"thou shalt not kill"

[Tawnos]

. And as for the OT, God was showing His self all powerful, the people Israel killed were sinners who did not glorify Him as God!

So it's cool if Muslims kill people who don't revere Allah? Fine if believers in any other god who they believe is super powerful etc use that to justify murdering?

 

[nonameisgood]

We have rules restricting workplace activities which make the workplace hostile to certain groups. Specifically, we prohibit the sexualization of the workplace when doing so make it unnecessarily difficult for one gender.

What can we not agree that talking about religion does this same thing for certain people? It really is the same thing. I'm not saying that we should all be free from aggravation at all times in all places. And I don't want more laws prohibiting discussion of anything in the workplace (or in public spaces), but why is it that xtians feel free to discuss their views but get upset when there is equal time for Islam or atheism?

Seriously, making it unacceptable to discuss sex at work doesn't prevent anyone from having sex or talking about sex elsewhere.

 

[georg jetson]

This game of semantics is rapidly becoming boring. You wish to assert that, essentially, all people have a religion. Fine. You win – with the caveat that the word "religion" is rendered so general as to be both useless, and practically meaningless: little more than a disfluency.

I don't mean to render terms useless. I mean to discuss the term as our founders meant it in the first amendment. They did not give the authority to the government to make any law respecting an establishmentof religion. There was no agnostic/atheism exception.

Incidentally, I hold no belief regarding God. I believe neither in his existence, nor in his nonexistence. So actually you're wrong.

My apologies. I did assume you were atheist. Would you consider yourself agnostic? I respect all religions.

With all due respect, you've engaged in some rather circular reasoning, and you haven't actually escaped the chicken-and-egg problem in any sense but within your own bare assertion. I could still ask what created God,

Of course. Like I said, it boils down to 2 possible choices. I see it more reasonable that there would be an uncreated being than an uncreated... creation.

or why if God didn't need creating, the universe did need creating. (That is to say, if it's possible to exist in any sense at all without having been created, why need the universe have been created?)

Because if God comes first then there is an explanation of intelligence. If one accepts that the universe always existed then it doesn't follow logically how it would have organized itself intelligently. In other words the real chicken and egg delima is which came first, the universe or the laws which make the universe exist.

However, let's say I accept your premise (which I don't). It could be said, then, that "god" is defined as whatever exists apart from (or before) creation.

Yes!

Why, then, I would ask, need "god" be God? If all you've done is asset that "something" existed before creation, you've in no way established anything about the nature of that something: whether it is an entity, a "thing" in any meaningful sense, what have you. It could be literally anything, or nothing.

Excellent point! I assert that "something" existed before creation and that "something" encompassed intelligence. In other words, intelligence must be eternal. It cannot be nothing.

Which is fine. So, something existed before everything, and I have no idea about any single characteristic of that something. But, then, what's the point of deism (theism)? Why decide that, of all the possible characteristics this maybe-thing, about which the only fact you can reasonably assert is that it existed before creation, might have, it definitely cares how you live your life, or even has interests in any sense at all whatsoever?

Let me be more clear than the last statement... I assert that it existed before creation, that it possessed the totality of intelligence and that it did the creating. I don't attempt to make any assertions concerning the origin of motivation of "the thing that existed first".

Why must "god" be God, why can "god" not simply be a state of non-being, about which nothing could be meaningfully said. This certainly wouldn't also be God in any meaningful sense. (Wouldn't you agree? Is it not reasonable to assert that, for instance by his caring about how you live your life, God necessarily has definite characteristics, even if they are not knowable to a certainty?)

I've answered why it could not be a non-being already. However, there is a question that needs to be answered. Where did the intelligence come from? Can intelligence come from nothing? We can use math to explain many things, but who created the math? We know that two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom combine to make water, but what intelligence made that up? The universe does not exist as simply space and matter, it exists as space and matter and the rules by which it behaves. What made those rules? How could the universe make it's own rules? What rules would it follow to do so? If the rules(intelligence) always existed then things make a bit more sense. So, God is the thing that always existed that possesses the totality of intelligence and did the creating.

 

[georg jetson]

Let us examine the irrationality of those claiming that non-belief is a "religion".

