user created polls & quizzes      

Rate this ballot.

religion :
IS ATHEISM ILLOGICAL / IRRATIONAL?
[+] ballot by anti_yankee
It seems that the majority of Atheists I meet believe they are somehow more rational or logical than those who believe in some religion, whether that is Islam, Judaism, Shinto, etc.
Yes, Atheism is illogical because ...
No, Atheism is not illogical because ...
Never thought about it. I'll get back to you.
Ballot #48724 : SEE RESULTS
Comment:
Register to submit comments
You may still vote without registration

show your vote with comment?
v 2.0 © BESTANDWORST.COM

Vote on the ballot listed to the left, and rate the ballot below.



You are about to rate this ballot for quality.
Remember, this is for the ballot itself, NOT the choices in the ballot.
Individual ballot choices can be rated by clicking on the choices.

Submitted by : anti_yankee
Submitted on : Aug 29,2004 8:32:55 pm
ballot title:

Is Atheism illogical / irrational?

ballot number:48724
rate the ballot to the left
BEST WORST
send aura *negative ratings above takes away aura.
if negative rating, choose a reason

enter your own reason

Do not rate it negative just because you do not agree with the ballot or the result.


COMMENTS
It seems to me that the majority of theists I meet believe that they are somehow more enlightened and that one day I will come to know God. I think it's safe to say that we all believe our own beliefs to be more rational, no?
I don't believe it is. Note, of course, that this is a different question than *are they correct.* Or even *are they logical.*

The whole question of theology, belief, etc. is a very complex one and doesn't lend itself to easy conclusions.

I can see some atheists viewpoints and how they've come to their conclusions. Of course, I can see how some theists have come to their conclusiosn, as well.

Now, many atheists (and theists) come to their conclusions through illogical means. But I don't believe you can say *all* do.

It doesn't help that most people believe they have an inside track into Truth on this ... whether they really do or not.
I actually find any 'belief' to be irrational.
I always believed there are a lot more atheists out there than we think, but not really acceptable to say you don't believe in God in most societies.
As a whole, Atheists seem to be stronger willed and more logical than Theists.
If God did what is said in Genesis, the snake was definitely his first mistake!
Mag,

You said:
I actually find any 'belief' to be irrational.

Funny. I see it the exact opposite.
I BELIEVE (wait a minute...) that we lack enough information to firmly believe either way on the matter. But that goes along with my whole philosophy. I don't believe in any solid truths, I believe that truths are based on variables, and that these variables constantly change and are never in themselves a solid truth. So, ya might be right about everything. Although I don't consider myself to be an Atheist, I do not believe in a conscious, decision-making God. But I have found in several cases that when discussing this claim of lack of belief with those who claim they do believe, we often draw a similar conclusion in a round-about sort of way. Okay... I'll shut up now. :)
Mag,

That is more of an agnosticism, though. The uncertainty, but an openness to the possibility. I see some logic in that. I, personally, see atheism as wanting in logic.
I consider myself to be agnostic. I never claimed to be atheist (I just like to argue!)... so case settled!

Although... what about seeing the exact opposite of my thoughts on any belief to be irrational? If you can see where I'm coming from, then you don't find disbelief totally irrational, no?
Yes, I find disbelief totally irrational.

1. Complete disbelief requires a Universal Negative which is illogical. In order to say there is no God in the universe, you would have to go everywhere in the universe all at once. This would make you omnipresent and omnipotent. You would then know everything going on and would be omniscient. At this point, you would be God and would testify to yourself.

2. When you look at a painting, you realize there was a painter. You do not assume the painting just happened by chance.

3. Our scope of knowledge is so narrow, that it seems silly to say there cannot possibly be someone bigger and greater than us. We know nothing. We have no clue what tomorrow holds for us. How can we speculate on the grander questions such as design and the distant future?

Those are a few reasons I find disbelief irrational. I do not mean disbelief in the Judeo-Christian God, but disbelief in any god, supreme being, intelligent designer, etc.
Complete disbelief in a god might be somewhat irrational as one has no way of knowing. However, it is no more illogical than a complete belief in a god. A complete belief in anything is illogical, IMO.

Your first statement I agree with, for it is impossible to prove that something does NOT exist. If there isn't a god, we will surely never know. However, this doesn't prove that there is a god, even if we never know. Just because we may die and that's the end of us still wouldn't prove that a god doesn't exist.

As far as your second argument regarding the painter... it reminds me of that quote by Hoyle, which I cannot recite verbatum (sorry) about the 747 being assembled in a junkyard, basically saying that if there isn't a god, what are the chances we would be here on this earth as it is? I always liked this argument, but it doesn't prove there is a god. It only means that in the chaos of things, it is highly unlikely to occur twice. In other words, the paint might spill differently the second time around. I don't think it's strange at all that humans should develop under such circumstances, as these were the circumstances provided. Naturally our lifeforms are suited for this.

Okay, number 3... Yes we know nothing. So while it may seem a bit megalomaniacal to assume there is no greater lifeform than us, it is still 'silly' to believe that there is. As long as a belief is held on the issue one way or another, you are making an irrational assumption. To admit that you do not know is by far the most rational of the choices and also the most honest.

The part of atheism that draws me in IS the belief in a Judeo-Christian God, or basically any established God as is written. When one says that God is all-knowing, does that mean one superior being knows all that we know and everything that is to know separate from us? If so, then yes, I'm leaning toward atheism here. If it can be that humanity and all other life are connected and then therefore we as a collective are 'god' and together know all that is known, then yes, God is all-knowing. I find these terms to be very complicated, and an extensive explanation is required before I am able to agree or disagree with what others say. This is why I stated above (somewhere) that when discussing the subject of god with many theists I have come to a similar conclusion in a round-about way. I used to actually consider myself atheist, because I rejected God as is commonly defined. But, yes, the possibility of a god is always out there.
That's a two way street, yes some atheist act and talk more logical and really they don't have a clue, but many religious belivers walk on cloud nine like there some what better than non-belivers like there part of a elite club.
Foolish
Mag,

I will respond to your post later.
Atheists don't try to force their lack of beliefs on anyone. We're accepting of others but we'll fight back when they try to impose their particular mythology on us.
thc,

You said:
Atheists don't try to force their lack of beliefs on anyone.

Yes they do. I can name trial after trial of atheists forcing their ideology down the throats of others.

Every time their pitbull, the ACLU, takes a city hall to court over poinsettias in December, it is a matter of atheists forcing their atheism on others. It's as if they believe their imaginary right to not be offended is somehow more important than Betty Penopscott's right to Free Exercise of religion.
Those are examples of Atheists fighting the Christians who are trying to force Christian beliefs on everyone and violating the constitution in the process. We get pissed considering Theists would still be chucking spears if it wasn't Atheist scientists and philosophers.
thc,

care to back those statements up with facts?
You can find most of the cases online. They usually have to do with the display of the ten commandments in government buildings or students being forced to recite a prayer. The Atheist scientists and philosophers, let's see, Democritus, Shockley, Feynman, Einstein, and 93% of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences. There are many more of course, but those are just a few.
thc,

You said:
You can find most of the cases online. They usually have to do with the display of the ten commandments in government buildings or students being forced to recite a prayer.

I was not referring to this, but I will respond, "really?"
I was not making it up when I mentioned poinsettias in the lobby of a city building during December. The ACLU sued over it.

You said:
The Atheist scientists and philosophers, let's see, Democritus, Shockley, Feynman, Einstein, and 93% of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences.

These men do not prove that Christians would be chucking spears. Furthermore, you do realize that many early scientists were Christians, right?
And you realize that the Ptolemaic system is based not upon Christianity, but the other way around, right? That is, the Catholic church based its belief on the pagan philosophy.

