The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity

[JBeukema]

The FF are corpses, not kings or gods.

Just because they did something doesn't make it good.

Remember slavery? Surely, if the FF had slaves and the nation's economy was so heavily based on slavery, slavery must be a good thing and the only truly American thing to do would be to re-institute it, right?

 

[AllieBaba]

We aren't talking about their degree of goodness.
The debate is whether or not the country was founded on Christian values.
To determine that, you go to the horse's mouth. The founders.

 

[AllieBaba]

Let's not forget also that the U.S. was the first nation in the modern world to not have an established church. What a magnificient accomplishment!

Thank goodness the Christians who founded the country understood that in order to protect religious freedom, they couldn't impose a state religion.

One of the more wonderful Chrsitian tenets. Free will and all that.

Wait, so now secularism is a Christian tenet?

That's a stretch.

No, liberty is a Christian tenet.

 

[JBeukema]

Thank goodness the Christians who founded the country understood that in order to protect religious freedom, they couldn't impose a state religion.

One of the more wonderful Chrsitian tenets. Free will and all that.

Wait, so now secularism is a Christian tenet?

That's a stretch.

No, liberty is a Christian tenet.

Really? The entire premise of the religion if that if you don't bow down before the King (of Kings), you don't just die, you get tortured. For eternity. With no end.

That's not liberty. That's tyranny.

Even the Christian concept of heaven is as illiberal as it gets, with the King ruling absolutely, his son's throne at his right side, and the greatest reawrd one can receive to be the closest little subject kneeling at his feet. It's also a racist system, in which one race is given special treatment (the 14400 will all be of the Jewish tribes). Also, noone will be married nor will they be given in marriage- not only are gays not free to take their loved ones as spouses, nooone is. You are wed only to your King.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Remember that it takes more faith to be an atheist than to believe in deity

That's OK, JB. I understand your confusion. Philosophy simply can't disprove deity, so it takes more faith to belief in that than to believe in deity, which has manifested its proof in philosophy and acts.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Wait, so now secularism is a Christian tenet?

That's a stretch.

No, liberty is a Christian tenet.

Really? The entire premise of the religion if that if you don't bow down before the King (of Kings), you don't just die, you get tortured. For eternity. With no end.

That's not liberty. That's tyranny.

Even the Christian concept of heaven is as illiberal as it gets, with the King ruling absolutely, his son's throne at his right side, and the greatest reawrd one can receive to be the closest little subject kneeling at his feet. It's also a racist system, in which one race is given special treatment (the 14400 will all be of the Jewish tribes). Also, noone will be married nor will they be given in marriage- not only are gays not free to take their loved ones as spouses, nooone is. You are wed only to your King.

Liberty is a tenant of modern liberalism, which the far right conloons try to deny.

 

[JBeukema]

Remember that it takes more faith to be an atheist than to believe in deity

That's OK, JB. I understand your confusion. Philosophy simply can't disprove deity, so it takes more faith to belief in that than to believe in deity, which has manifested its proof in philosophy and acts.

Deity manifested in acts?

Evidence?

As for your total ignorance of what atheism and gnosticism are,

Let me google that for you

 

[JBeukema]

No, liberty is a Christian tenet.

Really? The entire premise of the religion if that if you don't bow down before the King (of Kings), you don't just die, you get tortured. For eternity. With no end.

That's not liberty. That's tyranny.

Even the Christian concept of heaven is as illiberal as it gets, with the King ruling absolutely, his son's throne at his right side, and the greatest reawrd one can receive to be the closest little subject kneeling at his feet. It's also a racist system, in which one race is given special treatment (the 14400 will all be of the Jewish tribes). Also, noone will be married nor will they be given in marriage- not only are gays not free to take their loved ones as spouses, nooone is. You are wed only to your King.

Liberty is a tenant of modern liberalism, which the far right conloons try to deny.

Clarify. What, exactly, do you refer to a 'modern liberalism'? Many who coopt the term these days are more progressives or democratic socialists than they are Liberals.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's OK, JB. I understand your confusion. Philosophy simply can't disprove deity, so it takes more faith to belief in that than to believe in deity, which has manifested its proof in philosophy and acts.

