pajarito 0
Tink1717 2
QuoteThe reason is that we are all people whether you're religious or not and are, therefore, fallable.
Then why don't we see a bunch of atheists flying airplanes into buildings? Or slaughtering their fellow countrymen because they don't belong to the same tribe that the invisible man in the sky says are his "Chosen" people?
QuoteNo, I don't necessarily need the threat of everlasting punishment to cause me to behave in a moral fashion...but it helps.
Why does it help?
QuoteI am not in any way advocating that the gov't arm itself with the power and authority of a diety (not that it could). Separation of church and state does not, however, prohibit the acknowledgement of God. I'm saying that I believe our gov't needs the grace of God to remain great.
Yes you are. To involve the state with any aspect of religion is to wrongfully entangle both church and state. The acknowledgement of a god, any god, is an act of endorsement by the state that advances a given religion, favors one religion over another, and foster entanglement of the state with religion. This is impermissible under the constitution.
Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717
pajarito 0
QuoteThen why don't we see a bunch of atheists flying airplanes into buildings? Or slaughtering their fellow countrymen because they don't belong to the same tribe that the invisible man in the sky says are his "Chosen" people?
9-11 isn't the only example of people doing evil things. Are you honestly telling me that atheists are incapable of doing evil?
QuoteWhy does it help?
I derive my set of standards and morals from a higher source. If one does not, the standards and morals are made up by the individual. Everybody is different and would have their own versions of what they feel is right or wrong.
QuoteYes you are. To involve the state with any aspect of religion is to wrongfully entangle both church and state. The acknowledgement of a god, any god, is an act of endorsement by the state that advances a given religion, favors one religion over another, and foster entanglement of the state with religion. This is impermissible under the constitution.
This is simply not true. Acknowledgement of God by the State in no way endorses a particular religion. This has been covered in great detail in previous posts.
jakee 1,259
QuoteAnd all this you still miss the FACT that religion was the reason for the founding of the country.
No No No.
The reason for the settlement of america was because it was there and it had a good climate and abundant natural resources.
The reason for the founding of the nation state was to get away from taxation without representation as someone pointed out earlier.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
jakee 1,259
yes, you did say that there was no SET relation between belief and morality. You may believe that religious people are in general more moral than non religious but you DID admit that religious belief does not neccesarily mean a person has good morals.
Aside from that,
I find this statement personally offensive, lets take it apart piece by piece shall we?
Who told you to be good, was it god himself or one of his ministers? I'm going to bet that it's the latter.
in that case who told him to be good, was it God Himself? in that case why does this minister have a direct line to god that you do not, seems stupid. If god did not talk to this minister then basically you are doing what another HUMAN has told you is right, same as the rest of us.
OK, so what if it was god himself that told you to be good, or instilled in you an inate sense of 'goodness'.
do you have to believe in god to have that inate sense of goodness, that would be kind of strange now wouldn't it?
Therefore a president would not have to be a believer to know what is right or wrong because 'God' already told him without his knowing it.
Aside from that,
QuoteI do think there is a set relation between my religious belief and the standards for what is considered right and wrong. That's not something I leave up to humanistic determination.
I find this statement personally offensive, lets take it apart piece by piece shall we?
Who told you to be good, was it god himself or one of his ministers? I'm going to bet that it's the latter.
in that case who told him to be good, was it God Himself? in that case why does this minister have a direct line to god that you do not, seems stupid. If god did not talk to this minister then basically you are doing what another HUMAN has told you is right, same as the rest of us.
OK, so what if it was god himself that told you to be good, or instilled in you an inate sense of 'goodness'.
do you have to believe in god to have that inate sense of goodness, that would be kind of strange now wouldn't it?
Therefore a president would not have to be a believer to know what is right or wrong because 'God' already told him without his knowing it.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
Tink1717 2
Quote9-11 isn't the only example of people doing evil things. Are you honestly telling me that atheists are incapable of doing evil?
No, but there are no terrorist groups based on atheism.
QuoteI derive my set of standards and morals from a higher source. If one does not, the standards and morals are made up by the individual. Everybody is different and would have their own versions of what they feel is right or wrong.
So you aren't capable of knowing right from wrong by yourself and need an ancient book of lyrical poetry to resolve the issue?
QuoteThis is simply not true. Acknowledgement of God by the State in no way endorses a particular religion. This has been covered in great detail in previous posts.
Yes it is. That is why the courts rule consistently against the state endorsing any stance that has to do with religion.
Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717
jakee 1,259
QuoteI derive my set of standards and morals from a higher source. If one does not, the standards and morals are made up by the individual. Everybody is different and would have their own versions of what they feel is right or wrong.
