0
funjumper101

Freedom OF religion means freedom FROM religion

Recommended Posts

Quote

No... no they can’t...



Yes, they can. And they do.

Quote

You’re Funny! That is possible, because of the US Constitution...



The Constitution that doesn't mention God?

The Constitution that sets up rights as People -> Government (to use your illustration)?

And even where documents do mention God - so what? Words don't create reality, not in that sense.

Quote

But as John Locke felt... atheism, is irrational.



Oh no, I'm on the wrong side of John Locke! How can I possibly carry on in the face of his 'feeling'?
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:)
Sorry... I’m back. Thought I wasn’t going to reply? Nah, just busy...

Hmm... I didn’t mean to bring up that Locke quote, juuuust yet. Oh well...

How Can One Know There Is a God?

In his Essay Concerning Human Understanding, John Locke insisted that everyone can know there is a divine Creator. It is simply a case of thinking about it.

To begin with, each person knows that he exists. With Descartes each person can say, “Cogito ergo sum.” With God, each person can say,“I AM!”

Furthermore, each person knows that he is something. He also knows that a something could not be produced by a nothing. Therefore, whatever brought man and everything else into existence also had to be something.

It follows that this something which did all of this organizing and arranging would have to be all knowing to the full extent required for such an organization and arrangement.

This something would therefore have to be superior to everything which had resulted from this effort. This element of superiority makes this something the ultimate “good” for all that has been organized and arranged. In the ---- language, the word for supreme or ultimate good is “God.”

Michio Kaku has regularly corrected the improper usage of, The Big Bang. He states that in starting from a singularity, it was actually very small... and in space, there was no bang... no sound.

Looking at Locke above... if we started from a singularity, well, where did it come from? You can’t have nothingness, and then have, something... despite its size.

If there is a God... where did God come from? What created God? You can’t have nothingness, and then have a Creator?

The human mind is finite... we cannot understand the infinite.

Einstein said:
I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirits of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.

He didn’t believe in a God of Divine intervention... he believe in a God of organization. Things were too structured... it could have been chaotic. He spoke of spinoza's god... ok, well, that’s one other way to see it.

Personally... I do believe in a Creator of Divine intervention, and in my life, have questioned my faith many times. Yet I am also fascinated by science. Very interested in the words of those like Michio Kaku... or Einstein.

And it seems, that even Einstein would agree... atheism is irrational.

HOWEVER! You have the freedom to be an atheist... because...


“Factually Incorrect” :)
Riiight... but regardless of the British Bill of Rights, the King still had influence, how much and for how long, I don’t really care about or need to debate. Doesn’t add anything to the point I am making. And ah, a parliamentary democracy, isn’t much better...

Regardless of who had power at the time of the American Revolution, or at the signing of any document or whatever, England under a King, the King got his power from God, his right to rule was divine, and then he delegated rights to the people... controlling the people.

The Founders set up a system where the power that came from God, went directly to the people. The people lend that power to government... to protect them. The people control the government, for the people are not the problem... an ever expanding and controlling government is.

What was, “Factually Incorrect”? It wasn’t the Founders who came up with that setup, they adopted it... from those whose language is spoken of above. This and many other ideas were combined to create maximum freedom.

God -> People -> Govt. ---- Do you know what that is called? ;)

In a Parliamentary Democracy... there is no God... it is majority rule.

Our Founders made us a Republic, for a reason... a Democratic Republic.

We are not a Democracy. Democracy always leads to mob rule... and leads to Tyranny. Nowhere in history can one name a democracy that has not resulted or ended in tyranny.

Jakee, you call the UK free? Come on, really? What do you think about Daniel Hannan?

A quick peak at the ever popular Wiki. The British Bill of Rights:
“It enumerates certain rights to which subjects and permanent residents of a constitutional monarchy were thought to be entitled in the late 17th century, asserting subjects' right to petition the monarch, as well as to have arms in defense. It also sets out--or, in the view of its drafters, restates--certain constitutional requirements of the Crown to seek the consent of the people, as represented in parliament.”

Last conversation I had with a UK BASE buddy, your island still doesn’t have the right to bear arms, right? Heard a lot of stories! Hmmm... I still do. Even though Cass Sunstein tried to increase the price of ammunition by ending all spent military cartridges from being resold to the private market... in essence, not changing the law but as he explains in his book, NUDGE, nudging the public into the behavior they want... by making it so expensive we can’t afford to load our means of self defense.

And Jakee, here... I’ll reword it for you. “That’s because of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, for they guarantee, under God, your freedoms, including that of being an atheist.”

Not gonna play wording games. As I said before... without the DOI, the Constitution is nothing... just some things, that some people want... but where is the power?

