DescentBB

░

Total hogwash.

Anne Graham is a moron. Newsflash: THIS IS NOT A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY. When is this going to sink in? The Bible does not belong in schools or the government. PERIOD. Neither does the Koran, the Gold plates (or whatever the Mormons fairy tale is). None of it belongs in the State.

This fool actually thinks because religion is not integrated into schools, that Katrina is the punishment? WTF?! How off-base and delusional can you get? If you want an answer as to why Katrina happened, I could explain the Coriolis effect and various other weather patterns the culminate into storms of great size, but no, some moron thinks \"God did it\" to us on purpose. Never mind the fact that these storms have been around since before humans existed (oh wait, the earth is only 6000yo, GOOD ONE!)


\"Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves. \"

Over-medication, complete lack of interest by parents, and over-oppressive government. That is the only reason the kids today are such problems.

\"Are you laughing yet?\"

My ass off.

Testiculese wrote:Total hogwash.

Anne Graham is a moron. Newsflash: THIS IS NOT A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY.

Evidently.

PS Beat me to it, Testi.

Isn't perpetuating ignorance a sin anymore?

Sin, like anything else, is relative.

Testiculese wrote:Over-medication, complete lack of interest by parents, and over-oppressive government. That is the only reason the kids today are such problems.

That's fine, but are those the causes? I would argue that those are the means, not the causes. The problem is so prevalent, that it is ridiculous to suppose that there is no deeper cause. There is a common cause, that much is obvious. Can you, as an Atheist, give a satisfactory cause for the relatively recent wide-spread moral failure?

It should be, Jeff.

If I were on that show, I'd ask \"Why does God continue to allow this idiot airtime?\"

Jeff250 wrote:Isn't perpetuating ignorance a sin anymore?

Snopes confirms what I immediately suspected. The tone of the article changes very suddenly from "a Jew says Christmas displays should be OK" to "failure to follow the Christian scriptures has destroyed this country".

I love the first half of the message. Simple and solid.

The second half displays the sort of weird tunnel vision pseudo-theology that, unfortunately, the church has become known for. It starts with the expectation that God is a big care-bear in the sky who just wants our happiness, and that when tragedy strikes it's accidental and outside of His plan (the truth is, it's ALL intentional. Even the bad stuff. But it's simplistic to say it's "punishment".) It goes on to blame centuries-old social problems and the modern intifada on the country's religious shift (and Dr. Spock)... how exactly did our lack of Bible reading and child-spanking lead to Islamic fundamentalists blowing our stuff up? And why does anyone believe this obviously Christian/Churchianity rant was written by a guy who opens by talking about being a Jew who's "not offended" by Christmas?

Spooky got Pwnd!

Thanks Jeff and Lothar. I glanced over it and went huh?? I've been busy with an air show here and haven't had the time to do more than to graze over much on the forums.

Testi, no, this is not a \"Christian Nation\". It was largely settled by various Christian denominations seeking relief from persecution. (I was taught that in a public school btw). So naturally, our laws were framed around Christian values as a majority of the populace at that time were Christian (radical or not).

In fact, the Constitution provides that this country should never be a Christian or Catholic or Buddhist or Islamic nation... Ever. THAT is what separation of church and state is about. Keeping government out of religion, not religion out of government. .. but I don't intend to go down that rabbit trail just now.

Then don't, otherwise, you would be saying that Sharia laws are acceptable in our framework of government.

Duper wrote:
Testi, no, this is not a "Christian Nation". It was largely settled by various Christian denominations seeking relief from persecution. (I was taught that in a public school btw). So naturally, our laws were framed around Christian values as a majority or the populace at that time were Christian (radical or not).

In fact, the Constitution provides that this country should never be a Christian or Catholic or Buddhist or Islamic nation... Ever. THAT is what separation of church and state is about. Keeping government out of religion, not religion out of government. .. but I don't intend to go down that rabbit trail just now.

While our nation may not be a monolithic religious state, neither was it intended to be a atheistic state. The Russians tried that and it didn't work.
So for religion to be removed from any view within our govt. construct is a in fact a expression of atheistic religious beliefs. Somewhere balance has to be found.

Spooky, I hope you put that in as a joke because I really did laugh.

Bee

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Testiculese wrote:Over-medication, complete lack of interest by parents, and over-oppressive government. That is the only reason the kids today are such problems.

That's fine, but are those the causes? I would argue that those are the means, not the causes. The problem is so prevalent, that it is ridiculous to suppose that there is no deeper cause. There is a common cause, that much is obvious. Can you, as an Atheist, give a satisfactory cause for the relatively recent wide-spread moral failure?

By that same logic, that it should be deeper (I'm assuming that you're inferring that it is due to a lack of religion), I, as an atheist, whose parents didn't try to ram a Bible down my throat, should be a reckloose who has no respect for people, beats my girlfriend, and such. To assume that the world's problems are because of a lack of religion is ridiculous. It's just the same blanket "because it's God doing" reason is applied here as it is in so many cases. You can't know what any reasoning that God has for things, if there is one, you can misinterpret from the Bible all you like, but there is no certain way to know, short of dying, but then again, unless you believe the Bible, nobody has done that.