The view of an Atheist is simple:
"There is no evidence leading me to believe there is a God", full stop.
End of story.
That is ALL that defines an Atheist.

Simple enough.. you believe there is no God until such time as you have evidence. Your religion is flexible. Good for you.

It is not a belief structure in any way. It is simply the acknowledgement that there is no proof for "God". Anything else added is not attributed to the term "Atheist".

Ok. Your religion has no belief structure. No one said it had to.

Religion is much more complex. It is not simply, "There is a God".

That would be "Theism". The belief that there is at least one deity.

Yes. Theism is a religion. Simplicity and structure is irrelevant. You are projecting your idea of what you think religion should be so that your belief system falls outside that definition.

Religion has a foundation of irrational belief, of which the key factor is the term "faith". Literally, a "Blind unsubstantiated complex belief" in a deity. SNIP

I'm sorry, I missed the part where you have proven that there is no deity. The only thing you're doing is showing that you only accept the faith of those that belief nothing until they see it. It's analogous to the world view that the earth was flat until it was proven spherical. You believe the world is flat and you're incorrect until you see evidence. Fair enough, but it's still faith that the present level of science gives you the tools to know things. You're always restrained by the limitations of science.

If you're unsure of the existence of a "creator" then at least chose the agnostic religion. Without life changing evidence, it's probably the most reasonable of all.

 

[georg jetson]

Maybe we should sticky a topic about the religion of open carry and gun rights, then tell everyone that they secretly believe in strict gun control, but are just denying it.

Interesting how when using the very loose definition of religion a few here like to propose, every matter of opinion would become a religion. Sounds awfully stupid when you put it like that doesn't it?

Would you care to put forth a definition of the term religion as used in the first amendment? I think the whole point of the 1A was that you cannot define "religion" without encompassing the beliefs of everyone.... so we dang sure don't want the government doing it. Having a government pushing against some religions, Christianity, Muslim, Judaism, and for religions like atheism is unconstitutional and needs to be called out as such.

 

[georg jetson]

When you stop trying to force your theist religion on me using the power of the gov't.

Lol!!! Yep. We gotta put the genie back in the bottle and take the power away from the fed to determine what is and is not religious

No, one is an active belief, denial of existance.
The other is the normal (passive) state of being - waiting for proof before forming an active belief. SNIP

Being patient doesn't make you correct. How should the passiveness or activeness of a belief be relevant to the definition of religion? Particularly when it concerns the authority of the government. That is the context of this discussion right?

 

[georg jetson]

Of course, there's nothing irrational about saying that the universe could have indeed sprung into existence from nothing, we know of particles that do that all the time.

Really. Lol!!! All we can say is we don’t know where they come from. But if you have faith they come from nowhere, well… who am I to disagree.

That word needs to be substantiated in the sense that when scientists use the term it's not meant to imply they have exact knowledge of what exactly comprises "nothing".
It simply means that these particles popping into existence only seem to come from "nothing" because we don't necessarily understand the source or origination either at all, or in its entirety.
Maybe we simply won't until we can fully comprehend dark matter. .

Ok. That’s better… those particles are still part of creation. They come from somewhere… we just don’t know where.

The assault by the Creationist is that the Big Bang Theory purports to spring forth from true "nothingness" (meaning the presence of absolute nothing) as opposed to a phenomena that cannot be described or observed by modern science to which the vernacular of "nothing" is applied.

Not that I’m a creationist, but actually the “Big Bang Theory” does not do that. That’s its biggest flaw. It can’t explain where the laws(intelligence) comes from that makes it happen. The event horizon is one of the limits of science.

Great point, and a good catch of where I should have used better wording. I use the term "nothing" in the currently held manner of astrophysics, but there might be a better term to explain it when trying to describe virtual particle phenomena to an under informed audience. It goes back to the old fallacy of four terms (nothing as no thing, and nothing describing a thing itself), and is somewhat at the basis of the whole "atheism is disbelief in gods" versus "atheism is a lack of belief in gods."

Yes. It is a good idea to explain “nothing” to the under informed.

Nothing – No matter, no space, no time and no physical laws… or to the really under informed: no phone, no lights, no motor cars.

 

[nonameisgood]

It's like talking to a brick wall. Why do people find it so hard to understand that the natural state is to have no religion and believe in no god?