Citing some atheist or agnostic scholars does not prove that modern technology would be impossible without atheism, any more than my naming Christian scientists would prove the opposite. More than this, if we look at one of your examples, William Shockley, we see that he believed blacks were inferior to whites and felt that they actually sent evolution backwards. Now, was he right about this? If not, how can we trust his knowledge on the infinite?
Shockley was a radical but that's no reason to ignore the real differences there are between races. Suing over flowers is a load of crap and I don't support it. I don't support everything the ACLU does and it's clear they have an agenda, but I do agree with about half the things they do. I know there have been Christian scientists and I was exagerrating when I said you guys would be chucking spears, but you would certainly be further back than society is now, further back than Atheists would be on our own. I can live with Theists (I live with a pastor), but it'll be war if those Theists try to force their beliefs on me and violate our constitution.
thc,

Whether you agree or not has no weight upon the question of atheists forcing their beliefs on others. By forcing everyone to live like them, they are imposing their world-view on others while simultaneously denying the latter their constitutional right to the free exercise of religion.

As for the scientists, you can only speculate and nothing more. I can toss out names like Newton (without whom there would be no calculus) and Pasteur (who incidentally debunked the myth of spontaneous generation).
These names demonstrate that many of our scientific discoveries were due to Christians, so it is probably safe to assert that we would not be chucking spears. I would not, however, make the assertion that our technology would be further along without atheists. That is simply foolishness.

As a final thought, just because the men you mentioned were atheists and intelligent, does not mean they were correct in their atheism.
We don't force our beliefs on others. We just fight back when Theists try to force us to accept their particular collection of myths and dogmas. The evangelicals would piss all over the constitution if they had the chance. I for one would be willing to take up arms against those people if they succeeded in destroying the last remaining shards of our constitution. The vast majority of Atheists do nothing to curb the free excercise of anyone's constitutional rights. Many Christians violate the constitution regularly.
thc,

You bring up theists urinating on the US Constitution (USC), very well. Can you show me where the USC says people cannot be Christians in their public lives? Can you show me where the USC says the 10 commandments (you brought this up earlier) cannot be posted in a courthouse?

You said:
We just fight back when Theists try to force us to accept their particular collection of myths and dogmas.

Either you lie, or you grossly misrepresent and misunderstand the situation. I apologize for being blunt, but I believe this. For example, when is the last time a Christian in public life told you " convert or die "? When was the last time you were told by McDonald's " you are not welcome to dine here because you have not converted."?

I doubt anyone has forced you to kneel before the Pope, a cow, or a rock.

You said:
The vast majority of Atheists do nothing to curb the free excercise of anyone's constitutional rights.

I agree. There are, however, a vocal minority who do attempt to force their views and opinions on the rest of us.

You said:
Many Christians violate the constitution regularly.

Please show me how and where. It is interesting the way your rhetoric is applied. " The vast majority of Atheists " vs " Many Christians." You paint the picture that 99.44% of atheists are humble, quiet lovers of humanity, while 70- 80- or even 95% of all Christians in this country are actively engaged in urinating on the USC.

I just thought I would point out that the propaganda, whether intended or not, was not wasted on me.
The constitution does not explicitly deny many specific actions but it is explicit in the principles that the government should follow. The separation of church and state is one of those. Christians who force their beliefs on others by displaying those antiquated commandments in government buildings are violating the constitution daily.
thc,

You said:
is explicit in the principles that the government should follow. The separation of church and state is one of those.

Can you show me where this is in the Constitution?
thc,

You also said:
Christians who force their beliefs on others by displaying those antiquated commandments in government buildings are violating the constitution daily.

Is displaying something the same as forcing someone to live by it? If so, then can people who are opposed to pornography claim they are being forced into sexual servitude because pornography is available in public?

Displaying something is not the same as forcing people to follow it. However, forcing people _not_ to worship or acknowledge their deity _is_ clearly working one's will upon another.
The display of those commandments voices support for them, so their presence in a government building violates the separation of church and state.
thc,

You said:
The display of those commandments voices support for them, so their presence in a government building violates the separation of church and state.

1. You have yet to show me where the Constitution (USC) says anything about the Separation of Church and State.

2. Are you under the opinion our founding fathers did not understand the Constitution they created?

3. Is it safe to say you believe an atheist's right to not be offended supercedes someone else's Constitutional right to the free exercise of religion?

4. Is the display of something like the 10 Commandments the same as the creation of a national religion? If so, which one? Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Christian Science, etc? And where are the punative laws that single out people who do not share that single religion?

5. Do you believe other religious symbols such as the goddesses of Liberty and Justice should be removed from all our architecture, symbols, currency, etc? so people do not mistake them as the creation of a national religion?
The first amendment states that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. The supreme court has correctly interpreted this to mean the same separation of church and state that Jefferson wrote about. They understood the constitution well and Jefferson would be ashamed at what Christians have tried to do to it. The principles of this nation supercede the desire of Theists to force their views upon others, this becomes a violation of the separation between church and state when Theists try to force their beliefs through the power of a government office. The creation of a national religion would be far worse than displaying the ten commandments in a government building, but the latter is as unconstitutional as the former. Those statues are not displayed with the same intentions as Christian symbols, it is common knowledge that those relgions are false. When it is common knowledge that Christianity is false, it will be okay to bring back the worthy symbols of that mythology into government buildings.
thc,

You said:
The first amendment states that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

And clearly, a courthouse that displays the 10 Commandments is _not_ the Congress.

Incidentally, you left out the rest of the First Amendment. The two parts say " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof "

YOU SAID:
The supreme court has correctly interpreted this to mean the same separation of church and state that Jefferson wrote about.

I disagree and will offer evidence for my position in the next section, but this still ignores the fact that Congress shall not pass any laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

YOU SAID:
They understood the constitution well and Jefferson would be ashamed at what Christians have tried to do to it.

Here, I believe you do not understand the Constitution or history. President Jefferson took money from the federal treasury to provide a church and priest for some Native Americans. Surely, the man who penned the phrase " a wall of separation between Church and State " would have realized this was a violation of the Constitution he helped to create if it were so.
In case you do not appreciate this example, I will post a declaration by _President_ Jefferson in the next post. Also, given that one of the first orders of business of the new Congress was to hire a clergyman and have a prayer session, and that since that first convention until present, there has always been an opening prayer and clergyman, I would say that the founding fathers would disagree with your interpretation of their words.

YOU SAID:
The principles of this nation supercede the desire of Theists to force their views upon others ...

This nation was based upon Christian liberty and morality. Your version is based upon religious intolerance. Your version of freedom only allows those religions that you do not find personally threatening to be permitted in public. This is not freedom, but bigotry and intolerance.

YOU SAID:
The creation of a national religion would be far worse than displaying the ten commandments in a government building

Yes, indeed. It would be a violation of the USC, unlike the courthouse illustration. I would submit, though, that there is a religion of secular humanism and atheism foisted upon the citizens of this country. And that this forced world-view is, indeed, a violation of my constitutional rights.

YOU SAID:
Those statues are not displayed with the same intentions as Christian symbols, it is common knowledge that those relgions are false.

Who are you to decide why people hang certain symbols? Who are you to decide which religions are "false" and which aren't? As an theist, though, wouldn't you place the Christian symbolism on the same plateau as Roman or Greek theology? And if so, then why should you feel any more comfortable with one religious symbol over another? That is illogical, unless your sentiments are based upon intolerance, rather than logic.
thc,

Part 2
regarding President Thomas Jefferson:

In 1805, President Jefferson offered a national prayer for peace:

"Almighty God, Who has given us this good land for our heritage; We humbly beseech Thee that we may always prove ourselves a people mindful of Thy favor and glad to do Thy will. Bless our land with honorable ministry, sound learning, and pure manners.