Lothar wrote:

Jeff250 wrote:Isn't perpetuating ignorance a sin anymore?

Snopes confirms what I immediately suspected. The tone of the article changes very suddenly from "a Jew says Christmas displays should be OK" to "failure to follow the Christian scriptures has destroyed this country".

I love the first half of the message. Simple and solid.

The second half displays the sort of weird tunnel vision pseudo-theology that, unfortunately, the church has become known for. It starts with the expectation that God is a big care-bear in the sky who just wants our happiness, and that when tragedy strikes it's accidental and outside of His plan (the truth is, it's ALL intentional. Even the bad stuff. But it's simplistic to say it's "punishment".) It goes on to blame centuries-old social problems and the modern intifada on the country's religious shift (and Dr. Spock)... how exactly did our lack of Bible reading and child-spanking lead to Islamic fundamentalists blowing our stuff up? And why does anyone believe this obviously Christian/Churchianity rant was written by a guy who opens by talking about being a Jew who's "not offended" by Christmas?

I agree, it starts out "I am a Jew, not really offended", then goes to "not following the Bible caused bad stuff, and the Bible is true"...

If the Bible is true, then why the <expletive deleted> are you a Jew? Sounds like a Christian to me.

So for religion to be removed from any view within our govt. construct is a in fact a expression of atheistic religious beliefs. Somewhere balance has to be found.

Very true. Quite simply, people should be allowed on their own private property to put whatever symbols and images on their lawn. On business and government grounds, however, there should be no religious or anti-religious images, period.

No, I'm not referring to \"religion\" per se, jake. I believe it boils down to God and authority.

By what same logic? I haven't summed up my world-view in one small paragraph, so don't strain yourself. Perhaps I said too much and too little at once. I don't believe I have many illusions with regard to how life works and where many people are at.

I've got a lot of respect for Testi, but I think that atheists tend to accept very shallow \"causes\" as the end of argument, which are in fact not causes but simply means.

I mean the Bible talks about God sending rain, but an atheist might say that we know how rain works now, and it's not God. ...Isn't it? We know the scientific means by which rain forms, but that doesn't mean there can be no deeper cause. It's not the violinist making the music, it's the violin...

The ****-storm in California isn't a form of judgement, because we can see how the fires are caused logically... right? If there was a God doing it he would of course be shooting fire right out of thin air.

The God that Atheists have worked to defeat is a ridiculous God, a God who condescends to appear and silence you when you speak against him. They demand that God play by their rules or else he doesn't exist... and so he doesn't exist.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:No, I'm not referring to "religion" per se, jake. I believe it boils down to God and authority.

I can agree that it isn't exactly the same thing, religion and a belief in God. However, if you define religion as

(1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

Then you are still dealing with a kind of religion, though not the same as what many will assume with organized, mass going religious people.

By what same logic? I haven't summed up my world-view in one small paragraph, so don't strain yourself. ...

You are correct that you did not bottle up all of your views, and I am partially to blame for jumping the gun on that count, my aim was\\should've been that it is easy to say "you have a reasoning, but how do you know it's not caused by <insert favorite supernatural being here>?" This can be demonstrated by your next three paragraphs.

I've got a lot of respect for Testi, ... If there was a God doing it he would of course be shooting fire right out of thin air.

The God that Atheists have worked to defeat is a ridiculous God, a God who condescends to appear and silence you when you speak against him. They demand that God play by their rules or else he doesn't exist... and so he doesn't exist.

I love blanket assumptions, they're so fun. The trouble is when you propose that there is some higher being in control of weather, etc. Is that you fail to provide hard evidence that is repeatable. That is because that God is largely the belief in himself, if you have no faith, he does not exist. You can swear up and down that you believe that he's there somewhere, but it isn't nearly as substantial as the science of winds, pressures, etc which can be measured.

Since the country is not the government, I would say that since 78% of people who live here consider themselves Christian…I think it is about as close to a “Christian” country as it gets. (other than being a theocracy)

Spidey wrote:Since the country is not the government, I would say that since 78% of people who live here consider themselves Christian…I think it is about as close to a “Christian” country as it gets. (other than being a theocracy)

Cool, and your point is?

It was a counter point.

d3jake wrote:That is because that God is largely the belief in himself, if you have no faith, he does not exist.

Rather, it depends an a person's assumptions, and the idea that there is no creator is just as much an assumption as the belief that there is a God. But the affirmation that there is a God is not without proof. Proof that many people choose to work their way around because of their assumption that there is no God, which is one of the reasons that it boils down to God and authority. Atheists are rebelling against the authority of God in trying to reinvent a world where they don't have to acknowledge a creator or any absolute standards. Incidentally rebellion is at the heart of a great many problems in our present, increasingly Godless society. A coincidence, of course...

