Wow. That's 100% wrong. Completely. Totally. You're not understanding what athiests believe AT ALL. A religon is not only a set of moral values... it's ALSO a belief in a HIGHER POWER. Atheisists also have moral values, but the values aren't 'set' by one person/book/cult. Most of them make up their own minds and figure out what makes sense to them, UNLIKE the religous masses who blindly repeat whatever their religous leader tells them. Atheists DO NOT believe in a higher power.

So the idea of calling 'atheism' a religion is about as absurd as calling any AWD vehicle a Subaru. Sure, most Subarus have AWD, but that doesn't mean that every AWD vehicle is a Subaru. Atheism is a belief system, and the MAIN difference is that they LACK any sort of belief in a higher power.

Here's a dictionary to help you understand:

Religion:

# Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.


Atheism:
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

Another common ignorant statement I hear quite often is 'atheists claim there is no god! But there has to be a god in order for htem to say that!', which is also pretty retarded. If I say "I don't believe that a fuzzy purple monster lives in your anus and shoots fireballs at only one type of mosquito", that doesn't mean that the purple monster exists, it means that I don't believe there is a purple monster.

- Jim

PS: I'm not an atheist. Nor am I a christian. I'm just some guy, ya know?

You seem to have left out the rest of the definition.
Religion:

1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

The American Heritage® Dictionary

If an athiest wanted to persue their cause/principle with devotion, it seems as if that would qualify. Maybe saying "That's 100% wrong. Completely. Totally. You're not understanding what athiests believe AT ALL" was a bit on the extreme side.

-Alex

Speaking as what many would concider an athiest, it's very hard to persue nothing with "with zeal or conscientious devotion"

nope. 100% wrong in this context. If you're referring to Atheism vs Religion, the MAIN difference is the belief or LACK of belief in a spiritual/supernatural/higher power. This means that the ONLY definition of religion that could even come close to applying to atheism is #4, but... uh... no, apply some common sense. #4 is good for explaining how deeply you feel about something, such as cars. "Internal Combustion is my religon" or music "Hendrix is my savior!" stuff like that. You're using the wrong logic again. Just because religon IS a strong set of beliefs, does not mean that ALL strong sets of beliefs are religon. Look at the whole Subaru/AWD thing again. If you looked up Subaru in the pretend dictionary, it would say a few things, and hten have "A turbo awd car from japan". Sure. But NOT ALL turbo AWD cars from japan are subarus.

- Jim

its this simple, really: the majority of the U.S. is Christian, so Christian values are what the masses believe in. i believe everyone has the right to be happy and do what they want, but unfortunately the masses who vote do not apparently. this country was founded on Christian beliefs and those beliefs still linger today.

if you moved to Saudi Arabia, you'd have a hard time selling bikinis because the majority of that country is ........ Islamic, who believe women should be covered up. i'm sure a small majority would like to wear bikinis, but since the majority rules, no dice.

But that isn't what america is about. America is about FREEDOM, and equality. This means that in America you have the freedom to hold or express an unpopular opinion (read MINORITY), without getting thrown in jail.

If it was always 'majority rules', we would still have slaves, women wouldn't be allowed to vote, etc etc etc.

- Jim

there was a time when we DID have slaves, and women could NOT vote - because that's what the majority wanted. people were also accused of witchcraft and hung without a trial. over time attitudes changed what the majority wanted.

of course you are free to have a minority opinion without getting thrown in jail, but don't expect it to become a law if it comes to a vote.

No, but the law protects it.

....because the majority thinks that is what's right (freedom of speech.)


shall we continue?

Trust me, you don't want to argue with me on this. This is something i have felt strongly about for a long time, and I have done more research on this than many people in the Theology field. Atheism fits the legal description of religion to a tee. The legal definition does not include anything about a belief in a higher power. It is quite simply defined as a set of beliefs as pertaining to conduct and moral values. That's it.

To make it simple, let's take your statement "atheists do not believe in a higher power" if you believe that that is what makes Atheism not a religion, then I can say "Christians do not believe in the absence of a higher power"...so then you would have to call christianity not a religion. Basically, according to the legal definition, if you say the words "believe in" when describing Atheism...it's a religion.

