be served in all 50? Could it be because the SCOTUS already found it to be Constitutional?

Homosexuality is a choice being a different race is not.... Now that I have educated you we both know you will ignore all actual truth like all regressives.

Religion is a choice protected by FEDERAL PA laws. Argument fail.

 

[thanatos144]

I'm sorry - when we say "church in government" to you interpret that to mean FEDERAL only?

I'm sorry, when you say "church in government" I have no idea what you're saying. What does "church in government" mean to you? How much religion do you want to see in our government? Whose religion?

Do you support the Federal PA laws or don't you? You, a "states' rights" guy, only seem to attack and snivel about the state laws in half the states that require the baking of a cake for a gay couple and never about Federal law in all 50 that requires the baking of a cake for, say, an interracial couple.

And no - this is not about "Public Accommodation Laws". This is about ALL of it, my dear. Everything. Those were just some examples. I also mentioned corrupt maniacs like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama. Convenient how you missed that, uh?

Yes, I was doing you a favor by ignoring the completely insane parts of your post. That's getting harder to do.

No. Public Accomadation laws violate the right to private property...Government buildings can't discriminate, but you should be able to serve who you want, and not serve who you want, if you own the business...that is why some Republicans didn't support the 64 Civil Rights act....in that one area it went too far....

So why aren't "some Republicans" trying to get it repealed? Why challenge State law that requires gays to be served in about 25 states and not the law that requires blacks or Jews to be served in all 50? Could it be because the SCOTUS already found it to be Constitutional?

Homosexuality is a choice being a different race is not.... Now that I have educated you we both know you will ignore all actual truth like all regressives.

Religion is a choice protected by FEDERAL PA laws. Argument fail.

Because my religious worship is protected in the constitution means you get to trample on it because you are a homosexual???? WTF kind of logic is that?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Morality & religion are not exclusive. To say such nonsense just means you're a triggered religious nut.

 

[P@triot]

So why aren't "some Republicans" trying to get it repealed? Why challenge State law that requires gays to be served in about 25 states and not the law that requires blacks or Jews to be served in all 50? Could it be because the SCOTUS already found it to be Constitutional?

As I pointed out to you before - those laws can force Microsoft to purchase their computers from Apple. I mean, after all, Microsoft "serves the public". Which means the government can force them into commerce with whoever they want by your own admission. Is that the market you want to live in? Apple greases the palms of a few Congressmen and bam! - Microsoft is forced to purchase all of their hardware from Apple? You ignored this point last time because it proved you were dead wrong on this issue.

It's idiotic, asinine, and unconstitutional Seawytch. And you know it.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

So why aren't "some Republicans" trying to get it repealed? Why challenge State law that requires gays to be served in about 25 states and not the law that requires blacks or Jews to be served in all 50? Could it be because the SCOTUS already found it to be Constitutional?

As I pointed out to you before - those laws can force Microsoft to purchase their computers from Apple. I mean, after all, Microsoft "serves the public". Which means the government can force them into commerce with whoever they want by your own admission. Is that the market you want to live in? Apple greases the palms of a few Congressmen and bam! - Microsoft is forced to purchase all of their hardware from Apple? You ignored this point last time because it proved you were dead wrong on this issue.

It's idiotic, asinine, and unconstitutional Seawytch. And you know it.

Microsoft is a software company not a hardware company.

 

[thanatos144]

Morality & religion are not exclusive. To say such nonsense just means you're a triggered religious nut.

If that was so why do so many get murdered in secular societies?

 

[thanatos144]

So why aren't "some Republicans" trying to get it repealed? Why challenge State law that requires gays to be served in about 25 states and not the law that requires blacks or Jews to be served in all 50? Could it be because the SCOTUS already found it to be Constitutional?

As I pointed out to you before - those laws can force Microsoft to purchase their computers from Apple. I mean, after all, Microsoft "serves the public". Which means the government can force them into commerce with whoever they want by your own admission. Is that the market you want to live in? Apple greases the palms of a few Congressmen and bam! - Microsoft is forced to purchase all of their hardware from Apple? You ignored this point last time because it proved you were dead wrong on this issue.

It's idiotic, asinine, and unconstitutional Seawytch. And you know it.

Microsoft is a software company not a hardware company.

How do you think they make the software ??? I am betting it is ON A COMPUTER.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

So why aren't "some Republicans" trying to get it repealed? Why challenge State law that requires gays to be served in about 25 states and not the law that requires blacks or Jews to be served in all 50? Could it be because the SCOTUS already found it to be Constitutional?

As I pointed out to you before - those laws can force Microsoft to purchase their computers from Apple. I mean, after all, Microsoft "serves the public". Which means the government can force them into commerce with whoever they want by your own admission. Is that the market you want to live in? Apple greases the palms of a few Congressmen and bam! - Microsoft is forced to purchase all of their hardware from Apple? You ignored this point last time because it proved you were dead wrong on this issue.

It's idiotic, asinine, and unconstitutional Seawytch. And you know it.

Microsoft is a software company not a hardware company.

How do you think they make the software ??? I am betting it is ON A COMPUTER.

Clueless

 

[thanatos144]

So why aren't "some Republicans" trying to get it repealed? Why challenge State law that requires gays to be served in about 25 states and not the law that requires blacks or Jews to be served in all 50? Could it be because the SCOTUS already found it to be Constitutional?

As I pointed out to you before - those laws can force Microsoft to purchase their computers from Apple. I mean, after all, Microsoft "serves the public". Which means the government can force them into commerce with whoever they want by your own admission. Is that the market you want to live in? Apple greases the palms of a few Congressmen and bam! - Microsoft is forced to purchase all of their hardware from Apple? You ignored this point last time because it proved you were dead wrong on this issue.

It's idiotic, asinine, and unconstitutional Seawytch. And you know it.

Microsoft is a software company not a hardware company.

How do you think they make the software ??? I am betting it is ON A COMPUTER.

Clueless

Before you make a bigger fool out of yourself please learn reading comprehensions.

 

[12icer]

The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. ... But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding....~ Thomas Jefferson

Not accurate. Not even close to accurate. More lies of the lefitist scum propaganda mill. Some excerpts that are the quanification of a much broader narrative and inferred as a poser, not an opinion or fact. Same old lies by edit.

 

[12icer]

The absence of any religion does not always lead to a criminal society, but the introduction of mankind as the "supreme being" does, especially when coupled with a ruling class mentality by a group of lowlife scum like the current dimocrat party.