If I taught a child, from infancy, that there was an invisible unicorn controlling our universe, and made the child attend classes about the unicorn, and attend services praising the unicorn, he would be a devout unicornian. It would not make his beliefs true.

On the other hand, if I taught the child to examine things he didn't understand and think about how they work and how they came to exist, he wouldn't instantly think an invisible unicorn made them. As a child, with great imagination and little experience, there would be many things he might not understand. He could say "gee, I don't know, yet, but I'm still learning, please help me understand." Or he might say, "I don't know, did an invisible unicorn make them?" The atheist's response would be, "what makes you think there was a unicorn involved?" And then help the child figure out if there is evidence to support the unicorn hypothesis. The unicornarian would probably agree and praise him for being so smart, without stopping to figure out why he suggested a unicorn was involved.

 

[georg jetson]

It's like talking to a brick wall. Why do people find it so hard to understand that the natural state is to have no religion and believe in no god?

I agree! What is their problem? Ummm... wait... where did the "believe in no god" thing come from. I didn't see that in the 1A. How does a "state" believe in anything? Maybe you meant that the "government can pass no law respecting an establishment of religion... right?

If I taught a child, from infancy, that there was an invisible unicorn controlling our universe, and made the child attend classes about the unicorn, and attend services praising the unicorn, he would be a devout unicornian. It would not make his beliefs true.

I understand you don't believe in unicorns, but what does that have to do with the government defining religion?

On the other hand, if I taught the child to examine things he didn't understand and think about how they work and how they came to exist, he wouldn't instantly think an invisible unicorn made them. As a child, with great imagination and little experience, there would be many things he might not understand. He could say "gee, I don't know, yet, but I'm still learning, please help me understand." Or he might say, "I don't know, did an invisible unicorn make them?" The atheist's response would be, "what makes you think there was a unicorn involved?" And then help the child figure out if there is evidence to support the unicorn hypothesis. The unicornarian would probably agree and praise him for being so smart, without stopping to figure out why he suggested a unicorn was involved.

I see you defend your religion well. Nothing wrong with that. Are you saying that the 1A gives the government the authority to force your religion(atheism) on me or does it say that the government does NOT have the authority to pass a law respecting an establishment of religion?

 

[slowfiveoh]

Simple enough.. you believe there is no God until such time as you have evidence. Your religion is flexible. Good for you.

You have literally just made yourself out to be too stupid to take seriously. Oh wait, you've done this before in the past and still have no argument for it.

re·li·gion

[ri-lij-uh

n] Show IPA
noun1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional andritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2.a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons orsects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

4.the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

5.the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.





"I believe there is a God", does not qualify as religion. It is singular.
"I believe in GOD, AND he wants me to *X*", IS a religion.

"I do not believe in God", is no more a religion than:
"I do not believe in unicorns."
"I do not believe in faeries."
"I do not believe in bigfoot."

Ok. Your religion has no belief structure. No one said it had to.

Strike 17? You swing at more air than anybody in the history of this topic. :|

Yes. Theism is a religion.

"God exists." To you, that's a religion.

So, "Bigfoot exists" is similarly a religion to you.

How convenient, now you can lump everything together in an effort to try and bring reason, truth, and logic into the realm of your absurd mythology.

Simplicity and structure is irrelevant.

Oh really?

georg jetson believes that someone who doesn't think bigfoot exists is expressing his religious beliefs.

I think you have made your point on how irrational you are.

Now hold on, I have to get back to the set of beliefs that comprises the "There Is No Bigfoot" religion

You are projecting your idea of what you think religion should be so that your belief system falls outside that definition.

No my special ed friend. You must have failed English Comprehension or any course that otherwise teaches you to understand the language.

You are sitting here projecting YOUR own customized set of rules and definitions for the word "Religion" because then when the world acknowledges the stupidity of your religion you can conveniently brush off the validity of everything else with your ambiguous, single-factor description of what qualifies as "Religion" by putting them all into the same absurd boat. It's rather childish and immature to be honest.

The kind of "Oh well your butt is stupid" argument you'd expect from a 4 year-old.

Its your way of disqualifying the argument of others for your own inner peace when you feel your belief is assaulted, and it's patently, inescapably, wrong.