Absolutely true.

Niether are you.

And it's hard to believe you when many of your fellow "non-believers" "religiously" pursue the removal of religion from the world around them (with zeal and conscientious devotion). Christians have just as much a right to practice their religion as do you, so (and no offense to you in particular because i don't see you trying to get christianity banned) you need to tell your fellow non-believers to relax and deal with life rather than trying to ruin it for others.

Unfortunately that's the problem with being an atheist, there's no such thing as a fellow non-believer. I have my own ideology, and they have theirs. I tend to discuss issues of faith only with people who believe in something, whatever their religion may be.

On the issue of removing religion, if you're talking about banning prayer in the classroom. Honestly I don't see the need for it. I was Christian, and I don't remember ever being told that I needed to say a prayer at any particular time during the day. Actually, growing up I was always told to say my prayers before I went to sleep at night. To me, religion is a family thing, practice it at home, together.

If you are talking about other times where people have attempted to remove religion (ex. removing "In God We Trust" from money) I am torn on the issues. These have blended the line between religion and tradition. For some I side with tradition and think we should keep them, for others I think we should get rid off them. This is not the place for that however, if you wish to have more of a discussion it is going to be a private one.

No. I don't care how you 'feel' about it, the truth is that atheists do not believe in anything spiritual, supernatural, etc. Relgion REQUIRES teh supernatural/spiritual, it REQUIRES the 'more to the eye'. Atheists DENY that there's more to it all. I really don't understand how a man of such high education (more research than the theology field? Give me a freakin' break!) can fail to understand this.

Anyway, don't bother replying, it's quite apparent that you're completely wrong and set upon being so.

- Jim

First, You are absolutely right.. Christians have just as much a right to practice their religion as does anyone.. however why should others not have rights, because of something they don't believe in? HOW many times have we been through civil rights movements??? how many more do we have to go through?!?

I don't want Christianity banned... I'm myself Christian. (PM me if you want to object) I just have a large problem with people thinking they know better than the person making the decision.

I don't think I critized another member

Ok, but then why are we being forced to remove thousand year old symbols of religion? These are inanimate objects that are not forcing anything on anybody. In many places, manger scenes and other displays involving biblical characters are banned. Why? How could you possibly see a light up, plastic, 3 foot tall Jesus as a problem?

I certainly would never say that everyone in this country should be christian...or any one religion for that matter. My point is that christianity seems to be the majority religion in this country, it has been this way for hundreds of years...no one ever had problems with that...why all of a sudden is it a problem? Especially seeing as christianity is not the kind of religion that requires it's followers to drive themselves and trucks full of explosives into buildings filled with non-believers. Right?

Yes sir! I was not aware that you were the authority on what is right. Now that I know, I shall never question you again. :rolleyes:

First, how can you deny the religious rights of someone who doesn't believe in anything?

Second, I find it unnerving that it's not ok for me to "deny the rights of an atheist" when they are the ones suing to get all the symbols of my religion removed from their eyesight. Who's denying who's rights here?

As far as I know, the only time that any 'manger' scene with a baby J and whatnot causes a problem is when it's at a GOVERNMENT BUILDING. This country was created to get AWAY from religious persecution, and the freedom we have here is BECAUSE of the seperation of church and state. I don't like camaros, or baby J light up plastic figures very much. If you like em, great! But state/federal buildings CANNOT put this stuff out! Atheists fight to remove religous things from Gov buildings, and 'bless' them for it!

:P

- Jim

now that the election is over, next time remember b. f. skinner. he was that wacko guy who raised his daughter in a box early on, developed a guided bomb during ww2 using a pigeon inside pecking away to guide the thing and though of a utopian community which he dubed "walden two"

in that ideal commumity nobody voted in u.s. elections. he caculated that the chances of your vote effecting the outcome were less that the chances of your being injured or killed in an auto accident on the way to the polls.

and yeah, i voted anyway (but the polling place was only a mile doen the road!).

First...that's not the only case it's happened in. There have been no less than 30 separate lawsuits involving "public displays of religion" in front of churches!! Imagine that...a manger scene in front of a church!! How can that possibly be a problem?!