"Save us from violence, discord, and confusion, from pride and arrogance, and from every evil way. Defend our liberties, and fashion into one united people the multitude brought hither out of many kindreds and tongues.

"Endow with Thy spirit of wisdom those to whom in Thy Name we entrust the authority of government, that there may be justice and peace at home, and that through obedience to Thy law, we may show forth Thy praise among the nations of the earth.

"In time of prosperity fill our hearts with thankfulness, and in the day of trouble, suffer not our trust in Thee to fail; all of which we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen."
thc,

Certainly, the man who wrote to the Danbury Baptists, assuring them that they need not fear for their religious liberties due to the wall of separation, would know if this violated that principle. Consider the first draft of his letter which shows the Spirit:

" confining myself therefore to the duties of my station, which are merely temporal, be assured that your religious rights shall never be infringed by any act of mine "
Euro
You're dead wrong on that one. Studies have shown that on Atheists consistently outscore Theists on measures of morality, feeling sorry for the homeless, refraining from theft and deception, etc.
anti
I have a few Jefferson quotes myself
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors."
Jefferson believed in the morality of the teachings of Jesus, as do I, but he rejected the surrounding myths and fables. He was a Deist and admired the philosphy of the mortal man Jesus.
The founding fathers, many of whom were not Christian did not base this nation upon Christian "liberty", but rather on the basic humanism that every person is born with. Modern Christians have twisted and continue to attack the liberties guaranteed to the people by the USC. No religion is forced upon students in public schools, plenty of other crap but religion is not one of them. If Christian were given what they want, we'd be burning people at the stake tomorrow. Public schools try to teach real science, not that creationism crap the religious wrong is trying to pass off as science. All relgions are false on a basic level, that's a fact. Most religions contain some gems of truth that should be preserved, Jefferson believed this and he was trying to compile his own bible that only contained the life philosophy of Jesus.
Most of my friends are Atheists and they don't want the rest of society to be religious either. They support other people's right to be religious but recognize that religion has a largely negative influence on society. The only Atheists that want the rest of society to remain religious should be watched closely; they seek to control people through religion. Hitler was an Atheist but he used the church to his advantage.
thc,

You said:
I have a few Jefferson quotes myself

I will address them.

YOU SAID:
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

Let us look at the letter in depth and scope:

“ In my letter of January 16, I promised you a sample from my common-place book, of the pious disposition of the English judges … I now enclose you the extract from these entries which I promised. They were written at a time of life when I was bold in the pursuit of knowledge, never fearing to follow truth and reason to whatever results they led, and bearding every authority which stood in their way. This must be the apology, if you find the conclusions bolder than historical facts and principles will warrant.
…
“ If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. “

Jefferson was speaking of Common law in England based upon Saxons. His claim that Christianity was not introduced until the 7th century is contradicted by the following quote.

“But soon after this, the Saxons came into Britain. It is supposed that Hengist and Horsa landed in Kent in the year 449; and other chiefs followed, with their fierce heathen warriors. There was a struggle between these and the Britons, which lasted a hundred years, until at length the invaders got the better, and the land was once more overspread by heathenism, except where the Britons kept up their Christianity in the mountainous districts of the West, “

So, it is possible that Jefferson was wrong. Especially since he remarked that all the judges and writers of the world disagreed with him.
thc,

YOU SAID:
"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors."


Also from the same letter:
“ I can never join Calvin in addressing _his god._ He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did. The being described in his 5. points is not the God whom you and I acknolege and adore, the Creator and benevolent governor of the world; but a daemon of malignant spirit.

“ … I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe, in it's parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to percieve and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of it's composition.

“ it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is, in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion

“ … ‘in the beginning God existed, and reason (or mind) was with God, and that mind was God. This was in the beginning with God. All things were created by it, and without it was made not one thing which was made'. Yet this text, so plainly declaring the doctrine of Jesus that the world was created by the supreme, intelligent being, has been perverted by modern Christians to build up a second person of their tritheism by a mistranslation of the word {logos}. One of it's legitimate meanings indeed is `a word.' But, in that sense, it makes an unmeaning jargon: while the other meaning `reason', equally legitimate, explains rationally the eternal preexistence of God, and his creation of the world. … they undertake to make of this articulation a second preexisting being, and ascribe to him, and not to God, the creation of the universe. The Atheist here plumes himself on the uselessness of such a God, and the simpler hypothesis of a self-existent universe. “

Here follows your example. So, Jefferson believed in God, but not the divinity of Christ. This doctrine among early Christians was Psilanthropism. It has also been claimed that Jefferson was an Arian.
thc,

YOU SAID:
Jefferson believed in the morality of the teachings of Jesus, as do I, but he rejected the surrounding myths and fables. He was a Deist and admired the philosphy of the mortal man Jesus.

This is not quite accurate, as we have seen above. It is true that he did not believe in the divinity of Christ, however, he most certainly believed in a good and active God who created the earth and maintained it. Many would argue this is pure myth as well.


YOU SAID:
The founding fathers, many of whom were not Christian did not base this nation upon Christian "liberty", but rather on the basic humanism that every person is born with.

I disagree. The majority of our founding fathers were Christians and more than half were ordained ministers. Since we are on Jefferson, I will continue with another quote from him: “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? “

YOU SAID:
Modern Christians have twisted and continue to attack the liberties guaranteed to the people by the USC.

It is not Christians who destroy the Constitution, but people such as yourself. It is those who lack tolerance and seek to stifle religious liberty, that do damage to our sacred documents. It is not Christians who demand that people do not acknowledge whatever god they serve. It is atheists and people such as yourself who pick and choose which religious symbols are acceptable and which are not. It is this intolerance and bigotry that assails our liberty. I do not say this with malice, but with sincerity.


YOU SAID:
No religion is forced upon students in public schools, plenty of other crap but religion is not one of them.

Secular Humanism is a world view and religious view, therefore, it is a religion foisted upon pupils.
thc,

YOU SAID:
If Christian were given what they want, we'd be burning people at the stake tomorrow.

This is a ridiculous ad hominem argument.


YOU SAID:
Public schools try to teach real science, not that creationism crap the religious wrong is trying to pass off as science.

Schools do not try to teach _ real _ science. They try to teach secular humanism and they attempt to pass off a flawed theory as fact. That is _ not_ science. Science would allow for opposing views and would allow contradictory data to be factored in.

Your wording of this sentence betrays your prejudice once more.

YOU SAID:
All relgions are false on a basic level, that's a fact.

What makes you the expert on these matters? Is not your belief simply one more religious view based upon your own faith?

YOU SAID:
Most religions contain some gems of truth that should be preserved, Jefferson believed this and he was trying to compile his own bible that only contained the life philosophy of Jesus.

I again ask what makes you the expert on matters of the spirit, our origins, and the experience that awaits those who pass from this life? As for Jefferson’s Bible, yes, he took out everything he did not think possible. But like you and me both, he was just a man incapable of knowing what we might be doing, seeing, etc. (or not) in 10,000 years.
thc,

Finally, I would submit the following quote from Jefferson.

" I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority."

Here we see that it is a State's prerogative. It was upon this very notion of a State's sovereignty that the South seceded. It was also upon this notion that Justice Roy Moore contended the federal government cannot say what does or does not belong is a State Courthouse.

Despite the quotes you have presented, which look quite a bit different in their context, a few facts remain.