Deity manifested in acts?

Evidence?

As for your total ignorance of what atheism and gnosticism are,

Let me google that for you

I understand that you don't grasp philosophical investigation and logic. That's OK. Perhaps one day you will.

 

[JBeukema]

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time

 

[JakeStarkey]

Really? The entire premise of the religion if that if you don't bow down before the King (of Kings), you don't just die, you get tortured. For eternity. With no end.

That's not liberty. That's tyranny.

Even the Christian concept of heaven is as illiberal as it gets, with the King ruling absolutely, his son's throne at his right side, and the greatest reawrd one can receive to be the closest little subject kneeling at his feet. It's also a racist system, in which one race is given special treatment (the 14400 will all be of the Jewish tribes). Also, noone will be married nor will they be given in marriage- not only are gays not free to take their loved ones as spouses, nooone is. You are wed only to your King.

Liberty is a tenant of modern liberalism, which the far right conloons try to deny.

Clarify. What, exactly, do you refer to a 'modern liberalism'? Many who coopt the term these days are more progressives or democratic socialists than they are Liberals.

You must research for yourself to develop informed opinion.

 

[JBeukema]

That's OK, JB. I understand your confusion. Philosophy simply can't disprove deity, so it takes more faith to belief in that than to believe in deity, which has manifested its proof in philosophy and acts.

Deity manifested in acts?

Evidence?

As for your total ignorance of what atheism and gnosticism are,

Let me google that for you

I understand that you don't grasp philosophical investigation and logic. That's OK. Perhaps one day you will.

You assert that non-belief in a thing is a faith, and you accuse someone else of not grasping the matter?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I assert you don't understand basic principles because of your bias, which is obviously emotional and unstable.

That's OK, but denying what is does not help you at all.

 

[JBeukema]

Liberty is a tenant of modern liberalism, which the far right conloons try to deny.

Clarify. What, exactly, do you refer to a 'modern liberalism'? Many who coopt the term these days are more progressives or democratic socialists than they are Liberals.

You must research for yourself to develop informed opinion.

In other words, you just make shit up and won't defend it.

You say 'modern liberalism'. That term is generally used to refer to those who use the term today. Many are not Liberals and are quite illiberal in their positions. Yet you claim a tenant of their position is liberty. This makes you a retard. I tried giving you the benefit of the doubt and letting you specify what you were calling 'modern liberalism', but you can't defend your statement.

 

[JBeukema]

I assert you don't understand basic principles because of your bias, which is obviously emotional and unstable.

That's OK, but denying what is does not help you at all.

Why do you make statements you won't defend?


Face it, you were debunked. Gnositicism is a matter of faith. Atheism is not.

By definition

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, it means JB that you are not as sharp as you think that you are.

That's OK.

I am comfortable with investigation, and I certainly know when I read nonsense, which you put out from time to time.

Other matters, where you are rational, you are fun to read, and I agree with you often.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Atheism, ipso facto, is faith based, because you cannot develop empirical evidence to debunk it.

 

[JBeukema]

You assert that non-belief is a matter of faith. You are wrong by definition. Follow the links.


Your vocabulary lesson for today:
theism
atheism
gnosticism
agnosticism
strong atheism
weak atheism
gnostic atheism
agnostic atheism
gnostic theism
agnostic theism

Come back when you know what you're talking about

 

[JBeukema]

Atheism, ipso facto, is faith based, because you cannot develop empirical evidence to debunk it.

Fail. You can't prove or disprove a non-claim. A non-claim is no subject to such things.

'I do not believe the whofnaiddlskhfdsofsdkuh exists' is not a claim as to whether the whofnaiddlskhfdsofsdkuh exists'.

It is not the same as saying 'the whofnaiddlskhfdsofsdkuh does not exist'.

Go do your vocabulary homework and come back when you have a clue

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are going about this backwards.

Religion is faith based.

Atheism is faith based, because it cannot develop an empirical model to debunk religious faith.

The best you can come up with is an agnostic model.

You need to get your emotion out of the way.