Second...about the government building thing...I still don't see how it's a problem. Yes, if there were twenty members of the Christian Right screaming at you as you walked into the building, I could see that being a nuisance...hell I would be on your side in that case, but a plaque displaying the ten commandments? Or a statue of a religious figure? Give me a break! If you have a problem with it, don't look at it!

Ahh...another common misconception about a constitutional law. Read up on "The Separation of Church and State"...you'll find something very interesting. The law does not stipulate the involvement of church and religion in state affairs. It does exactly the opposite...the law was created to keep the goverment from dictating what churches can and cannot do.

HAHA...ok, relax.

Given the stupidity of things in this world, I'm sure there are some 'fluke' cases about Churches getting into trouble for having a manger scene, but most of the time, that doesn't happen. I agree that that's pretty stupid, but then again you have judges down in Texas wanting to put up the commandments in their courtroom, stuff like that.

And why does it bother me? Because christianity is a religion with a lot of blood, hypocrisy, injustice, genocide, a tyrannical god (but oh wait he turns nice in Part 2: God returns!), arrogance, complete denial of many scientific discoveries, and disgusting things that wouldn't even be allowed to be discussed in church. So basically, it offends me. Add in the fact that so many things we celebrate as 'christian' things are basically just stolen from other religions, and no siree bob, I dislike Christianity.

Jesus is cool. Very important dude noted in quite a few different religion's books..... but only one claims he was the son of god (or was he god? Oh we can't make up our minds about that either! :P) Anyway, he wouldn't be a christian in today's world either.

- Jim

You'd be surprised how many of these 'fluke' cases have occurred.

I just can't possibly imagine how a list of sentences could possibly be such a problem for you that you would be unhappy just being in the same room as said text. If this really is a problem for you, then I suggest you excercise your right to NOT LOOK AT IT!


Wow, have you actually read the bible? Or just what western textbooks say about it? This is the most liberal view of christianity i've ever heard. Everyone interprets things differently, sure, but do you look at everything with such a negative angle? I tend to be a bit more optimistic, it helps me stay happy...but whatever.


Christianity is itself a conglomeration of many classic religions...so it's no surprise that it's customs are of mixed origin.

I always try to put myself in other's shoes and understand why they feel the way they do. So I certainly respect your beliefs even though I think they are crazy. The thing I don't understand is how a person like you can not want to kill yourself. To think that all you have is your time here on earth, seems to me like it would feel much like being a pig on a farm - raised only to be killed. There is no hope, nothing to strive for, because no matter how much you accomplish here on earth, once you die, it's all gone. Ever try to imagine what it's like being dead? I think of what heaven must be like. What do you think of? Darkness? What it will be like to not exist?

And furthermore, how do you explain what science has failed to explain? Things like the glint in the eyes on a Monarch butterfly's wings? Things that just have no scientific purpose...or useable function (like the human reaction we call crying)? To me there is just way too much proof in this world for me to believe it's all just a great big coincidence.

Dude, like I said, I'm not an atheist. I'm just not Christian. This is what bothers me about a lot of christians like yourself who think it's fine when state and federal buildings have religious conotations: Your complete arrogance in that assuming just because I'm not christian that I automatically believe there is no afterlife and when you're dead you're dead.

Just to stir the pot a little, according to your religion, which makes 'sense' to you, Adolf Hitler could have said he was 'sorry' to Jesus and God a few minutes before he died, and guess what? He'd be in heaven. :rolleyes:

Also, the glint on a monarch's wing's eyes? Monarch butterflies don't have the big fake eyes on their wings, but considering the moths/butterflies that DO have the big fake eyes have evolved to try to look like a much larger animal, it makes sense that the fake eyes would 'glint' a little to make them more realistic.

Lastly, let's finish up with a nice verse from the 'good book':

"Ezekiel, Chapter 23

23:1
The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying,

23:2
Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother:

23:3
And they committed *****doms in Egypt; they committed *****doms in their youth: there were their breasts pressed, and there they bruised the teats of their virginity.

23:4
And the names of them were Aholah the elder, and Aholibah her sister: and they were mine, and they bare sons and daughters. Thus were their names; Samaria is Aholah, and Jerusalem Aholibah.