1. Thomas Jefferson, while President of the United States, offered prayer to Almighty God in the name of Jesus Christ.

2. While President, Jefferson provided funds from the federal treasury to build a Catholic church and pay a priest for the Kaskias.

3. Jefferson made it abundantly clear that Congress was not to get involved in laws that meddled with religious institutions or exercises. He left this as something to be decided by states.

Either Jefferson understood the Constitution he helped to shape and did not violate any wall of separation through his actions or you are correct and he freely trampled over the documents he risked his life over.
I don't really have the time to address all this, lab starts in a few minutes but here goes. You said yourself that maybe Jefferson was wrong, he was if he truely did take government funds to build a church and he was violating the USC in doing so. Schools do not teach evolution as complete fact, they teach that it is the best THEORY we have, much like they teach classical mechanics is a flawed theory. Creationism has almost no scientific base at all, and should not be allowed in a science course. Perhaps philosophy, but never science. You speak of tolerance yet you have none. You would force your religion into courthouses, and other government buildings and violate the USC in doing so. I never said a majority of the founding fathers were not Christian, only that many of them were not. Many other men that influenced this nation were Atheists, Thomas Payne and Democritus come to mind. The name democracy comes from an Atheist. Your intolerance betrays your claim that you support the principles of liberty and justice. If you want theocracy, go to Iran, Democracy was created by Atheists.
thc,

YOU SAID:
You said yourself that maybe Jefferson was wrong, he was if he truely did take government funds to build a church and he was violating the USC in doing so.

You honestly believe the man did not understand the Constitution or blatantly violated it? Even after you stated “They understood the constitution well and Jefferson would be ashamed at what Christians have tried to do to it. “

As a point of interest, I did not say “ maybe he was wrong “ in reference to his understanding of the Constitution. I think you are aware of that.

YOU SAID:
Schools do not teach evolution as complete fact, they teach that it is the best THEORY we have, much like they teach classical mechanics is a flawed theory.

Many classrooms forget to mention that it is a theory and do not publicize the errors.

YOU SAID:
Creationism has almost no scientific base at all, and should not be allowed in a science course.

It is a theory. My point is not that it should be issued as scientifically valid. My question with the theory of evolution is that it being taught as the only viable alternative to intelligent design stifles creativity and further research into other alternatives just as much as if Creationism alone was taught.

YOU SAID:
You speak of tolerance yet you have none. You would force your religion into courthouses, and other government buildings and violate the USC in doing so.

Not so. I believe it is a state issue. That is how Jefferson saw it also. Furthermore, it does not bother me that there are pagan symbols employed everywhere. Nor would it bother me if a judge in a state courthouse decided to hang a picture of Wakan Tanka. I would not pass a law prohibiting someone the free exercise of their religion (save human sacrifice). You would (deduced from your position on the 10 Commandments).

YOU SAID:
I never said a majority of the founding fathers were not Christian, only that many of them were not. Many other men that influenced this nation were Atheists, Thomas Payne and Democritus come to mind.

Paine was a Deist, not an Atheist. Democritus did not believe in the gods, but believed in an immortal soul consisting of special atoms. So, he was not without faith.


YOU SAID
The name democracy comes from an Atheist.

Democracy comes from Demos, meaning People and Kratos, meaning Strength.
Democritus Means "judge of the people" from Greek demou "of the people" and krites "judge, critic". This was the name of a Greek philosopher, the creator of the atomic theory.


YOU SAID:
Your intolerance betrays your claim that you support the principles of liberty and justice.

I do not believe you understand what tolerance is. Tolerance means allowing people to actually do or think something though you disagree. I am not opposed to your being an atheist. I am not opposed to atheists running for political office on an atheist platform. Nor am I against Atheists who are in office from stating their Atheism or having a copy of The Atheist’s Manifesto on her desktop. Moreover, I am not against a Hindu, Muslim, or anyone else doing these things. Those who embody intolerance are those against people running for government as conservative Christians. Intolerance is seen in the person who says Donna can have a book about the power of the Wicca on her desk, but Bill cannot have a Bible. This is prejudice and intolerance. It takes liberty from some because the person making the decision disagrees with the other’s opinion or belief system.



YOU SAID:
If you want theocracy, go to Iran, Democracy was created by Atheists.

This is another ridiculous ad hominem attack.
Although the idea was initially among pagans, the Greeks, it could probably be argued that a government “ for the people, by the people, and of the people, “ was created by Christians when those aforementioned people were overwhelmingly Christian. Incidentally, the country is not a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic.
If he truely did what you said then yes, he was going against the principles of human freedom. The teaching of evolution is flawed because of the education system, maybe if teachers were more respected and better paid this would change. Most Deists (including Einstein) would consider there views closer to Atheists than to other Theists. Many of them only hold on to the idea of a creator because they are too weak to discard it. I've heard both versions of the origin for the name Democracy, but the fact remains that Democritus came up with the idea. Tolerance means allowing people to do as they wish as long as they do not hurt you or violate your rights. Christian symbols in government buildings violates basic human rights. The judge who puts up the ten commandments is not being tolerant in doing so, he is trying to coerce people with the symbols of his particular mythology. He can have whatever book he wants on his personal desk but not on display in the courtroom.

A constitutional republic with a strong history of democracy and and underlying democratic ideal.
thc,

YOU SAID:
If he truely did what you said then yes, he was going against the principles of human freedom.

At what point did supporting a church become a violation of the principles of human freedom?

YOU SAID:
I've heard both versions of the origin for the name Democracy, but the fact remains that Democritus came up with the idea.

No. The fact does not remain. Consider the following quote:

" The origin of the Athenian democracy of the fifth and fourth centuries can be traced back to Solon, who flourished in the years around 600 BCE. Solon was a poet and a wise statesman but not - contrary to later myth - a democrat ... it was Solon's constitutional reform package that laid the basis on which democracy could be pioneered almost a hundred years later by a progressive aristocrat called Cleisthenes. ... Cleisthenes championed a radical political reform movement which in 508/7 ushered in the Athenian democratic constitution.
"

Democritus was not born until 460 BC, roughly 45 years later.

YOU SAID:
Tolerance means allowing people to do as they wish as long as they do not hurt you or violate your rights. Christian symbols in government buildings violates basic human rights.

Which basic human rights does Christianity or its symbols violate?

YOU SAID:
The judge who puts up the ten commandments is not being tolerant in doing so, he is trying to coerce people with the symbols of his particular mythology.

As you are trying to persuade me that evolution is correct? Does that make you intolerant? No.
I have asked you before, and I will ask again without expectation of an answer: what gives you the infallible ability to judge a man's heart and intentions? How are you able to discern between a personal acknowledgement and proselytization? Furthermore, how is the mere presence of the 10 Commandments a missionary effort? Are people forced to read them or obey them?

The First Amendment doesn't promise Freedom from Religion, but Freedom OF Religion. It grants people the right to worship or not as they please without fear of intrusion by the federal government. It expressly says "Congress shall make no law."

The First Amendment (1A) was based in part on NJ's Constitution of 1776 which states ( Art. XIX ):

" That there shall be no establishment of any one
religious sect in this Province, in preference to another;"

This is repeated almost verbatim in early versions of the 1A while being debated.

Let us look at a definition of _ Tolerance_.

" The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others. "

Now, you claiming a state judge cannot put up the 10 Commandments violates this definition. I will freely agree that a judge cannot base his decisions upon the religion of the defendant. This certainly would be a violation of the def's right to free exercise and matters of conscience.
thc,

I am too tired to continue this evening.
"At what point did supporting a church become a violation of the principles of human freedom?"