With God.

D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



And Jakee, here... I’ll reword it for you. “That’s because of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, for they guarantee, under God, your freedoms, including that of being an atheist.”

Not gonna play wording games. As I said before... without the DOI, the Constitution is nothing... just some things, that some people want... but where is the power?

With God.

D



The word "God" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Declaration of Independence references a "creator" and more specifically "Nature's God". It's a beautiful, eloquent document, but it's not law. It predates the Constitution by over a decade, and after months of debate, the framers of our constitution chose not to reference a deity of any kind. That says a lot to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The word "God" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.



Neither does the word "love." :(

...right?

...but i think "sex" is in there though...so that's kinda cool.:$
Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well... you’re kinda right... but you’re kinda wrong too.

Nature’s God... predates the constitution by over a decade you say... so you would be referring to Deism then? During the Age of Enlightenment... a reason-based faith that holds a belief in God through a foundation of Reason. And yes, the word God doesn’t appear in either of those places... because it doesn’t need to.

Not only are you missing something vital... you are also not recognizing their order. The Founders didn’t refer to a specific deity... not because of the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God... Deism.

They referred to a Creator... because it IS... law.

Natural Law... God’s Law

First they spoke of Nature’s God... then of Natural Law... and as I said above, “What was, “Factually Incorrect”? It wasn’t the Founders who came up with that setup, they adopted it... from those whose language is spoken of above.”

In the Anglo-Saxon language, the word for supreme or ultimate good is “God.” And it was the Anglo-Saxon ideas about Natural Law that the Founders used as the framework for everything they came to understand.

Truths that are self-evident... being endowed by the Creator with unalienable rights.

That... is Natural Law.

Does that say a lot to you as well? Or do you have no idea what Natural law is?

A lawyer... [:/]

D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Truths that are self-evident... being endowed by the Creator with
>unalienable rights. That... is Natural Law.

It was Aristotle who first separated the idea of natural law and divine positive legislation. Natural law is law based on nature, not on more arbitrary rules from a king, a government or a religion. Thomas Aquinas made a distinction there too, and described natural law as separate from divine law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If there is a God... where did God come from? What created God? You can’t have nothingness, and then have a Creator?

The human mind is finite... we cannot understand the infinite.



It is interesting that so many people can accept the idea of an infinite creator (one that required no creation of itself), but they can't accept the idea of an infinite universe which required no creation. Personally, since I see no evidence of a "creator," I find the latter idea to be the most likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah yes... and it was Cicero who cut sharply through the political astigmatism and philosophical errors of both Plato and Aristotle to discover the touchstone for good laws, sound government, and the long-range formula for happy human relations.

Marcus Tullius Cicero - the Founders’ favorite expositor of Natural Law.

Care to elaborate on Cicero, and the Founders? And don't forget the Anglo-Saxons.

D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you even read my posts?

Quote

It is interesting that so many people can accept the idea of an infinite creator (one that required no creation of itself)



If there is a God... where did God come from? What created God? You can’t have nothingness, and then have a Creator.

Quote

but they can't accept the idea of an infinite universe which required no creation.



If we started from a singularity, well, where did it come from? You can’t have nothingness, and then have, something... despite its size.

How do you have something... from nothing? :S

D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Did you even read my posts?



Arrogant, aren't we?

When people disagree with you, it's not always because they haven't understood your arguments. Sometimes it's because you're wrong.

Quote

You can’t have nothingness, and then have a Creator.



If you can have a creator that's always been a creator why can't you have a multiverse that's always been a multiverse?
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It is interesting that so many people can accept the idea of an infinite creator (one that required no creation of itself), but they can't accept the idea of an infinite universe which required no creation. Personally, since I see no evidence of a "creator," I find the latter idea to be the most likely.



what I find interesting is how many people make such a big deal about it one way or the other up to worrying about if others feel the same way as them...

when, either way, it's kinda a moot point

...
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



what I find interesting is how many people make such a big deal about it one way or the other up to worrying about if others feel the same way as them...

when, either way, it's kinda a moot point



I don't mind people sharing their religion. I usually enjoy hearing about it, provided it's non-confrontational. I just don't like it when it's forced or legislated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

give us your answer please. you didn't address your own words.



Yes I did...

"The human mind is finite... we cannot understand the infinite."

"Personally... I do believe in a Creator of Divine intervention, and in my life, have questioned my faith many times."


I do not know for sure... and if Einstein couldn’t figure it out, I sure won’t be able to. I’m a smart guy, but not Einstein smart. Though I do share Tesla’s issues... :D

All men are created equal... and all men have one thing in common, Common Sense.

I live the best life I can... and don't worry about the specifics of the deity, until death. However... Natural Law, the DOI, the Constitution, and the Republic. These things must be clearly understood by the People... or freedom will be lost. Just a few years ago, I knew nothing of the things I am speaking about here... an American Idiot... by design.

Ask anyone who came from a nation ruled by tyranny... who lived under that tyranny... America is headed down the very same path.

There are two choices gang... Madison or Marx... it’s one radical or the other.

I’ll stick with Madison...

I think we are about as far as we can go... without, “the religion of America.”

Hmmm...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

It is interesting that so many people can accept the idea of an infinite creator (one that required no creation of itself), but they can't accept the idea of an infinite universe which required no creation. Personally, since I see no evidence of a "creator," I find the latter idea to be the most likely.



what I find interesting is how many people make such a big deal about it one way or the other up to worrying about if others feel the same way as them...

when, either way, it's kinda a moot point



I think most people on here who "make such a big deal about it" are doing it more out of boredom than out of actually caring whether anyone agrees with them. In the "real world," most people (who I know anyway) don't spend much time talking about religion one way or another.

I'm not particularly interested in convincing anyone to believe the way I do. I have a lot of friends and family who are helped by their religious beliefs, and I wouldn't want to take that away from them. For the most part, it doesn't really affect me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I think most people on here who "make such a big deal about it" are doing it more out of boredom than out of actually caring whether anyone agrees with them. In the "real world," most people (who I know anyway) don't spend much time talking about religion one way or another.



agreed!! (or at least I find a similar set in my life) - but there's still always the fanatics out there

...
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh calm down dude, you sound like an atheist version of Rush Limbaugh. None of it matters, seriously - if it gets too bad those of us who think will eventually be able to get ironic asylum in Brazil, Europe or Australia on the basis of possible persecution for lack of religious beliefs - that'll leave the dwindling population of morons bahaving like villagers from the middle ages, slowly devolving into flat-earthers and witch burners. Eventually we'll be able to return and take the land because they'll have all starved to death. Actually, I'm quite enjoying this little vision of the future, bring on the exodus!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



“Factually Incorrect” :)
Riiight... but regardless of the British Bill of Rights, the King still had influence, how much and for how long, I don’t really care about or need to debate. Doesn’t add anything to the point I am making. And ah, a parliamentary democracy, isn’t much better...



So you admit were wrong, but don't REALLY admit it. OK.

You WERE wrong. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huh, didn't even notice this post.

Quote

How Can One Know There Is a God?

In his Essay Concerning Human Understanding, John Locke insisted that everyone can know there is a divine Creator.



So have many people. None have actually yet come up with a convincing case for it.

Quote

To begin with, each person knows that he exists. With Descartes each person can say, “Cogito ergo sum.” With God, each person can say,“I AM!”



Meaningless. What is your point here? Why have you said this?

Quote

Furthermore, each person knows that he is something. He also knows that a something could not be produced by a nothing. Therefore, whatever brought man and everything else into existence also had to be something.



Assuming a conclusion. "Whatever brought man into existence".

Quote

It follows that this something which did all of this organizing and arranging would have to be all knowing to the full extent required for such an organization and arrangement.



You have not yet mentioned organising and arranging, but now there must be something which organised and arranged? What is organised? What is arranged?

Even accepting the above, why does it follow that a thing would need to be all knowing to organise whatever has been organised?

Further, utilising your (questionable) logic, this hypothesised all knowing entity must know that it is something. It must know that the something it is cannot have come from nothing. So what something led to the something that led to us?

Quote

This something would therefore have to be superior to everything which had resulted from this effort. This element of superiority makes this something the ultimate “good” for all that has been organized and arranged.



Why? Does knowledge equal morality? Does power equal morality? How does aptitude for organisation make something good?

Quote

And it seems, that even Einstein would agree... atheism is irrational.



And?

Quote

We are not a Democracy. Democracy always leads to mob rule... and leads to Tyranny. Nowhere in history can one name a democracy that has not resulted or ended in tyranny.



Nowhere in history can one name any state, of any form (except for the ones still going) that has not ended in tyranny or invasion.

Quote

your island still doesn’t have the right to bear arms, right?



Depends on what arms and in what situations. Just like your country.

Quote

And Jakee, here... I’ll reword it for you. “That’s because of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, for they guarantee, under God, your freedoms, including that of being an atheist.”



Reworded, but still wrong.

Quote

the Constitution is nothing... just some things, that some people want... but where is the power?

With God.



Right. So when the Gov't makes an unconstitutional law God comes down and smites them, does he?

Funny, I've never seen that on the news - I thought it tended to get sorted out with the Supremes.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0