23:5
And Aholah played the harlot when she was mine; and she doted on her lovers, on the Assyrians her neighbours,

23:6
Which were clothed with blue, captains and rulers, all of them desirable young men, horsemen riding upon horses.

23:7
Thus she committed her *****doms with them, with all them that were the chosen men of Assyria, and with all on whom she doted: with all their idols she defiled herself.

23:8
Neither left she her *****doms brought from Egypt: for in her youth they lay with her, and they bruised the breasts of her virginity, and poured their *****dom upon her.

23:9
Wherefore I have delivered her into the hand of her lovers, into the hand of the Assyrians, upon whom she doted.

23:10
These discovered her nakedness: they took her sons and her daughters, and slew her with the sword: and she became famous among women; for they had executed judgment upon her.

23:11
And when her sister Aholibah saw this, she was more corrupt in her inordinate love than she, and in her *****doms more than her sister in her *****doms.

23:12
She doted upon the Assyrians her neighbours, captains and rulers clothed most gorgeously, horsemen riding upon horses, all of them desirable young men.

23:13
Then I saw that she was defiled, that they took both one way,

23:14
And that she increased her *****doms: for when she saw men pourtrayed upon the wall, the images of the Chaldeans pourtrayed with vermilion,

23:15
Girded with girdles upon their loins, exceeding in dyed attire upon their heads, all of them princes to look to, after the manner of the Babylonians of Chaldea, the land of their nativity:

23:16
And as soon as she saw them with her eyes, she doted upon them, and sent messengers unto them into Chaldea.

23:17
And the Babylonians came to her into the bed of love, and they defiled her with their *****dom, and she was polluted with them, and her mind was alienated from them.

23:18
So she discovered her *****doms, and discovered her nakedness: then my mind was alienated from her, like as my mind was alienated from her sister.

23:19
Yet she multiplied her *****doms, in calling to remembrance the days of her youth, wherein she had played the harlot in the land of Egypt.

23:20
For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.

Yeahhhhh....

- Jim

Ever try to imagine what it's like being dead? I think of what heaven must be like. What do you think of? Darkness? What it will be like to not exist?



Not to exist may well be exactly like it was before you were born.
A billion years or so of darkness followed by the big frat party called life. Then back to the eternal cocoon for recycling somewhere/sometime else in the cosmos....unless you're Shirley McLain, of course.

Ron (nonetheless, I do love harp music).

if most religions say the afterlife is so wonderful, where is the motivation to stay alive? :confused:

What, Alan? You mean cars in heaven got funny windows?

Ron (case rested).

......and unbreakable transmissions.

Heh. True followers stay alive a long time just so they can prove that they resisted all the temptations. duh. :P

Anyway, this topic has digressed. If you want to continue a philosophical discussion, let's start a new thread eh?

- Jim

Some butterfly. Anyway, you're not thinking deep enough. A "glint" is a human interpretation of light. There is no way that an insect could develop (how would it know what a glint even is?), unless made that way by a creator with reasoning abilities.


K.

Shadow, can you provide any sort of reference for the assertion of lawsuits for a church displaying a manger scene? I admit this is a bizarre scenario, but also have to say I have never heard of such a thing.

As to the second point, did you know that for a period in the US an atheist could not file a lawsuit or testify in court, even for themselves (a fairly serious denial of justice) because a swearing on the Bible would have no coercion for them. Anyway, lets say I find the 10 Commandments abhorrent (actually I could care less) and said so in earshot of the judge who had the plaque posted - do you honestly think I'd get a fair shake at trial?

I'd like to conclude that perhaps you should research the roles that Thomas Paine and Mr Jefferson had in the Nation's founding principles. For example in 1787 11 of the 13 states had religious tests in order to hold office, but carefully read Article VI of the Constitution (especially clauses 2 & 3).

A glint isn't a human interpretation of light. it's caused by a surface that's more reflective than another surface.

If you don't think that something as simple as a 'glint' on a butterfly wing could come from evolution (evolving to imitate), and you're 100% dead set on the fact that 'because it makes so much sense someone HAD to create it, I ask you this:

Who created your creator?

- Jim

Everything I have in my possession is in print...I will run a quick search to see what I can find online.