It isn't but taking someone else's money to give to that church is a violation of human rights.

Christopher Columbus was not the first to come to the new world but he is most remembered because he changed it. Perhaps this is the case with Democritus and Solon. I don't know the history of Greece well enough to tell.

Two citizens discussing politics and philosophy on their own are not violating anyones rights, even if one is trying to enlighten the other on the superiority of one belief over another. A government official pushing his beliefs on private citizens is violating human rights. Read what those immoral judges say about why they display the ten commandments, they are trying to force their beliefs on others.

True freedom includes freedom FROM religion.
thc,

Me:
"At what point did supporting a church become a violation of the principles of human freedom?"

YOU
It isn't but taking someone else's money to give to that church is a violation of human rights.

Does that mean taking money from someone for a war they disagree with violates their human rights? What about taking money from someone for a healthcare program they disagree with... like publicly funded abortions for welfare victims?

Also, what if, like in the case of Justice Moore, no public money was used for the plaque or statue? Judge Moore paid for it out of his own pocket and donated it to the court.

YOU:
A government official pushing his beliefs on private citizens is violating human rights.

Which human rights, specifically, is he violating?

YOU:
Read what those immoral judges say about why they display the ten commandments, they are trying to force their beliefs on others.

By what right do you judge men immoral? Is it because they do not follow _your_ morality?

YOU:
True freedom includes freedom FROM religion.

This is opinion and nothing more. As far as your argument is concerned, this is a moot point. Neither our Constitution nor any of our founding documents from the Mayflower Compact up to the USC has declared or asserted freedom from religion as a human or civil right.
The income tax is a violation of human rights. So spending that money on welfare, abortion, or war are all violations of human rights.

Where Moore got the money is irrelevant; the display of the commandments was a violation of human rights.

If you don't believe pushing your beliefs on others is violating their rights then you are the problem.

Thos judges are immoral by any proper standard of morality. They are trying to force their beliefs on others, and using the power of their office to do it.

Freedom from religion IS a human right. This falls under the same category as not forcing your beliefs on others.
thc,

YOU SAID:
The income tax is a violation of human rights.

Which human right does this violate? Now, I freely agree we are overtaxed in this country. Mr. Lincoln can be thanked for that. However, from its inception, this country has always garnered taxes to "provide for the common defense."

You SAID:
Where Moore got the money is irrelevant; the display of the commandments was a violation of human rights.

Earlier you stated Christian symbols were not a violation of human rights, but that using tax money to support a church was. So, the source of Moore's funding for the statue is _not_ irrelevant.

YOU SAID:
If you don't believe pushing your beliefs on others is violating their rights then you are the problem.

No. I believe you do not understand the concept of human rights. I now reproduce for you an excerpt from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights:

Article 12. Freedom of Conscience and Religion

Everyone has the right to freedom of conscience and of religion. This right includes freedom to maintain or to change one's religion or beliefs, and freedom to profess or disseminate one's religion or beliefs, either individually or together with others, in public or in private.

As we continue this discourse, it becomes more and more apparent that you are not interested in human rights, but more interested in simply silencing anyone from speaking of God or Christianity. Nowhere is it stated that man's basic human rights include the right to gag others who speak of religion.

YOU SAID:
Thos judges are immoral by any proper standard of morality.

So, I do not have a proper standard of morality because I believe freedom of speech and free exercise of religion includes all people, even those with unpopular beliefs or beliefs that differ from yours? By which human right did you become the rubric for proper morality?

YOU SAID:
They are trying to force their beliefs on others, and using the power of their office to do it.

Like a teacher might use the power of his office to indoctrinate students into a humanist world view? Like a teacher might force his thoughts and ideas of evolution onto a student? Like an atheist lawyer might use his knowledge of "the system" to distort laws and work his will on a silent majority?

Where does it state that a man who takes office must renounce his deeply held religious beliefs and become an atheist? And how does this idea of yours not violate the rights of _all_ men and women to freely exercise the religion of his or her choice?

YOU SAID:
Freedom from religion IS a human right.

I have shown you where it is not. Please show me where it is enumerated in the USC or any of our founding documents.

YOU SAID:
This falls under the same category as not forcing your beliefs on others.

You also SAID:
Two citizens discussing politics and philosophy on their own are not violating anyones rights, even if one is trying to enlighten the other on the superiority of one belief over another.

What is a judge but a citizen? The former statement of yours implies that your attempt to enlighten me of the superiority of your beliefs violates my human rights.

Would we be wise to disenfranchise all elected officials and people in positions of authority? After all, if a policeman has a Pro-Life bumper sticker on his car when he drives to work in his uniform, people who see him might believe the government endorses the pro-life stance. Some might be compelled to look at the question again and decide in favor of the Pro-Life position, in which case, though they freely made their choice, their human rights were flagrantly violated by a person abusing his authority.

What of the County Clerk who has a Kerry - Edwards bumper sticker. Someone passing the parking lot might see it and be compelled to vote for them.

You have argued, errantly I believe, that human rights involve the right to not see or hear any religious rhetoric or dogma. To me, this violates the basic rights of free speech and free exercise of religion. I submit _this_ is the true violation of human rights, not the public expression of religion.

When the law is proposed that will force people to their knees and force them to worship any specific god or gods under threat of law, I will stand beside you and fight the legistation. Would you stand and fight for theists if a government like that in China were ushered in and outlawed Christianity?
Taxes are okay but the income tax specifically is what I'm opposed to. I'm a bit of an amateur economist and believe we could pay off the debt AND eliminate the income tax within 10-15 years. Spening government money on anything religious is a violation of our rights. Displaying those symbols in government buildings, regardless of their origin is also a violation of our rights.

Again you misinterpet my intentions. Teaching evolution is fine but forcing a particular philosphy is wrong, I'm not arguing for that so I don't know why you keep bringing it up. Atheist lawyers are just fighting the oppression and intolerance of the religious wrong in this country. Freedom from religion does not have to be written anywhere for it to be a human right, it IS a human right. The rights we have now weren't written down for thousands of years but they were still rights that humans deserved. When a judge is working, he may not try to push his beliefs on others. In his free time, he can do all the proselytizing he wants.
If Christianity were outlawed in China I would fight with Christians to gain that right back but if it were outlawed in government offices, I would support the decision. It is my right not to have my money stolen to be spent on religious symbols in government buildings or anywhere else. It is my right not to see that garbage in our government buildings. It is not anyone's right to say what another citizen may put on their own property, but government property is something different.
YES, islam is the way to go
Who gives a damn? I'm not Spock.
thc,

YOU SAID
Taxes are okay but the income tax specifically is what I'm opposed to. I'm a bit of an amateur economist and believe we could pay off the debt AND eliminate the income tax within 10-15 years.

Indeed, a federal income tax was not a part of our original USC. It wasn’t until 1913 that we had one. I agree, if we would shrink our federal government, and hold them accountable, we would find ourselves with an excess of money.

YOU SAID
Spening government money on anything religious is a violation of our rights.

However, the Supreme Court has ruled that if it is for the common good, that money can be spent. What if a Catholic hospital owned the patent to a cure for AIDS and used it exclusively in their hospital? Are you one of those who would complain that the government sending AIDS victims, regardless of religious conviction, to this hospital is an illegal state-sponsorship of religion? I know there are some who would. They are the same as those who complain about faith-based rehabs for drug addicts and felons. It is truly sad that someone would argue they would rather see more women get raped, more people killed, and more tax dollars spent on housing or executing a prisoner than allow a pittance to go to a faith-based program.
thc,

YOU SAID
Displaying those symbols in government buildings, regardless of their origin is also a violation of our rights.

