"thou shalt not kill"

[georg jetson]

georg has failed this argument tons of times. SNIP

Actually I've won this argument many times with you, but you're kind of a sore loser.

Don't worry. You're superhuman ability to presume and use quotes out of context still has me hailing you as super slow my hero.

Till the next time...

 

[georg jetson]

You are quite possibly the most dense person I have ever met,

Thank you. I do strive to be the best.

Atheism is not a religion, and you can not prove that it is one, however we have proved multiple times that it isn't.

You've proved nothing. This discussion is in the context of "thou shalt not kill". The OP covered quite a bit in their first post and I feel that the 1A becomes relevant when discussing using the 10 commandants as a basis for giving government authority. It forbids the government from making law respecting an establishment of religion. The definition of religion in this case is important because the 1A is a limit on government. However, for decades the 1A has been used as a way for the government to wage war on some types of religion but not others. In particular, the religion of atheism has become the state sponsored religion. You didn't answer my questions so I'll assume you have no answer.

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.

Excepting your attempt at insult, I'll agree with you here. No one really knows. Like I said... I respect all religions.

EDIT - I'm going out on a limb here and am assuming that the 1989 part of your usename is a birth year. If not then I apologize in advance for the incorrect assumption.

Most of us here are united by a common bond, ocing. I find it typical that the ocing type of activity tends to bring together some of the more intelligent and mature members of society. As a newer and younger member of OCDO, may I suggest that you not be influenced by some of the more brash members. We're just having a discussion. There's no reason to insult each other considering that we are on the same side.

 

[SFCRetired]

Arguing either the existence or the non-existence of a Deity or a number or deities is an exercise in futility.

Going by either the legal world's rules of evidence or the scientific world's rules of evidence, you can prove neither premise. That is why they call it "belief" and "faith".

What you can do is accept empirical evidence that the human animal has a need to believe in something, even if it is belief in non-belief. Atheism, by narrow definition, is the belief that there are no deities. The vast majority of those we call "**** Sapiens" believe (notice the word "believe") that there is some Higher Power that we will encounter after leaving this life.

Personally, I do not "know" whether there is something after this life. I do "believe" that there is. When I enter upon mankind's "Greatest Adventure" I will find out for sure. So will the rest of you.

 

[ADobbs1989]

Thank you. I do strive to be the best.



You've proved nothing. This discussion is in the context of "thou shalt not kill". The OP covered quite a bit in their first post and I feel that the 1A becomes relevant when discussing using the 10 commandants as a basis for giving government authority. It forbids the government from making law respecting an establishment of religion. The definition of religion in this case is important because the 1A is a limit on government. However, for decades the 1A has been used as a way for the government to wage war on some types of religion but not others. In particular, the religion of atheism has become the state sponsored religion. You didn't answer my questions so I'll assume you have no answer.




Excepting your attempt at insult, I'll agree with you here. No one really knows. Like I said... I respect all religions.

A lack of belief in something can not be considered a religion.

Definition of RELIGION
1
a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3
archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Lacking belief in something fits no definition of religion. Atheism fits none of the definitions of religion. Christianity, however, does. You have a religion, I have no religion.

You have once again been successfully proven wrong. I'm not sure how many times is needed before you grasp the concept.

 

[georg jetson]

Arguing either the existence or the non-existence of a Deity or a number or deities is an exercise in futility.

I disagree as long as the discussion is mature. There are many members I agree and disagree with that have provoked me to thought I hadn't explored.

Going by either the legal world's rules of evidence or the scientific world's rules of evidence, you can prove neither premise. That is why they call it "belief" and "faith".

True. It's an idea exchange more than it is a win/lose debate.

What you can do is accept empirical evidence that the human animal has a need to believe in something, even if it is belief in non-belief. Atheism, by narrow definition, is the belief that there are no deities. The vast majority of those we call "**** Sapiens" believe (notice the word "believe") that there is some Higher Power that we will encounter after leaving this life.

Apart from the "human animal" part, I agree. Well said.

Personally, I do not "know" whether there is something after this life. I do "believe" that there is. When I enter upon mankind's "Greatest Adventure" I will find out for sure. So will the rest of you.

Indeed.

 

[georg jetson]

A lack of belief in something can not be considered a religion.

Definition of RELIGION
1
a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3
archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Lacking belief in something fits no definition of religion. Atheism fits none of the definitions of religion. Christianity, however, does. You have a religion, I have no religion.

You have once again been successfully proven wrong. I'm not sure how many times is needed before you grasp the concept.

I've made the point several times that lack of belief is impossible. It is incorrect to say that an atheist has a lack of belief. The atheist has a belief in a lack of god. Do you see the difference?

In addition, a common and contemporary dictionary is probably not the best place to find out the definition of the word "religion" as used in the 1A.

I edited my last post. Would you mind taking a glance?

 

[marshaul]

I've made the point several times that lack of belief is impossible.

But it's not.

 

[ADobbs1989]

I've made the point several times that lack of belief is impossible. It is incorrect to say that an atheist has a lack of belief. The atheist has a belief in a lack of god. Do you see the difference?

In addition, a common and contemporary dictionary is probably not the best place to find out the definition of the word "religion" as used in the 1A.

I edited my last post. Would you mind taking a glance?

Well, I claim that you are wrong, because I myself have a lack of belief. I don't believe there isn't a god. I have just not been presented with the evidence to allow belief. The same way I have a lack of belief in bigfoot, unicorns, and aliens. It doesn't mean that I believe there aren't any, I just haven't been provided with the evidence that allows me to believe. I am not making an assumption about the way I feel on the subject, I am telling you exactly how it is. If you asked me "Do you believe in God?" I would say, "No, I do not believe in any God(s)." Which is different than saying "No, I believe that there are no God(s)." If you can take a moment to analyze the language of the two you can notice the slight difference can completely change the meaning. In the first I am claiming that I have a lack of belief in God, in the second I am claiming that my belief is that no gods exist. I hold no belief on the matter. HOWEVER even if I did express myself as the second, it would still not hold up to any known definition of "religion".

As for your editing, yes that is my birth year, and no just because I disagree with many people here on religion, it does not affect my passion for the second amendment and my freedoms. You have to understand that as an Atheist many of my fellow Atheists (not all) are Anti-Gun Democrats. Just because I disagree with them does not change my stance on religion. As for eye, I have noticed that he is very condescending to most everyone when they do or say something he doesn't agree with. Which is fine, but I'm more likely to be the same way back.

 

[georg jetson]

But it's not.

nuff said?

 

[marshaul]

nuff said?

Moving on.

 

[georg jetson]

Well, I claim that you are wrong, because I myself have a lack of belief. I don't believe there isn't a god. I have just not been presented with the evidence to allow belief. The same way I have a lack of belief in bigfoot, unicorns, and aliens. It doesn't mean that I believe there aren't any, I just haven't been provided with the evidence that allows me to believe.

I understand. First off my statement "an atheist has a belief in the lack of god" is correctly stated. However, you've labeled yourself as an agnostic atheist. I must admit this is a belief system that I'm not aware.

As to your bigfoot, unicorn, alien analogy, again you don't lack belief. You simply state that you believe you don't know.

I am not making an assumption about the way I feel on the subject, I am telling you exactly how it is. If you asked me "Do you believe in God?" I would say, "No, I do not believe in any God(s)." Which is different than saying "No, I believe that there are no God(s)." If you can take a moment to analyze the language of the two you can notice the slight difference can completely change the meaning. In the first I am claiming that I have a lack of belief in God, in the second I am claiming that my belief is that no gods exist. I hold no belief on the matter. HOWEVER even if I did express myself as the second, it would still not hold up to any known definition of "religion".

I don't think it's useful to respond to this until you explain the agnostic atheist thing.

As for your editing, yes that is my birth year, and no just because I disagree with many people here on religion, it does not affect my passion for the second amendment and my freedoms. You have to understand that as an Atheist many of my fellow Atheists (not all) are Anti-Gun Democrats. Just because I disagree with them does not change my stance on religion. As for eye, I have noticed that he is very condescending to most everyone when they do or say something he doesn't agree with. Which is fine, but I'm more likely to be the same way back.

Well, I didn't mention any names. For sure Eyes is probably not the only one around here who can't control their emotions. The point is that most of us can discuss things with civility. Let's continue with that accord.

Also, I see you refer to yourself as an atheist. Did you just leave the agnostic part out for brevity?

 

[georg jetson]

Moving on.

Ha!!

 

[ADobbs1989]

I understand. First off my statement "an atheist has a belief in the lack of god" is correctly stated. However, you've labeled yourself as an agnostic atheist. I must admit this is a belief system that I'm not aware.

As to your bigfoot, unicorn, alien analogy, again you don't lack belief. You simply state that you believe you don't know.



I don't think it's useful to respond to this until you explain the agnostic atheist thing.



Well, I didn't mention any names. For sure Eyes is probably not the only one around here who can't control their emotions. The point is that most of us can discuss things with civility. Let's continue with that accord.

Also, I see you refer to yourself as an atheist. Did you just leave the agnostic part out for brevity?

The agnostic part as I explained earlier is not really needed due to the fact that everyone, including you, should be an agnostic. Agnostic simply states that I have no knowledge to whether or not any god(s) exist. As an Atheist I do not believe in any god(s). The opposite of Agnostic is Gnostic which means that you know as a fact that god does or does not exist. Which is being dishonest to say. I will leave the conversation on Atheism at this point because we obviously have two different points of view that are not going to be changing. If you would like to continue the conversation on a different point such as Agnosticism or something else, then feel free. The last thing I can say is that regardless of your view, I KNOW that for myself I lack belief in god, you can argue about what other people actually think all you want, but you can't argue about what I personally know. As long as you are willing to agree to that I'm fine.

Edit: The Agnostic part to me is kind of like writing a number in base 10. When you write a number in base 10 you don't have to put the subscript 10 because it's universally understood to be base 10 if no subscript is present. So in my opinion anyone who is honest and worthy of my time is Agnostic so when I say I'm Atheist there is an understood (Agnostic) in front of the Atheist. The same way for you there would be an understood (Agnostic) in front of Theist.