Again I must clarify that I do not believe that everyone should be a christian. I do not have a problem with people choosing not to believe in God. That's their problem, not mine. If they wish to just cease to exist when they die, great. Your belief is your choice. My problem lies in cases where people try to deny me my religious rights by having symbols of christianity banned...and it's not even a problem to me in situations where their rights REALLY ARE being denied...for example, if you have a problem with christian activists protesting an abortion clinic...then I side with you. That IS "having religion forced" on you. However, the simple display of the ten commandments or statues of religious figures...give me a break. Talk about picking a fight. You got a problem with it? DON'T LOOK AT IT!!!!


Article VI clause 1 deals with past contracts, clause 2 with uniformity among state courts and clause 3 deals with religion being a part of employment requirements.

I have no argument against the idea that religion should not be a factor in hiring...or trying someone in court. The simple fact that the ten commandments are displayed in a courtroom does not constitute anything that the constitution forbids. Again, they are simply words (especially if you are a non-believer)...if you don't like the name of the courthouse, does that mean you have a right to sue the state to get the name removed?


A glint IS in fact a human interpretation. Butterflys, for instance, do not see color...they see texture...and therefore cannot detect a glint. Actually very few beings other than humans would be able to detect and discern such a reflection. Thus the reason it defies science. If only humans know what it is, how did it get on a butterfly?


Here's another great comment. Non-believers always rely on science, but very few of them know all that much about it. Have you studied fractal geometry? Quantum physics and string theory? My point...all these areas of science are vastly uncharted. Fractal geometry deals with infinitely large shapes...shapes that, in reality, cannot possibly have a defined volume in our frame of reference. Yet many of our devised methods claim there is an "exact" volume for most of these shapes. Why? Because these things are beyond our comprehension. The human mind cannot comprehend the concept of inifinty. Think about it...can you picture a string that doesn't end (the entire thing)? Of course not. Yet our scientific methods claim that we should be able to grasp these concepts. It's a glitch, an imperfection in the scientific method. My point again, is that there is alot out there that we have yet to discover and understand. Science, essentially, is the study of the world around us. It does not DEFINE the world around us.

So many people picture God as some old man living on some cloud. God is not a man, God is not a being. What God is exactly, is something that the human mind cannot comprehend. We put a human face to him in an attempt to understand what we can't understand. God is the creator, who needed no creation.

You claim that the human mind cannot comprehend god, correct? Yet you're defining 'god' in your very own paragraph. Christians always say god is so immense we cannot possibly understand him, yet they always say "oh it's because god wanted to" or "Oh it's just God's way" or "It's in god's plan". Heck, they have a few books dedicated to EXPLAINING god.

I see hypocrisy here.

- Jim

PS: I don't think that any sane person would consider 'the removal of religious symbols/text from state/federal buildings' in the same ballpark as 'denying you your religous rights'. As for banning symbols of your religion, GET USED TO IT. IT"S THE LAW. The law here is FREEDOM of religion, and state/federal buildings CANNOT have religious crap laying around. It isn't right. This country was based on christian principles (which is kinda funny, because basically all the 'good parts' of the bible that everybody agrees on are usually common in all the other religions), but it was also designed to AVOID the mixing of church and state. Here in America, we have no national religion, or even language for that matter. That's what makes it so great! We are truly the melting pot, and with so many different cultures, religions and people all in one spot we've become the most productive, powerful, and innovative nation in the world, along with the highest standard of living. If you had things YOUR way, I'm sure we'd have crosses all over the place, religious text on our parking tickets, and 100% christian rock radio.

No thank ye.

Thread for Shadow about a higher power
 

quote:

The origin of the Argument by Design is a feeling that the existence of something as incredibly intricate as, say, a human is so improbable that surely it can't have come about by chance; that surely there must be some external intelligence directing things so that humans come from the chaos deliberately.


But if human intelligence is so improbable, surely the existence of a mind capable of fashioning an entire universe complete with conscious beings must be immeasurably more unlikely? The approach used to argue in favor of the existence of a creator can be turned around and applied to the Creationist position.


This leads us to the familiar theme of "If a creator created the universe, what created the creator?", but with the addition of spiralling improbability. The only way out is to declare that the creator was not created and just "is" (or "was").