Which rights do these symbols violate? And since when have they been considered offensive? We have already seen that Jefferson took money to provide a church and clergy for some Native Americans. We briefly touched on the first order of business after the ratification of the Bill of Rights was to elect a clergy and to have prayer service for Congress. What we have not discussed is the fact that the government held church services in the capitol for years. More than this, they used the military band for the music.

It amazes me that people today would claim to have some greater, clearer understanding of the USC than the people who wrote it.

YOU SAID
Again you misinterpet my intentions. Teaching evolution is fine but forcing a particular philosphy is wrong, I'm not arguing for that so I don't know why you keep bringing it up.

Teaching evolution is equivalent to teaching a particular philosophy. At the foundation of evolution is secular humanism. It promotes the idea there is no god or gods. It promotes the philosophy that we are here by chance; that we have no souls. That we were not created, but simply evolved from some lower life form and are continuing to evolve into even greater beings. It says that life is not miraculous and there is nothing extraordinary about us.
thc,

YOU SAID
Atheist lawyers are just fighting the oppression and intolerance of the religious wrong in this country.

It amazes me that you see it this way. You are an intelligent person, obviously, and yet you present propaganda for argument. I say that because the words oppression and intolerance are buzzwords. Whether intentional or not, they are intended to stir the emotions of the audience. Let us look, though. Oppression is generally found where a government or group of people prevents another group from doing something. A representation of the 10 Commandments does not prevent anyone from doing anything. Agencies such as the ACLU, however, do prevent people from exercising free speech and expression, as well as the free exercise of religion.

Intolerance, is defined as: “ Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.”

Now, the placement of personal property, a statue, a portrait, etc. is obviously not “intolerance.” By definition, intolerance is the practice of those who say, we disagree with your view of the 10 Commandments, therefore, you must remove them. We will not tolerate you placing your statue here. We will not tolerate you trying to express your faith in Christ. We will not tolerate you saying there is a higher law than man’s. Who is intolerant?


YOU SAID
Freedom from religion does not have to be written anywhere for it to be a human right, it IS a human right.

Freedom from religion has never been a human right. Don’t you think if it were, the Human Rights foundations would have claimed it as one? I can argue that since I have free reign of my body, murder is a human right. After all, who is to stop me from taking an axe and hacking up small children? It is _ not_ a human right though. You spoke of oppression and intolerance. I contend freedom from religion is oppressive and intolerant. It says that people cannot worship any god. Freedom of religion says that you can worship or not as you see fit.

YOU SAID
The rights we have now weren't written down for thousands of years but they were still rights that humans deserved.

Does this mean you are opposed to abortion?


YOU SAID
When a judge is working, he may not try to push his beliefs on others.

I agree. However, putting up a picture, plaque, etc. is not pushing beliefs. The argument that it is, is as silly as one arguing nude statues and paintings are examples of the state pushing pornography down the throats of people. In Alabama there is a statue of Vulcan standing on the mountain overlooking Birmingham. His bare butt can be seen. Does this mean the state is forcing people to look at nudity? And forcing them to worship the ancient gods?

YOU SAID
If Christianity were outlawed in China I would fight with Christians to gain that right back but if it were outlawed in government offices, I would support the decision.

The official religion of China is Atheism. Although they claim there is religious freedom, consider Journalist Li Ying, who is currently serving a 15-year prison sentence for her role in the publication of an underground church magazine in China. She was arrested in April 2001. Consider the numerous raids, imprisonments, deaths, etc.

You can write the Chinese embassy here to protest.
Ambassador Yang Jiechi
Embassy of the People’s Republic of China
2300 Connecticut Ave NW, Washington DC 20008
Tel:(202) 328-2500 Fax:(202) 588-0032
Director of Religious Affairs: (202) 328-2512


YOU SAID
It is my right not to have my money stolen to be spent on religious symbols in government buildings or anywhere else.

We have already touched upon this topic above, but I am curious if you would be opposed if you could resist certain taxes. For example, they said, okay, leave $1 out if you don’t want this to happen. Leave out 40% if you are opposed to the war, etc.
All the same, this is a distraction. We have already seen that the matter is much more personal for you. Because you have said you do not care if tax or private dollars were used. You simply do not wish to see the symbols.

YOU SAID
It is my right not to see that garbage in our government buildings.

As I read, I address each point. I did not see this until after I had written the above paragraph. Which right is this? Is this enumerated among the same that give me the right to murder people I do not like? You have the right to find it sacred or not. You have the right to genuflect or not. You have the right to pray or not. These are rights promoted by religious liberty. You would deny others that right so you do not see “garbage.” I will add that use of such a descriptor simply demonstrates your hostility toward all things Christian.

YOU SAID
It is not anyone's right to say what another citizen may put on their own property, but government property is something different.

I agree in part. However, people do say what can and cannot be placed on private property. Consider a zoning board. They determine where bars, pawn shops, clubs, casinos, etc. can be placed. Consider the case of the DuPont 7, who were fired for having Confederate Battle Flags on their vehicles.
Government property belongs to the people. It does not simply belong to the minority in this country. It represents the country, and whether you like it or not, Christians make up a major part of our population. Are you opposed to African Americans being represented by our government? I mean, if a judge wanted to place a statue of Martin Luther King in a courthouse would you oppose it on the basis that some people will take offense to the philosophy behind it? After all, what of those Klansmen and groups that are opposed to the philosophy that all races are created equal? And those that hold the belief races should not mix?
What about a statue of Susan B Anthony? There are still men who are opposed to women’s suffrage on philosophical basis. Would you argue that placement of these statues is the endorsement of a state life-philosophy? Or religion?
"Which rights do these symbols violate?"

My right to be free from religion.

Science is at the heart of evolution. Secular humanism is a separate philosophy. The scientific method is of course its own philosophy but it is one we have deemed worthy of being taught to our children. Creationism cannot properly be called science and so has no place in a science course. Leave it for theology and philosophy courses where it belongs.

The display of the ten commandments in government buildings can properly be called oppression. It sends a message of support for Judeo-Christian religions by the government. It is my right to be free from religion, just as it is your right to exercise your religion as long as it does not infringe on anyone else's rights.

Abortion is a sticky issue. I think it is murder, just like killing a human adult or killing a cow is murder. The question is, when does murder become wrong? Many of the people who oppose abortion are the same who whole heartedly support the death penalty. My mind is not made up yet on this issue so, I say let women keep their right to have an abortion but don't let the government pay for it.

I am opposed to the government restricting where certain businesses may be located or what anyone can put on their property. I believe private individuals and businesses should be allowed to discriminate as long as they don't recieve government funds. The klan can display whatever the hell they want on their own property.

btw, nice user pic but no one ever displays the REAL Confederate flag anymore.
thc,

ME: "Which rights do these symbols violate?"

YOU: My right to be free from religion.

This has never been considered a right. Since time began (or what we know of civilization), there have been two rules of thumb. Typically, one is compelled, forced, to worship whatever god or gods the ruler had, including the ruler in some circumstances. Those who did not were usually killed, but some countries living by this today simply enslave those who do not worship their god. The other option has been freedom of religion. This is the right to worship OR NOT as one pleases.

Your idea of freedom from religion is an imposition of your will on those around you. By claiming that everyone must not worship because you do not worship, you are doing precisely what you claim to abhor. If one would not use the law to force you to pray, why should you use the law to force willing participants NOT to pray?


YOU SAID
Science is at the heart of evolution.

At the heart of evolution is fanciful thinking and a desire to be free from a Creator.

YOU SAID
Secular humanism is a separate philosophy.

Secular Humanism and Evolution are symbiotic. Secular Humanism relies on evolution to be true. Therefore it promotes it as fact.

YOU SAID
Creationism cannot properly be called science and so has no place in a science course.

Let us look at a definition of science.

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

Certainly the idea of intelligent design is a theory that can be investigated and would explain life. Just because you disagree with it, does not make it invalid.

YOU SAID
Leave it for theology and philosophy courses where it belongs.

What qualifies you to determine this? If you were truly interested in the truth, you would not eliminate some theories because you find them unsavory. This makes for poor science.

YOU SAID
The display of the ten commandments in government buildings can properly be called oppression.

And the display of Hooters billboards is rape.
The statements are equally ridiculous. Why don’t we look at a definition of Oppress to see if you are accurate or bias in your assessment.

arbitrary and cruel exercise of power;
To keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority

Who does it keep down? What is makes the display of the Ten Commandments any more cruel than a display of Justice or even a Van Gogh painting? What is it that is cruel? Because you do not like it?
thc,

YOU SAID
It sends a message of support for Judeo-Christian religions by the government.

More than an image of Liberty sends of Greek mythology? Are you also opposed to the Statue of Liberty, since it is a goddess standing at the gates of our country welcoming foreigners in?

YOU SAID
It is my right to be free from religion, just as it is your right to exercise your religion as long as it does not infringe on anyone else's rights.

Two points.
1. You have not presented any evidence that freedom from religion is a right.
2. What about when your rights infringe on someone else’s? Who protects Christians from you?

YOU SAID
Abortion is a sticky issue. I think it is murder, just like killing a human adult or killing a cow is murder.

There is a huge difference between a person and a cow. Murder is applicable to humans. Definition: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

YOU SAID
The question is, when does murder become wrong?

It should always be wrong.

YOU SAID
Many of the people who oppose abortion are the same who whole heartedly support the death penalty.

Do you truly not see a difference between killing something that has not had the opportunity to commit crimes and killing something that has taken that opportunity?

YOU SAID
My mind is not made up yet on this issue so, I say let women keep their right to have an abortion but don't let the government pay for it.

In a case like this, wouldn’t it be prudent to err on the side of caution? One or two lives a year is one thing, but a million a year is another.

YOU SAID
btw, nice user pic but no one ever displays the REAL Confederate flag anymore.

This picture is posted with purpose. It is the Battle Flag. Huge difference. Which do you consider the REAL flag?
"This has never been considered a right."
Thats's not a good reason for denying people their freedom. People can practice their religion but try to force it on me and I'll have to pull out the arsenal. I never claimed others should not worship because I don't. They should not worship because it is irrational, but it is their to do so. The theory of evolution is based on a mountain of facts. Creationism is based on a few facts (and many lies) that do not agree with evolution. Creationism cannot properly be called science at this stage in its development. The display of those commandments violates my right to be free from religion, that's how it's oppressive. The judge is using his power to force his mythology on citizens.
You haven't presented any evidence that free speech is a right. It is however recognized as a right by all moral people, just like freedom from religion. Who are we to decide that the suffering of a cow is less than the suffering of a human. Is it just because we are smarter? How about apes and dolphins who are closer to us in intellect? In the coming age of genetic engineering. The value placed on human life will decrease drastically. This will be neccessary if we are to progress further. Economists have shown that abortions are good for the overall welfare of society. Keeping abortion legal is erring on the side of caution. I think of the stars and bars as the real flag. I still see it occasionally when I'm driving through the boondocks.
thc,

ME: "This has never been considered a right."

YOU SAID
Thats's not a good reason for denying people their freedom.

It does not deny anybody their freedom.

YOU SAID
People can practice their religion but try to force it on me and I'll have to pull out the arsenal.

Throughout the course of this discussion, it has been agreed that no one has the right to FORCE you to worship any god.

YOU SAID
I never claimed others should not worship because I don't.

Sure you have, just not explicitly. By demanding that people who might have a religious view keep it hidden from you to protect you from religion, you have demanded that those who have religious inclinations refrain from expressing them.

YOU SAID
They should not worship because it is irrational, but it is their to do so.

To say there is no god is also irrational, because it defies logic. Since no one has ever been at every place at once and since no one is omniscient, they cannot possibly claim there is not a god 4 billion light years from here. That is a universal negative, which is irrational. Besides that, I think your statement above shows your simple hostility for religion.

YOU SAID
The theory of evolution is based on a mountain of facts.

No, it is not. The theory of evolution is like an ill-constructed house teetering precariously on a marble.

YOU SAID
Creationism is based on a few facts (and many lies) that do not agree with evolution.

This statement is completely false. It assumes that anything that disagrees with evolution is a lie. Now, you have stated evolution was a theory. If it is a standard by which truth can be measured, it is _ not_ a theory, but a fact.

YOU SAID
Creationism cannot properly be called science at this stage in its development.

Because you do not like its proposal?

YOU SAID
The display of those commandments violates my right to be free from religion, that's how it's oppressive. The judge is using his power to force his mythology on citizens.

If they are hanging in a courtroom are you FORCED to look at them? Are you FORCED to genuflect before them? Are you FORCED to respect them? Or FORCED to follow them? The very fact that you are permitted to call them “mythology” without fear of imprisonment or death demonstrates that you are free to worship or not as you please. How inconsiderate of you to demand that the judge not worship because you do not like it.
thc,

YOU SAID
You haven't presented any evidence that free speech is a right.

You haven’t asked.
The USC says:
“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.”
So, our Constitution clearly protects Freedom of Speech.

The UN’s Universal Declaration of Rights says:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
So, yes. Freedom of speech is a universally accepted right of mankind.


YOU SAID
It is however recognized as a right by all moral people, just like freedom from religion.

Now you are skewing the truth to fit your purposes. As I demonstrated above, it is a declared right of the people. Furthermore, Freedom OF Religion is a declared right. Let us go back to the same sources.

The USC:
Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise .

The UN’s Universal Declaration of Rights says:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Notice it says Freedom OF … religion. Furthermore, it says it is a human right that every person has the right to express his religion in public. This is a right you hope to take away from all public officials.

YOU SAID
Who are we to decide that the suffering of a cow is less than the suffering of a human.

Do cows fret over credit card bills? Do they worry about where the next meal will come from? This is a silly argument. Do you honestly believe that a cow has the same value as a human life? Do you honestly believe that if a choice had to be made between your child and a cow, that it would not matter which you killed? Or that if I had to kill your girlfriend or a cow it would be the same thing?

YOU SAID
Is it just because we are smarter?

No.

YOU SAID
How about apes and dolphins who are closer to us in intellect?

It is not about intellect. It is about the ability to rationalize, love, hate, etc.

YOU SAID
In the coming age of genetic engineering. The value placed on human life will decrease drastically.

Yes. I’m afraid you are right. Very frightening. We need only look at the terrorists and prisons in the world to see what happens when one does not hold human life sacred.

YOU SAID
This will be neccessary if we are to progress further.

Progress to what? Super humans? Gods?

YOU SAID
Economists have shown that abortions are good for the overall welfare of society.

Hogwash. First, economists do not determine what is good for the overall welfare of society. That would be a sociologist or statistician’s job. An economist talks about what is best for an economy. Is legalized abortion good for an economy? I’m sure it is great for those doctors who perpetrate them.

YOU SAID
Keeping abortion legal is erring on the side of caution.

Yes. The killing of more than 44,600,000 potential people since 1973 is most certainly erring on the side of caution. After all, what if one of those people grew to love someone? What if that person grew to be a Nobel Peace Prize winner? What if that person grew to cure cancer? What if that 1-inch creature truly is alive? What if it can feel the pain of being aborted?

What is cautious about leaving abortion legal?
thc,

YOU SAID
I think of the stars and bars as the real flag. I still see it occasionally when I'm driving through the boondocks.

Actually, the Stars and Bars is not the true flag of the Confederacy. The first standard raised was the Bonnie Blue (which I fly). After this, the Stars and Bars. The original had seven stars on it representing the original seven states of the Confederacy. This flag caused much confusion on the battlefield because of its similarity to the Stars and Stripes. Hence, the Battle Flag was designed. In 1863, the Stars and Bars was replaced with the Second National Flag. This had the “Battle Flag” as the canton on a white field.

This flag was sometimes mistaken as a flag of surrender due to all the white, so the right third of the flag was filled with a vertical red stripe. This Third National flag was adopted in March 1865, just prior to the yankee victory. Since the government of the CSA never surrendered, this is actually the true flag of the states.

Personally I do not fly it because too many ignorant people will see only the Battle Flag in the canton and assume I am something I am not. Living in Atlanta, I must be mindful of my personal safety as well as that of my property. Being a white-collar professional, I must also be mindful of my economic security. It is truly a shame that Political Correctness can force me to choose between honoring my heritage and keeping my job.
We have different definitions of freedom.

"Sure you have, just not explicitly. By demanding that people who might have a religious view keep it hidden from you to protect you from religion, you have demanded that those who have religious inclinations refrain from expressing them."

They can express their religion as they wish unless they happen to use a public office to support that religion. The judge praying in his chambers is fine, but him displaying the commandments is not.

I do not believe you have studied evolution and creationism thoroughly. Creationism cannot be described as a scientific theory yet, merely pseudo-scientific speculation. The flaws in evolution are no greater than the flaws in classical mechanics.

The mere prescence of the commandments is a violation of my rights.

Many animals can rationalize, love and hate.

I have more faith in economists than those commie sociologists. Statisticians are no more qualified to analyze society than economists. Many people with no formal training do quite well in analyzing the outcome of government policies, they're called Libertarians.

white collar?
I had just assumed you were my age.
thc,

YOU SAID
We have different definitions of freedom.

I think we have similar definitions of freedom, but different expectations from those around us. I believe freedom must come with the acknowledgement that others are free to hold opinions that differ from mine-- especially those of religious nature AND that those people are free to express that faith, regardless of station in life provided they do not punish me for following my faith. You expect that religious liberty should be stifled at certain times, regardless of its lack of impact upon you.

YOU SAID
I do not believe you have studied evolution and creationism thoroughly. Creationism cannot be described as a scientific theory yet, merely pseudo-scientific speculation.

This is purely subjective and based upon your innate prejudice against Creationism.

YOU SAID
The flaws in evolution are no greater than the flaws in classical mechanics.

I would be more inclined to agree with you if classical mechanics made wild statements such as lead was turned into lead by an angry elf after being cheated on a deal by the Troll King. In other words, I disagree. Evolution has at its heart an incredible leap of faith. After that leap come several more gigantic leaps of faith. If you are willing to accept those leaps of faith, then evolution makes some sense. However, if any of those leaps are missed (or incorrect) the theory becomes useless.

YOU SAID
The mere prescence of the commandments is a violation of my rights.

As I have pointed out before-- this simply shows your hostility toward religion. The display of this no more denies your rights than the display of the Statue of Liberty. This assertion would be akin to one claiming the presence of Playboy in a gas station denies women the right to vote.

YOU SAID
Many animals can rationalize, love and hate.

Really? Name a couple and provide some specific examples.

YOU SAID
I have more faith in economists than those commie sociologists.

As far as social impact on a people? Now, I agree many of our current sociologists have extremely liberal-leftist agendas, but that still does not qualify an economist to say abortions are good for our society.

YOU SAID
Many people with no formal training do quite well in analyzing the outcome of government policies, they're called Libertarians.

They are also called Republicans, Democrats, Marxists, etc. However, these are simply labels for a person's political orientation, not for his or her ability to predict the outcome of a particular policy.

YOU SAID
As for white collar: one need not be old to be white collar.
no, it is LOGICAl, we are brainwashed no longer.
Christianity is illogical/irrational
neothe1.
Why don't you start spelling belief correctly? You might also revise your views on whether a creator is necessary or not.
That's a conclusion is it?
Not everything that applies to our artificial human world has to apply to nature? So you reject evolution?
You know; if we spent less time debating the structure of the universe and our place in it we would have so musch money it would be coming out of our ears!!!
To the believer, it's perfectly logical and rational. Same goes with other theological belief systems.

Worst mistake that someone can make, IMO, is that logic and science is the rule of the land. There's more to science and logic than what can be currently explained. We are ignorant fools if we think we've even begun to find answers to what's out there.
you cant honestly say that atheism is irational when you've got christians claiming that the universe is 12,000 years old (despite the fact that we can see stars that are more than 12,000 lightyears away from us)
absolute belief in no god is just as illogical as absolute belief in a god. We don't have concrete evidence that god exists, and we don't have concrete evidence that god doesn't exist. The only "logical" position is agnosticism, admitting that we don't really know. We can "believe" one way or the other, but such belief requires a leap of faith, not logic.
and by the way, thc mentioned Einstein in his list of atheists, even though he was not. Einstein believed in a god, but he was smart enough to admit that we couldn't define what that god was like. But he absolutely believed in intelligent design.
Atheism is based upon logic and evidence.
" agnostics ARE atheists. "

Agnostics are skeptical about the existence of a god, but are not true atheists - they are not 100% confident in their belief and can be open to either side. Atheists on the other hand believe with 100% certainty that there is no god. Big difference.
Agnostics are neither atheist or theist. They are unsure.
Wrong. Agnostics don't believe one way or the other. I am one, so I should know. I don't see concrete evidence that there is a god, and I don't see concrete evidence that there is. So my position is "I don't know if there is a god".

You can't call me a theist, because I don't wholeheartedly believe a god exists. You can't call me an atheist, because I don't wholeheartedly believe a god doesn't exist.

You can keep calling me an atheist, but that doesn't make me one. In fact, I go to church, I am a Christian, and I have no idea if God really truly exists. I'm comfortable with that.

The word "atheist" in common usage refers to someone who has a belief that there is no god. The word "theist" in common usage refers to someone who has a belief that there is a god. "agnostic" (lit. "without knowledge") in common usage refers to someone who accepts that there may or may not be a god.

In my opinion, when you have an untestable set of hypotheses, the only rational response is to withhold judgement. That is what agnostics do. That is why they cannot be lumped in with atheists.
Anonymous,

YOU SAID
I do not think that Atheism is anymore illogical or irrational than anything else. +++++
You are not using logic to come to that conclusion.
There is a difference between illogical and irrational. One is without reason, while the other is without logic.

Logic states that a universal negative cannot exist. Therefore, all universal negatives are illogical.
Prep_H,

YOU SAID
you cant honestly say that atheism is irational when you've got christians claiming that the universe is 12,000 years old (despite the fact that we can see stars that are more than 12,000 lightyears away from us) +++++++++
I did not say atheism is irrational. I said it is illogical. There is a difference. Contrary to popular belief, though, there are reasons to believe in a young earth.
this young earth thing is absurd. This is just another claim from religious garbage.
neo,

Technically, irrational means without reason. While illogical means without logic.

a=b
b does not equal c
a=c is illogical

Believing people die in plane crashes is logical. However, beliving you will die in a plane crash is irrational.
Religion makes people question logic.
Not as illogical and irrational as Christianity.



About Us | Join Us | Privacy Policy | © 2010 BestAndWorst.com All Rights Reserved