I'm not one who condones "religion" in general terms, because in my opinion the reason for the persistence of such an entity must be based in truth and not just positive side-effects, because it's claim is to truth. So I don't use the term "religion" because I'm not interested in defending religion in general, but God and the truth.

Without the introduction of the assumptions of Atheism, the science of weather or anything else does not at all harm the notion of an infinite creator. In fact, certain sciences are very much in favor of it. If you choose to believe that the science is all there is to it, then you're making an Atheistic assumption.

If God exists he exists whether we believe it or not, but our assumptions directly influence our conclusions, and if we're hell-bent to discover a world without a creator, without a higher authority, without moral consequences, then there is plenty of room for excuses.

woodchip wrote:

Duper wrote: Testi, no, this is not a "Christian Nation". It was largely settled by various Christian denominations seeking relief from persecution. (I was taught that in a public school btw). So naturally, our laws were framed around Christian values as a majority or the populace at that time were Christian (radical or not).

In fact, the Constitution provides that this country should never be a Christian or Catholic or Buddhist or Islamic nation... Ever. THAT is what separation of church and state is about. Keeping government out of religion, not religion out of government. .. but I don't intend to go down that rabbit trail just now.

While our nation may not be a monolithic religious state, neither was it intended to be a atheistic state. The Russians tried that and it didn't work.
So for religion to be removed from any view within our govt. construct is a in fact a expression of atheistic religious beliefs. Somewhere balance has to be found.

Very true Woody.

U.S. Constitution: 1st Amendment wrote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You are wrong Testi. That does not make consession for your claim: " The Bible does not belong in schools or the government. PERIOD. Neither does the Koran, the Gold plates (or whatever the Mormons fairy tale is). None of it belongs in the State."

Sergeant Thorne wrote:If God exists he exists whether we believe it or not, but our assumptions directly influence our conclusions, and if we're hell-bent to discover a world without a creator, without a higher authority, without moral consequences, then there is plenty of room for excuses.

Well put, but by that same logic (woo, used the phrase correctly that time!) then if you assume\\believe that there is a God, and you're hell-bent to have the world work that way, with a higher authority, with moral consequences, then you can easily turn any any reasoning into "it's obviously because there's a higher-ness affecting it. Which by trying to disprove just shows that you are trying to reinvent the world where there are no absolute standards, etc.

So it boils down to the need to be absolutely honest, not to mention being mindful of personal bias or personal interest in your own quest for THE truth (that is the nature of truth--there is only one).

It may be said that the only way to find the truth is to desire/value the truth above all else (a distinctly Biblical concept). That really is the whole matter in a nut-shell.

Lies distort perception of reality (sounds kind of obvious, but it merits thought). Even small/subtle lies compound if not dealt with, and can make things very difficult to see your way through.

The Bible talks about having a \"love of the truth.\" Do you love the truth? Not just like it, or prefer it, or believe it to be the \"best policy\", do you love it? I do.

(I could go on for a long time on this subject. I've probably given more thought the subject of truth than any other, and than many others combined. And it's not a fascination with a religious concept, or something that makes me better than someone else, but a desire to know just exactly what is what, and to see through the lies that positively surround us daily. I may be a terrible Christian, but I love the truth.)

P.S. Bravo on the topic edit.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:So it boils down to the need to be absolutely honest, not to mention being mindful of personal bias or personal interest in your own quest for THE truth (that is the nature of truth--there is only one).

The Truth is often muddled.

I think you're referring to correspondence theory, as opposed to what I tend to gravitate toward, redundancy theory. Nothing wrong with adhering to either, but without some kind of common ground, no one will agree and "truth" will continue to exist as some open-to-conjecture linguist's toy.

Thorne wrote:Without the introduction of the assumptions of Atheism, the science of weather or anything else does not at all harm the notion of an infinite creator. In fact, certain sciences are very much in favor of it. If you choose to believe that the science is all there is to it, then you're making an Atheistic assumption.

I don't see any reason to presumptively include or preclude God from science. But God-based scientific hypotheses tend to be difficult to test, especially if we understand God to be someone who "moves in mysterious ways." You can see this in the difficulty the ID movement has had in trying to come up with one. It is really more contingent features of God though, not necessary features of science, that make this the case.

But there is a sense in which science and God are at odds, and it is in science's success to explain with natural laws things that were previously explained by God. Of course, someone could at any point claim that the phenomena that the Christian church attributes to God *at present* are the true acts of God, and the previous attributions were mistakes. But as we learn more about our world, the tendency is to be able to explain more with natural laws, not less. So it seems reasonable to hypothesize that eventually we will be able to explain away increasingly more, if not all, claims of divine intervention.

So I think that this is why science and God are at odds. It's just that science has been so good at explaining away acts of God in the past, that we work under the theory that it's going to be just as good in the future, even when we run into bumps in the road. Working under this theory has been quite successful. And to repeat what I said before, alternative theories that involve God tend to not be formulable in a testable way due to contingent features that people attribute to God.