Tink1717, to be fair to the guy I honestly don't think that anyone has a personal ready made set of morals from the word go. However i think that the moral values we end up with are given to us by society as a whole.
The thing is that the predominant religion in most societies, including ours has absolutely sweet fuck all to do with what society considers acceptable.
Look at christian europe through the last two millenia and see the changes in what was acceptable in the way individuals, governments, churches and armies acted and compare it to what is acceptable nowadays. Absolutely no comparison, also no comparison between our set of morals and the biblical set of morals.
People who do follow the bible to the letter are generally considered scary homophobic woman hating right wing cult members.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
pajarito 0
What I'm saying is that all people, religious or not, are sinners by nature and have the capability of doing bad. My particular religion sets a standard for morality. That's what I should stive for although I don't always. I can never entirely meet that standard. Therefore, there is, in fact, a set relation between belief in my religion and morality. However, I know many nonreligious and moral people. I never said that if you weren't a Christian, you were immoral. I believe that God places in all of us a basic internal understanding of what is right or wrong (basically speaking). What you choose to do with that is your choice.
The second part can be debated all night long and already has before on dz.com. However, I personally believe that the Christian Bible is the Word of God. It was written by men but inspired by God himself. This was passed down to me (and you). It is my standard for morality. I probably have already heard all of the objections you're about to fire back at me. Authenticity, historical accuracy, etc. In answer to your question, however, no, I don't do right just because my Minister tells me to. I try to do it because that's what God says to do.
The second part can be debated all night long and already has before on dz.com. However, I personally believe that the Christian Bible is the Word of God. It was written by men but inspired by God himself. This was passed down to me (and you). It is my standard for morality. I probably have already heard all of the objections you're about to fire back at me. Authenticity, historical accuracy, etc. In answer to your question, however, no, I don't do right just because my Minister tells me to. I try to do it because that's what God says to do.
billvon 2,434
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>No, but there are no terrorist groups based on atheism.
Nonsense! Froman article by Charles Henderson:
====================================
Recent research into the causes of terrorism by Robert A. Pape who teaches political science at the University of Chicago reveals much of this thinking to be flawed. Pape reports in a recent New York Times op-ed piece that he has compiled a database of every suicide bombing and attack around the globe from 1980 to 2001. According to Pape's research, there have been 188 such attacks, including those of Sept 11 and the long series that seems to continue without end in Israel, and now in Iraq. Pape defines a "terrorist attack" as any incident in which at least one person kills himself or herself while attempting to kill others. His data reveals that there is "little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism." He continues: "In fact, the leading instigator of suicide attacks is the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist-Leninist group whose members are from Hindu families but who are adamantly opposed to religion." The Tamil Tigers are responsible for 75 of the 188 incidents in Pape's database. By this reckoning, atheists are responsible for more terrorist attacks than religious extremists.
======================================
Nonsense! Froman article by Charles Henderson:
====================================
Recent research into the causes of terrorism by Robert A. Pape who teaches political science at the University of Chicago reveals much of this thinking to be flawed. Pape reports in a recent New York Times op-ed piece that he has compiled a database of every suicide bombing and attack around the globe from 1980 to 2001. According to Pape's research, there have been 188 such attacks, including those of Sept 11 and the long series that seems to continue without end in Israel, and now in Iraq. Pape defines a "terrorist attack" as any incident in which at least one person kills himself or herself while attempting to kill others. His data reveals that there is "little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism." He continues: "In fact, the leading instigator of suicide attacks is the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist-Leninist group whose members are from Hindu families but who are adamantly opposed to religion." The Tamil Tigers are responsible for 75 of the 188 incidents in Pape's database. By this reckoning, atheists are responsible for more terrorist attacks than religious extremists.
======================================
pajarito 0
QuotePeople who do follow the bible to the letter are generally considered scary homophobic woman hating right wing cult members.
What a hateful statement. First, nobody can follow the laws set forth in the Bible to the letter. Aside from that, your statment would be like me saying that all Athiests are evil cult members, rapers of women, and sacrificial baby killers. I know that's not the case so I won't make that ignorant generalistic statement.
jakee 1,259
QuoteI believe that God places in all of us a basic internal understanding of what is right or wrong
That is my point. Why would you not vote for someone who shares all your political ideals and is willing to stand up for them and in your own words has an internal understanding of what is right and wrong just because he doesn't believe in your god. You have just said that it does not make him any more or less likely to do the right thing than a regular church goer.