I'm sorry, I missed the part where you have proven that there is no deity.

I'm sorry, we all missed the part where you had? The default position is null.

We do not believe with reason, and critical thinking, that something exists without presented evidence for it existing. That's the way it works.

The only thing you're doing is showing that you only accept the faith of those that belief nothing until they see it.

Fallacy alert.

georg jetson, based on this exact comment, believes one has "faith" when they don't believe or acknowledge something that no evidence has been presented for.

Girl 1 - "Have I told you about my personal Lord and Savior, Gumby?"
Girl 2 - "I can't see him, where is he?
Girl 1 - "Well he's invisible, but he's here."
Girl 2 - "Well how can I believe he exists without evidence?"
Girl 1 - "Oh, you are one of those people who has faith my lord and savior Gumby doesn't exists because you don't see the evidence."
Girl 1 - "In fact, you must be a member of the 'The is no Gumby' religion".

georg jetson in a nutshell.

It's analogous to the world view that the earth was flat until it was proven spherical.

Wrong. Not even a reasonable effort on your part. For shame.

The world to the layman appears to be flat. However, by applying the scientific method and positing the question, "Is the world flat", then setting out to acquire the evidence and observations necessary to make as concrete a theory as possible that the world is round, we now know that the world is indeed spherical. The assertion of a spherical or "round" Earth was not posited by Christians interestingly enough. It was posited during an era of Greek astronomy, you know, science.

You believe the world is flat and you're incorrect until you see evidence.

I most certainly do not, and I think we all see the strawman you are trying to erect here. You are not as sly as you think guy. In fact, you are humorously transparent. I almost wish you were crafty so that this would require more effort on my part.

In ancient times people did believe the Earth was flat. In fact, so did the authors of the Bible. This is specifically why you see lots of "Four corners of the Earth" claims in verses, or the claim that the devil could take you high atop a mountain and you could see the rest of the world.

Fair enough, but it's still faith that the present level of science gives you the tools to know things.

Let's see:

Faith

• 1complete trust or confidence in someone or something:this restores one’s faith in politicians

• 2strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
• a system of religious belief:the Christian faith
• a strongly held belief or theory:the faith that life will expand until it fills the universe

This is not a term associated with science.

I would be entirely accurate, without even asking you, in saying that you have an absolute, empirical, complete belief that your "god" created the universe.
I would be just as accurate in saying that you have an absolute and complete belief that "Jesus" is the savior of mankind.

Science would never take such unsubstantiated positions.

There are no such parallel suppositions in science. Science deals in the realm of evidence.

Evidence

The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

 

[slowfiveoh]

It's like talking to a brick wall. Why do people find it so hard to understand that the natural state is to have no religion and believe in no god?

If I taught a child, from infancy, that there was an invisible unicorn controlling our universe, and made the child attend classes about the unicorn, and attend services praising the unicorn, he would be a devout unicornian. It would not make his beliefs true.

On the other hand, if I taught the child to examine things he didn't understand and think about how they work and how they came to exist, he wouldn't instantly think an invisible unicorn made them. As a child, with great imagination and little experience, there would be many things he might not understand. He could say "gee, I don't know, yet, but I'm still learning, please help me understand." Or he might say, "I don't know, did an invisible unicorn make them?" The atheist's response would be, "what makes you think there was a unicorn involved?" And then help the child figure out if there is evidence to support the unicorn hypothesis. The unicornarian would probably agree and praise him for being so smart, without stopping to figure out why he suggested a unicorn was involved.

georg has failed this argument tons of times. If it were not for the importance of presenting the proper evidence and information, he would be worthy of not responding to at all.

He is clown shoes.

Look at his reply above to this exact post. Actually let me show you:

I agree! What is their problem? Ummm... wait... where did the "believe in no god" thing come from. I didn't see that in the 1A. How does a "state" believe in anything? Maybe you meant that the "government can pass no law respecting an establishment of religion... right?

You see what he didn't even comprehend there?

This is a common problem with this guy.

Let's see if he ever figures it out. (Still laughing at this. 3 minutes later lol, if anything he is a good source of humor.)

 

[eye95]

I do not see on single singular belief in this thread. I see TONS of sets of beliefs, including militant atheism.

 

[Q-Tip]

Don't you people have better things to do than write page-long arguments that probably take hours to compose?

Thou shalt not murder would be a great principle to live by. I wish the government would start.

 

[ADobbs1989]

If you're unsure of the existence of a "creator" then at least chose the agnostic religion. Without life changing evidence, it's probably the most reasonable of all.

You are quite possibly the most dense person I have ever met, Atheism is not a religion, and you can not prove that it is one, however we have proved multiple times that it isn't. Secondly your understanding of agnosticism is laughable at best. One can be Agnostic and also be Atheist, personally I am an Agnostic Atheist, and you (if you was an honest person) would be an Agnostic Theist. Gnosticism and Agnosticism relates specifically to knowledge, NO ONE and I repeat NO ONE KNOWS if a god does or does not exist. No exceptions. Period.

 

[ADobbs1989]

I do not see on single singular belief in this thread. I see TONS of sets of beliefs, including militant atheism.

And you are still wrong. I would ask you to try again, but you continue to fail at this topic so I wouldn't advise it. Go back to linking case law, something you are good at.

 

[eye95]

Stamp your feet all you want.

I know that I won't change your mind. Others reading this thread are probably now saying "Hmmmm?" and exploring their once locked-in beliefs. That's my goal.

Remember, after Pharaoh hardened his heart several times, God gave up and hardened it for him--permanently.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[marshaul]

militant atheism.

Doesn't exist. It's a fabrication, a straw man.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

It IS because some of the Founders being Christian you have Freedoms to do as you please and believe as you please.

Oh how WONDERFUL that you brought this up!

Was it compulsory state theocracy oppressing other belief structures and steering political climates in said country that drove them to leave? Yes.
Was it so they could establish their own government where another theocracy could be established, thus violating the concept of free, individual equality? Nope. Try again.

If you would be so kind as to study the founding of this nation prior to the Revolutionary War, you would see that MANY of the faulty traits of a theocratic society FOLLOWED over.

Do yourself a favor and study the social interaction between the Quakers and the Puritans Pre-, and Post-revolution.

No, the founders realized that religion must remain completely separate to such an extent that all "divine edicts" or "Biblical Law" have no impact on what is just, and morally right.

The effect of religion on Government is wholly toxic.

We can also throw in the mix Anglicans, and the fact the one thing most the colonists had were their horrible treatment of another christian group, Catholics. Quebec could have very well been the 14th colony to join against rebellion against England, but they didn't simply because of their large Catholic population and the way the other Christians treated them.

What is sorely lacking in his post is the rise of deism most of the radicals believed in deism, and without them there would have been no revolution.

The way I see it many deist were probably agnostics and atheists who were afraid of being killed by their local religious nuts so they came up with a theory, that God was there and made the universe but then stopped getting involved.

 

[slowfiveoh]

We can also throw in the mix Anglicans, and the fact the one thing most the colonists had were their horrible treatment of another christian group, Catholics. Quebec could have very well been the 14th colony to join against rebellion against England, but they didn't simply because of their large Catholic population and the way the other Christians treated them.

What is sorely lacking in his post is the rise of deism most of the radicals believed in deism, and without them there would have been no revolution.

The way I see it many deist were probably agnostics and atheists who were afraid of being killed by their local religious nuts so they came up with a theory, that God was there and made the universe but then stopped getting involved.

True, very pertinent, and to be honest I wasn't even thinking of that at the moment. Sometimes my fixation on early colonial America stays slightly too south of the border of the land of Maple and Moose. Eh?

 

[ADobbs1989]

Stamp your feet all you want.

I know that I won't change your mind. Others reading this thread are probably now saying "Hmmmm?" and exploring their once locked-in beliefs. That's my goal.

Remember, after Pharaoh hardened his heart several times, God gave up and hardened it for him--permanently.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

You can't change the mind of someone who needs proof by giving them misinformation and logical fallacies. I know you are used to being right, but we have proven you wrong more than once, so until you can come up with some facts to support your claims you are the one stamping your feet. All I ever see you post when it comes to gun rights is back up your claims with facts, yet for some reason when it comes to your belief system you don't feel the need to do.