From here we might as well ask what is wrong with saying that the universe just "is" without introducing a creator? Indeed Stephen Hawking, in his book "A Brief History of Time", explains his theory that the universe is closed and finite in extent, with no beginning or end.


The Argument From Design is often stated by analogy, in the so-called Watchmaker Argument. One is asked to imagine that one has found a watch on the beach. Does one assume that it was created by a watchmaker, or that it evolved naturally? Of course one assumes a watchmaker. Yet like the watch, the universe is intricate and complex; so, the argument goes, the universe too must have a creator.


The Watchmaker analogy suffers from three particular flaws, over and above those common to all Arguments By Design. Firstly, a watchmaker creates watches from pre-existing materials, whereas God is claimed to have created the universe from nothing. These two sorts of creation are clearly fundamentally different, and the analogy is therefore rather weak.


Secondly, a watchmaker makes watches, but there are many other things in the world. If we walked further along the beach and found a nuclear reactor, we wouldn't assume it was created by the watchmaker. The argument would therefore suggest a multitude of creators, each responsible for a different part of creation (or a different universe, if you allow the possibility that there might be more than one).


Finally, in the first part of the watchmaker argument we conclude that the watch is not part of nature because it is ordered, and therefore stands out from the randomness of nature. Yet in the second part of the argument, we start from the position that the universe is obviously not random, but shows elements of order. The Watchmaker argument is thus internally inconsistent.


Apart from logical inconsistencies in the watchmaker argument, it's worth pointing out that biological systems and mechanical systems behave very differently. What's unlikely for a pile of gears is not necessarily unlikely for a mixture of biological molecules.

Correct.


Nowhere did I define God. I made a bunch of generalizations to try to get my point across.

You really haven't said anything here.

We can explain that we can't understand him. Saying "it's just God's way" is not understanding him. It's accepting him.

There are no books that "explain" God. That's ridiculous.

According to an atheist, having a religious symbol in a state building would be denying that person's rights ("forcing christianity on them). Therefore, NOT having it must be denying my rights, because that would be "forcing atheism on me".

Again you try to claim that there is such thing as a person with NO religion. That is simply not true.


Wrong. It is most certainly NOT the law. You said it yourself here:

Which means no one religion is more important than another. Atheism does not take precedence over christianity...etc.

Correct...then why do people use the courts to try to tell churches what to do? THAT is mixing church and state.

Don't even start with this BS. I've already said many times I have no problem with other religions. You can do whatever you want, and even if I was King of America, I wouldn't change that. Besides, I don't listen to christian music.

PS...if I had things my way, there would be no parking tickets.

So wait, you claim that God is SO complex (but was never ever created, God has always just existed, and you're okay with god having always existed, you just can NOT accept that the universe might have always existed) that humans cannot possibly begin to fathom the SLIGHTEST amount of the true nature of "god", yet you're able to make generalizations about God? Surely if god was so incredibly mind-blowingly complex it would be extremely difficult to make a generalization right?

Quote:

You really haven't said anything here. We can explain that we can't understand him. Saying "it's just God's way" is not understanding him. It's accepting him. There are no books that "explain" God. That's ridiculous.

Actually I have. If you choose to ignore it, that is your own free will (or wait, did God make you ignore it?). What I pointed out was that on one hand, Christians say God is so complex we're akin to an ant describing quantum physics.... but on the other hand, HUMANS have written 2 books about the christian god which explains God's reasoning for doing things, what god likes/dislikes, and how god goes about doing things. So which is it? Impossible to understand? Or within the reach of us lowly humans ? (and if 'we' wrote books about it, it surely must be able to be understood)

Quote:

According to an atheist, having a religious symbol in a state building would be denying that person's rights ("forcing christianity on them).

Wrong. According to anybody who believes in what America was designed to be: A nation that does NOT mix religion and politics. Here are some quotes from our forefathers to help remind you:

"Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." - James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" - John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson

"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose." - Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813

"I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it." - Benjamin Franklin from "Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion", Nov. 20, 1728

All of these men designed this country so that Religion would NOT be allowed to be intertwined with the government. Do you consider yourself smarter than any of these men? Do you consider your opinion to be better than theirs? Do you think that your opinion would better serve the country?

Quote:

Therefore, NOT having it must be denying my rights, because that would be "forcing atheism on me".

Uh... even a 2nd grader could point out the logical fallacy in this one. You've just stated a double negative. So basically, what you just said is "Therefore, having it must be my right!", when clearly, CLEARLY, it is not your right to have your religion or religious objects displayed all over state and federal buildings.

Quote:

Again you try to claim that there is such thing as a person with NO religion. That is simply not true.

Religion requires the belief in a higher power/ supernatural power. Some people do not believe in either... HENCE, they are not religious. You're confusing religion with morals and ethics, my friend.

Quote:

PS...if I had things my way, there would be no parking tickets.

Well there's something we can agree on. :) Meter maids are the first to go when the revolution comes. :P

- Jim

Intricateness in anything is not necessarily a hardline factor of it's being apparently woven as opposed to being randomly constructed by natural forces.

My problem has always been discerning whether one is meant to separate said forces and natural phenomena from divine/spiritually driven machinations.

Humankind increases it's ability to astound, as well as confound itself as progress answers questions noone asked and age-old questions remain mystery. It further separates itself from the mystery, cloaking it in the wonderful answers of science.

What I say is, some people look at a cell, and see the very accidental combobulation of life.
Some people see the very creation of purpose.
Others see a cell.

Be it random chemical and molecular bonding or precisely woven patterns, it's there as you see it before you.


My argument has always been to think of the unthinkable. Imagine literally if nothing were to exist.
Now that would be impossible.
The only alternative is possibility.
Existence.
The question of existence is purpose.
Discover the purpose of a thing's existence, and you will thereby be able to unravel it's intricate meaning, and feel no need to ponder ones own artificiality.

my cats breath smells like catfood.

^ ZEN.

ednote: Nothing is as chaotic as appears. Ones understanding is merely unorganized, rendering the event only apparently dischordous.

You're pretty much making my point for me here. This is the third time you have failed to understand what I am saying when I say we cannot fully understand God. I'll try it again, yet another way. Humans are limited to fully understanding only what we know. We have never met an all-powerful all-knowing being...therefore we don't really know what one would be like. We can say what he wants for us, because he's given us plenty of references, but we can't really say what he is really like, how he looks, how long he has been around, what things were like before him, or if there even was a "before him"...etc.

See? It is extremely difficult to make generalizations about God.

Again, your assuming that just because we've written about something, that means we fully understand it. Hundreds of books have been written about black holes....describing what they look like, how they work, and what is on the other side. Yet we largely have no clue what a black hole really is. just because we don't really understand it, doesn't mean we can't talk about it. We can try.

You're just taking my words a bit farther than they were meant to go.

So here is the dilemma then. Since, in the legal definition of the word, there is no such thing as a person with no religion, how do you decide which one takes precedence? Are public buildings just supposed to not even mention christmas when it comes along? Putting out a manger scene is denying atheists their rights, whereas putting out santa claus, reindeer and a tree, is denying a christian their rights. So what, ever knowledgeable sir, are we supposed to do? Do you really want to turn this country into a watered-down super PC land full of trial lawyers? It sounds like that would make you happy.

Well you are certainly at or above the second grade level then, because you're right. Having it IS my right. Atheists claim that it is their right to have their symbols of their beliefs in public places (i.e. santa claus) but it is not within a christian's rights to have their symbols in public places. CLEARLY you should be able to see that this truly is "freedom of religion".

Wrong. I am speaking ONLY in the legal definition of religion, which does not include the believe in supernatural powers (because of the separation of church and state, the government cannot acknowledge the idea of supernatural powers, therefore a legal definition CANNOT include such concept). See how it works? Some people just don't realize the full ramifications of their actions and beliefs.

Now I've never really read the whole Bible, and I never really plan too. But I know that in several of the stories, God does speak to and appear in front of (even if in the form of say a burning bush cough....marijuana....cough). Do you not get a sense of what a person is like by speaking to them?

On the issue of everyone has a religion, I would like everyone to please send donations to support the Church of Steve...and please kill a meter maid in my name.