And then more generally, if the inate sense of morality is given to you by god then why would you need the bible, the church and the ministers and your religions standard of morality to tell you what 'god' has already put inside you?
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
jakee 1,259
look, i didnt say that christians are bad people, it was not a generalistic statement it was focused at a very small but vocal section of society.
i just said that these day's, people who try to follow the exact words of the bible, both testaments, are generally considered to be very scary people. Right to life people who bomb abortion clinics for religious reasons, that sort of stuff, it was in no way directed at you or any other people who posted on this thread.
Oh and just to pick hairs, Atheistic cult members? isn't that an oxymoron.
i just said that these day's, people who try to follow the exact words of the bible, both testaments, are generally considered to be very scary people. Right to life people who bomb abortion clinics for religious reasons, that sort of stuff, it was in no way directed at you or any other people who posted on this thread.
Oh and just to pick hairs, Atheistic cult members? isn't that an oxymoron.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
wmw999 2,148
QuoteWhat I'm saying is that all people, religious or not, are sinners by nature and have the capability of doing bad.
If you take out the "sinners by nature" I don't think anyone will disagree with your statement. Everyone has the capacity to do bad.
QuoteMy particular religion sets a standard for morality
It does. That standard is based on the 10 commandments, and a lot of other rules that go along with it. Some of the rules, as written in what's now considered to be the Bible, are contradictory between each other. There are people who are OK with this because the Bible as a whole is more important than the pieces; they have a variety of degrees of reliance on the rest of the Bible. There are people who reject the Bible because of this inconsistency. There are people who don't really care. And then there are the people who do say that every letter is the truth from God Himself. And they build ideological and behavioral castles and sandpits to justify the internal inconsistencies, and stuff that many people now think is just plain wrong.
QuoteI believe that God places in all of us a basic internal understanding of what is right or wrong (basically speaking).
If God did this for someone who rejects God, does that mean that his internal moral code is meaningless? And if God did this for someone who thinks he follows God, but who doesn't seem to pay much attention to morals, does that make him a better person?
If you're going to trust God to make people in His image, then you're going to have to trust that all of those people, even the ones you disagree with, have the same capacity for good and evil, and the free will to exercise it.
Wendy W.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
Ron 7
QuoteThe reason for the settlement of america was because it was there and it had a good climate and abundant natural resources.
Wrong. While those reasons helped pick this location...They still fled and came here for religious reasons.
Read the story about the Mayflower Compact.
QuoteThe reason for the founding of the nation state was to get away from taxation without representation as someone pointed out earlier.
That person was me. And while it may be one reason they formed a government...The reason they were standing on this rock was to escape religious persecution.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
quade 3
Quote
Wrong. While those reasons helped pick this location...They still fled and came here for religious reasons.
Read the story about the Mayflower Compact.
Ron, you're a pretty smart guy, would you agree that while some of the folks (most of the folks?) on the Mayflower came here to and based their compact in religious terms, others came here for entirely different reasons and with entirely different ideas?
For instance, the folks at Jamestown or the folks that came here entirely against their will?
Or what about the folks that were already here -well- before the Mayflower landed? Or the Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria as well?
Ok, what's so freekin' special about the Mayflower anyway? It was ONE boat load of folks out of thousands. Not only that, the Mayflower Compact wasn't the founding of this country anymore than the charter of the Virgnia Company was.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
Ron 7
Quoteyou're a pretty smart guy, would you agree that while some of the folks (most of the folks?) on the Mayflower came here to and based their compact in religious terms, others came here for entirely different reasons and with entirely different ideas?
Yes, but the people on the Mayflower were all trying to escape England and the King.
QuoteFor instance, the folks at Jamestown or the folks that came here entirely against their will?
Or what about the folks that were already here -well- before the Mayflower landed? Or the Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria as well?
Ok, what's so freekin' special about the Mayflower anyway? It was ONE boat load of folks out of thousands.
The thing that was special about the Mayflower vs. all the other prior folks that came over is simple. The other folks came for money or on a mission from someone. The people on the Mayflower came on their own to escape the King and start a new life AWAY from Europe. Not an extension of it.
QuoteNot only that, the Mayflower Compact wasn't the founding of this country anymore than the charter of the Virgnia Company was.
The difference was that the Mayflower compact was a document created BY THE PEOPLE IT WOULD GOVERN, not by a King. In the case of the Virginia Company it was GIVEN to them by King James I.
Mayflower Compact, first colonial agreement that formed a government by the consent of the governed.
So the Mayflower Compact was the first document in the Americas by the people for the people. The very tenant that this country was founded on.
It also formed the first Government in the Americas.