 

[nonameisgood]

Gnostic means "knowing"

Agnostic means "not knowing"

Theist is one who believes in a god

Atheist is one without belief in a god.

So an agnostic atheist is one who does not believe I a god and doesn't know if one does or does not exist.

It is a very common view. I don't call myself agnostic, because I also don't call myself an agnostic aunicornist. Atheist explains well enough. But many like to identify themselves as agnostic atheists to leave open the possibility that there is a god we don't know about (or more precisely, of which we don't yet have evidence.)

 

[nonameisgood]

Back on topic.

"Thou shalt not kill" (or murder, if you prefer) is not a law, so it can't be enforced. That doesn't mean that we don't have laws against murder, but it is not the commandment that is enforced.

The establishment clause only says that the government may not designate or promote a religion (and I would argue, religion in general.)

My problem with accepting religious display and citation by the government is that religion is irrelevant to the limited function of government. These things take away from the actual purpose and use of government. Our government doesn't derive its authority from a god or a religion, and should not portray itself as though it was ordained by a higher power. Doing so discourages adherents from questioning the actions and decisions of said government.

 

[nonameisgood]

And one more, since I'm exercising bad forum form:

http://undergod.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=69

A discussion about the religions of the original colonies, including humdingers like:

"Every Person should go to church, Sundays and Holidays, or lye Neck and Heels that Night, and be a Slave to the Colony the following Week; for the second Offence, he should be a Slave for a Month; and for the third, a Year and a Day." - (Virginia) Governor Argall's Decree, 1617

 

[georg jetson]

The agnostic part as I explained earlier is not really needed due to the fact that everyone, including you, should be an agnostic. Agnostic simply states that I have no knowledge to whether or not any god(s) exist. As an Atheist I do not believe in any god(s).

Ok. In this case I think I need to refer to the common definition of the 2 words...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist
Definition of ATHEIST
: one who believes that there is no deity

Also,

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic
ag·nos·tic
noun \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

I see atheist and agnostic as mutually exclusive. I believe you're unintentionally conflating this.

The opposite of Agnostic is Gnostic which means that you know as a fact that god does or does not exist. Which is being dishonest to say. I will leave the conversation on Atheism at this point because we obviously have two different points of view that are not going to be changing. If you would like to continue the conversation on a different point such as Agnosticism or something else, then feel free. The last thing I can say is that regardless of your view, I KNOW that for myself I lack belief in god, you can argue about what other people actually think all you want, but you can't argue about what I personally know. As long as you are willing to agree to that I'm fine.

In light of your statements, you appear to be agnostic. You’re not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god. That's far from being atheist.

Edit: The Agnostic part to me is kind of like writing a number in base 10. When you write a number in base 10 you don't have to put the subscript 10 because it's universally understood to be base 10 if no subscript is present. So in my opinion anyone who is honest and worthy of my time is Agnostic so when I say I'm Atheist there is an understood (Agnostic) in front of the Atheist. The same way for you there would be an understood (Agnostic) in front of Theist.

Well, perhaps the agnostic/atheist thing is not so "understood" to some of us. Particularly when those terms are mutually exclusive.

 

[Lasjayhawk]

Or maybe nothing is real at all.

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-10/11/universe-computer-simulation

FUQ: If recent measurements of cosmic ray particles are correct, then we may have the first evidence that the universe as we know it is really a giant computer simulation.

Humans have explored the laws of our universe for many years now, and it's not uncommon to hear people talk about how amazing it is that certain fundamental values are just right for life to exist. .....

 

[georg jetson]

gnostic means "knowing"

agnostic means "not knowing"

theist is one who believes in a god

atheist is one who believes in no god.

So an agnostic atheist is one who does not believe i a god and doesn't know if one does or does not exist.

It is a very common view. I don't call myself agnostic, because i also don't call myself an agnostic aunicornist. Atheist explains well enough. But many like to identify themselves as agnostic atheists to leave open the possibility that there is a god we don't know about (or more precisely, of which we don't yet have evidence.)

fify

 

[georg jetson]

Back on topic.

SNIP

The establishment clause only says that the government may not designate or promote a religion (and I would argue, religion in general.)

No it says it cannot pass a law respecting an establishment of religion.

My problem with accepting religious display and citation by the government is that religion is irrelevant to the limited function of government.

It is not irrelevant, it is simply restricted from passing laws concerning such. As the people are supposed to be the government, they may choose any manner of religion in which to make their governmental decisions.

These things take away from the actual purpose and use of government. Our government doesn't derive its authority from a god or a religion, and should not portray itself as though it was ordained by a higher power. Doing so discourages adherents from questioning the actions and decisions of said government.

Stating that "Our government doesn't derive its authority from a god(SNIP)" can only be said by one who knows there is no god. Are you that one?

In a sense you are correct. Our government directly derives its authority from the people. I agree that we definitely need not confuse the government with a higher power. It is quit the opposite.