QuotePlymouth Colony did not receive an English royal charter, and so the compact determined governmental authority in the colony until it became part of the Massachusetts colony in 1691.
The whole notion of By the people, for the people was the very basis for our Constitution.
QuoteWe the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
So in a very real sense it was the start of our current Government...Or at the very least a blue print that our founding fathers used.
And it was written by a Church. With several references to God.
QuoteIN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid: And by Virtue hereof do enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions, and Officers, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general Good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due Submission and Obedience. IN WITNESS whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape-Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, Anno Domini; 1620.
And the Declaration Of Independence mentions God
QuoteWhen in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident:
That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;
Now to give credit...It does not mention WHICH God... But, how can you say that both of these documents are not based on religion?
Artical I of the Bill of Rights. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/rights1.htm#1
QuoteI - Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition
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.
It says that the Govenrment will not make a law RESPECTING
Quotetr.v. re·spect·ed, re·spect·ing, re·spects
To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem.
To avoid violation of or interference with: respect the speed limit.
To relate or refer to; concern.
n.
A feeling of appreciative, often deferential regard; esteem.
The state of being regarded with honor or esteem.
Willingness to show consideration or appreciation.
respects Polite expressions of consideration or deference: pay one's respects.
So they are saying they will not respect one religion over another.
So Artical I gives you the right to worship how you choose and says that the government will make no laws that favor any single religion, and it will not outlaw any religion.
It does not make the Constituiton Godless. It just lets everyone worship how they wish.
(For the record...I'm not even the slightest bit religious.... More evil has been done in the name of "My God is better than yours".) I have the RIGHT to think that way...You can't make me do anything else and the Government will not make a law that makes me.
However the Bill of rights was not in the original Constitution..It was put in 3 years later.
I agree with the way this country looks at religion.
However it is very obtuse to not recognize that the very start of this Nation was based on religion.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
juanesky 0
Ron, the spaniards came to the continent before, and thus your assertion about the first government of the americas it not right.....yet the portion of the first document by the people and for the people is right.
"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon
kallend 1,648
The Mayflower pilgrims left England and Holland because of THEIR religious intolerance. They were puritans who wished to impose their lifestyle on everyone else. Everyone else wasn't about to comply, and the puritans didn't like it.
The events at Salem subsequently showed how intolerant they were.
The religious right hasn't changed much in 400 years!
The events at Salem subsequently showed how intolerant they were.
The religious right hasn't changed much in 400 years!
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Ron 7
QuoteRon, the spaniards came to the continent before, and thus your assertion about the first government of the americas it not right.....yet the portion of the first document by the people and for the people is right.
The Spanish came as Spaniards....Not as people trying to start an independent new government. The Spanish were still answering to Spain.
THAT is the difference.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
Ron 7
QuoteThe Mayflower pilgrims left England and Holland because of THEIR religious intolerance. They were puritans who wished to impose their lifestyle on everyone else. Everyone else wasn't about to comply, and the puritans didn't like it.
Shows how they were free to do as they pleased here...And you just backed my point that the US was founded on religion.
QuoteThe events at Salem subsequently showed how intolerant they were.
As do the Crusaides...The Spanish Inquisition, the Jews killing Jesus, Al-Quida....Yada, yada, yada, show other religions are bad and have done bad things.
But still my only point was the US was founded based on Religion. Which is true.
QuoteThe religious right hasn't changed much in 400 years!
And the left has not changed either....For the record, I'm not a Christain or a Jew, Muslm, buddist...ect. I don't believe in anything but facts...Which you don't seem to have much of at times.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
rehmwa 2
Quote
The Mayflower pilgrims left England and Holland because of THEIR religious intolerance. They were puritans who wished to impose their lifestyle on everyone else. Everyone else wasn't about to comply, and the puritans didn't like it.
The events at Salem subsequently showed how intolerant they were.
The religious right hasn't changed much in 400 years!
I think if you look at where they landed, the intolerant pilgrims didn't evolve into the religious right, they became the rich democrats of today. {{It's a different form of intolerant religion - and just as bad and more hypocritical}}
Edit: people have been plain ignoring John this week so far and I end up biting on a 'drive by' - must control reflex posting.......
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
The reason is that we are all people whether you're religious or not and are, therefore, fallable.
No, I don't necessarily need the threat of everlasting punishment to cause me to behave in a moral fashion...but it helps.
I am not in any way advocating that the gov't arm itself with the power and authority of a diety (not that it could). Separation of church and state does not, however, prohibit the acnowledgement of God. I'm saying that I believe our gov't needs the grace of God to remain great.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites