What?
What is condescending about it?
I simply stated that the Founders made it a point for all religions to be shown the same freedoms.
How are the same freedoms being shown when the currency is plastered with God and only God?
What it comes off as is a subtle way of saying to the other theists that their God/s do not matter and that Atheists are second-class citizens.
If we were showing the same freedoms then each denomination of currency would imply we trust in different religious leaders because we're made up of different people from different walks of faith.
God on the 5, Alla on the 20, Budda on the 1 etc etc.
Perhaps I read your post the wrong but it reads like the founders were Christian and thus wanted to spread Christianity with religious freedoms for others as being some kind of afterthought.
This is far from the truth yet the pledge and currency are examples where we directly promote the Christian God only.
As for my own beliefs, I am wishy-washy. I really don't think there is a god, which makes me atheist. But I know that I don't have all the wisdom in the world and cannot know for sure, which also makes me agnostic. And I really don't think it's necessary to discuss in everyday life or care about or worry about in everyday life. It's not part of my personality, not a big part of my identity at all. There comes a point where I have to tell people that I simply don't care. For that reason, I prefer to just be called non-religious.
Agnosticism and Gnosticism are not exclusive from atheism and theism! Saying "I'm agnostic!" doesn't actually mean anything.
From what you've said, you are an agnostic atheist. An agnostic atheist can be summed up as "I don't think there is a deity but I can never be 100% sure."
A gnostic atheist says "I am sure there is no deity, no doubt in my mind."
A gnostic theist says "I am sure there is a deity, no doubt in my mind."
An agnostic theist says "I do think there is a deity but I can never be 100% sure."
Hope that clears up a little.
the two terms have really nothing to do with each other, other than that they both deal with a "god"
so I'll agree with what you were getting at, but I disagree with your method of doing so.
gnosticism deals solely with knowledge, theism has to do with belief, the prefix a- meaning without.
Asura.Kosmik said:
Phoenix.Neosutra said:
It was a comparison of the massive amount of active public atrocities and publicity that is done by theists versus atheists (i.e. almost none by atheists).
What about the ones that try to get Nativity scenes taken down from public places? Or the ones that try to remove "In God We Trust" from the currency? Or the ones that try to remove "One Nation under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance?
There's plenty of nutjobs on both sides.
how do wishing for any of those things qualify an atheist as a "nutjob" we're not the people who rely on magic to explain things.
It was a comparison of the massive amount of active public atrocities and publicity that is done by theists versus atheists (i.e. almost none by atheists).
What about the ones that try to get Nativity scenes taken down from public places? Or the ones that try to remove "In God We Trust" from the currency? Or the ones that try to remove "One Nation under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance?
There's plenty of nutjobs on both sides.
Nutjobs?
You mean for not wanting government sponsored support of one religion when it's clear that it violates the constitution and intent of our nation?
You do know that "In God We Trust" was added to our currency in the 50s right? Same for the pledge.
Would you be equally ok if the currency said "In Allah we trust", or "There is no god".
That fact that you find it "extreme" and "militant" that people get upset when theists throw their religion down everyone elses throats just shows how blind you are to reality.
If I lived in a nation founded on Islam, I wouldn't care if the currency read "In Allah We Trust" (same god anyway different name)
Whether you like it or not, truth is the US was founded on Christian beliefs and ideals. We happened to let all religions have the same freedoms, but that doesn't change the fact of the matter.
lolwhat?
the truth is apparently you're severely mistaken on who mints the currency (as to why the first amendment doesn't apply to it) and the truth is the nation wasn't founded on any religion.
Please read what I say, instead of trying to spin everything.
I didn't say it was founded on Christianity. It was made certain from the beginning we would not be a Theocracy.
But if you can't recognize that the US was founded on Christian beliefs and ideals, then you are sadly mistaken.
"that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
It was a comparison of the massive amount of active public atrocities and publicity that is done by theists versus atheists (i.e. almost none by atheists).
What about the ones that try to get Nativity scenes taken down from public places? Or the ones that try to remove "In God We Trust" from the currency? Or the ones that try to remove "One Nation under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance?
There's plenty of nutjobs on both sides.
Nutjobs?
You mean for not wanting government sponsored support of one religion when it's clear that it violates the constitution and intent of our nation?
You do know that "In God We Trust" was added to our currency in the 50s right? Same for the pledge.
Would you be equally ok if the currency said "In Allah we trust", or "There is no god".
That fact that you find it "extreme" and "militant" that people get upset when theists throw their religion down everyone elses throats just shows how blind you are to reality.
If I lived in a nation founded on Islam, I wouldn't care if the currency read "In Allah We Trust" (same god anyway different name)
Whether you like it or not, truth is the US was founded on Christian beliefs and ideals. We happened to let all religions have the same freedoms, but that doesn't change the fact of the matter.
lolwhat?
the truth is apparently you're severely mistaken on who mints the currency (as to why the first amendment doesn't apply to it) and the truth is the nation wasn't founded on any religion.
Please read what I say, instead of trying to spin everything. I didn't say it was founded on Christianity. It was made certain from the beginning we would not be a Theocracy.
But if you can't recognize that the US was founded on Christian beliefs and ideals, then you are sadly mistaken.
"that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
It wasn't, you apparently need to go back to a basic history class.
and as to your edit, you obviously know nothing of the deistic viewpoint.
Am I allowed to go on about my business or not? Or do I need to continue discussing the same endless, cylical BS with all of you? I've already been insulted on here for saying that I would like to have my children baptized, so after that I have not been as invested in these threads. EDIT: At this point I would rather just read.
Hey baby, if you want to meet up for drinks or coffee we can discuss NEW BS endlessly <3
*WINK WINK*
I think you and I would be on much better terms than some on here.
Some people don't realize that their digging themselves into a hole when they openly gut the agnostics on this site too.
It's the internet, they feel obligated to destroy people online to make up for their lack of a spine in the real world.
Pot, kettle.
nay. I think I've said this before. I'm 6'4 24. I'm respectful, but I defend myself in any situation, online or in person. I actually tend to be less hostile online because it's rather childish to argue with someone in writing. The nonverbal cues are much harder to communicate, and it's easy to write things in a condescending tone when you aren't face to face with them.
Please read what I say, instead of trying to spin everything.
I didn't say it was founded on Christianity. It was made certain from the beginning we would not be a Theocracy.
But if you can't recognize that the US was founded on Christian beliefs and ideals, then you are sadly mistaken.
"that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
This be every so true. I know most of people in this thread have me blocked but you can't deny this nation was founded upon some form of Christianity "beliefs and ideals." The founding fathers just moved from a nation of one religion and wanted to make a nation where anyone could be free to practice any religion. Good job Kosmik
It was a comparison of the massive amount of active public atrocities and publicity that is done by theists versus atheists (i.e. almost none by atheists).
What about the ones that try to get Nativity scenes taken down from public places? Or the ones that try to remove "In God We Trust" from the currency? Or the ones that try to remove "One Nation under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance?
There's plenty of nutjobs on both sides.
Nutjobs?
You mean for not wanting government sponsored support of one religion when it's clear that it violates the constitution and intent of our nation?
You do know that "In God We Trust" was added to our currency in the 50s right? Same for the pledge.
Would you be equally ok if the currency said "In Allah we trust", or "There is no god".
That fact that you find it "extreme" and "militant" that people get upset when theists throw their religion down everyone elses throats just shows how blind you are to reality.
If I lived in a nation founded on Islam, I wouldn't care if the currency read "In Allah We Trust" (same god anyway different name)
Whether you like it or not, truth is the US was founded on Christian beliefs and ideals. We happened to let all religions have the same freedoms, but that doesn't change the fact of the matter.
lolwhat?
the truth is apparently you're severely mistaken on who mints the currency (as to why the first amendment doesn't apply to it) and the truth is the nation wasn't founded on any religion.
Please read what I say, instead of trying to spin everything. I didn't say it was founded on Christianity. It was made certain from the beginning we would not be a Theocracy.
But if you can't recognize that the US was founded on Christian beliefs and ideals, then you are sadly mistaken.
"that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
It wasn't, you apparently need to go back to a basic history class.
and as to your edit, you obviously know nothing of the deistic viewpoint.
Ah yes Jet, I can see why defending oneself is a good reason to never visit a place...
Makes perfect sense
I was referring to you preaching about magic being real, while humorous I prefer to stay away from people who are crazy.
Oh this again...
The last 40bajillion threads where religious discussion was present you immediately went with this "Christians are crazy" thing with no evidence to back it up.
Are there plenty of 'Christians' that are crazy? Sure
Do you ever prove anyone you claim to be 'crazy' to do anything far beyond the normal reasoning of your average citizen? No
Imagine what kind of flak I would receive if I made the same blanket statement you did and threw a "I don't deal with atheists, because I don't like crazy people" in every thread at one point or another.
If I lived in a nation founded on Islam, I wouldn't care if the currency read "In Allah We Trust" (same god anyway different name)
Whether you like it or not, truth is the US was founded on Christian beliefs and ideals. We happened to let all religions have the same freedoms, but that doesn't change the fact of the matter.
Your true form appears.
My true form?
Are you implying that I am a follower of Christianity? LOL
I remember what religion you are! :) I've realized that some people have short memories, and don't bother reading. They just go into attack mode.
Ah yes Jet, I can see why defending oneself is a good reason to never visit a place...
Makes perfect sense
I was referring to you preaching about magic being real, while humorous I prefer to stay away from people who are crazy.
Oh this again...
The last 40bajillion threads where religious discussion was present you immediately went with this "Christians are crazy" thing with no evidence to back it up.
Are there plenty of 'Christians' that are crazy? Sure
Do you ever prove anyone you claim to be 'crazy' to do anything far beyond the normal reasoning of your average citizen? No
Imagine what kind of flak I would receive if I made the same blanket statement you did and threw a "I don't deal with atheists, because I don't like crazy people" in every thread at one point or another.
Trying to say something is real without any proof is evidence of one who is not of sound mind.
It is not of normal reasoning to believe in things without proof, that by definition is illogical.
If you need somebody to explain that to you, well then you need more help than a shrink visit.
Ah yes Jet, I can see why defending oneself is a good reason to never visit a place...
Makes perfect sense
I was referring to you preaching about magic being real, while humorous I prefer to stay away from people who are crazy.
Oh this again...
The last 40bajillion threads where religious discussion was present you immediately went with this "Christians are crazy" thing with no evidence to back it up.
Are there plenty of 'Christians' that are crazy? Sure
Do you ever prove anyone you claim to be 'crazy' to do anything far beyond the normal reasoning of your average citizen? No
Imagine what kind of flak I would receive if I made the same blanket statement you did and threw a "I don't deal with atheists, because I don't like crazy people" in every thread at one point or another.
Trying to say something is real without any proof is evidence of one who is not of sound mind.
It is not of normal reasoning to believe in things without proof, that by definition is illogical.
If you need somebody to explain that to you, well then you need more help than a shrink visit.
I'll take on the flip side yet again...
Trying to say something is NOT real without any proof is just the same.
Perhaps you should visit the doc yourself?
I'll take on the flip side yet again...
Trying to say something is NOT real without any proof is just the same.
Perhaps you should visit the doc yourself?
Couldn't have said it any better. Btw, I enjoy these threads cause I learn stuff even if I do get flamed >_>
I'll take on the flip side yet again...
Trying to say something is NOT real without any proof is just the same.
Perhaps you should visit the doc yourself?
Wrong.
Look up Russel's Teapot, The Dragon In My Garage, etc.
The "you can't prove a negative" argument (ignoring the fact that they're the ones responsible for presenting evidence for the god hypothesis they're presenting) as well as the semantics debate on the definition of theist, atheist, and agnostic.. All in 2 pages.
And there was a great time of religious enlightenment in Europe Zah, it's called the dark ages.
Hmmm, Russell's Teapot was interesting. But to call a Christian crazy is still your opinion. Thanks for the reference! It was an interesting read. I hope wikipedia had it right though. Im finding it harder and harder to trust the internet when sites reference site who reference sites. I know at the end of the reference chain there's probably a book reference but doesn't that sound like the chinease telephone game to anyone else?
Hmmm, Russell's Teapot was interesting. But to call a Christian crazy is still your opinion. Thanks for the reference! It was an interesting read. I hope wikipedia had it right though. Im finding it harder and harder to trust the internet when sites reference site who reference sites. I know at the end of the reference chain there's probably a book reference but doesn't that sound like the chinease telephone game to anyone else?
In this case if you want a good reference, read about "The Dragon in my Garage" in The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan. He has spiffy titles. Chapter 10.
The "you can't prove a negative" argument (ignoring the fact that they're the ones responsible for presenting evidence for the god hypothesis they're presenting) as well as the semantics debate on the definition of theist, atheist, and agnostic.. All in 2 pages.
And there was a great time of religious enlightenment in Europe Zah, it's called the dark ages.
Why is the enlightenment era getting lumped into specifically religious enlightenment is what I'm wondering.
lots of scientific breakthrough during that era kicker is that many of them were Christians by title though.
:D
The Enlightenment Era was a cultural movement by intellectuals at that time(in the 18th century if your asking)
way to jump the shark.
:P
Why is it "our opinion" to call someone who talks to an imaginary friend and believes in magic "crazy".
What's your definition of crazy?
Actually I don't believe in magic D: I take offense to you calling it that tbh. Also glad to know you dont have me blocked! :o
May I just ask why you take offense?
I feel as though people, for some reason, view anything negative towards religion as offensive.
To quote Richard Dawkins "If you say anything negative about religion at all it tends to be heard as strident or shrill because it is so unexpected... We've all be brought up to respect religion, you're not allowed to say anything bad about religion; it's a bit like criticizing somebody's face, to say criticize their religion. I don't think it should be like that. It is, after all, just an opinion about the cosmos, about life, about morality, about values. These are things which should be up for argument, up for discussion; honest, robust discussion and not turned away by a protest of "Oh, you've offended me, you mustn't criticize my religion". If you do criticize somebody's religion I'm afraid it does sound aggressive, much more aggressive than it really is."
The "you can't prove a negative" argument (ignoring the fact that they're the ones responsible for presenting evidence for the god hypothesis they're presenting) as well as the semantics debate on the definition of theist, atheist, and agnostic.. All in 2 pages.
And there was a great time of religious enlightenment in Europe Zah, it's called the dark ages.
Wow, Nuestra. Just wow...You've proven to me that you don't really pay attention to anything said in any of the previous religious debates.
Why is it "our opinion" to call someone who talks to an imaginary friend and believes in magic "crazy".
What's your definition of crazy?
Actually I don't believe in magic D: I take offense to you calling it that tbh. Also glad to know you dont have me blocked! :o
Magic is the claimed art of manipulating aspects of reality either by supernatural means or through knowledge of occult laws unknown to science.
Let's see.
water into wine?
parting the sea?
burning bush?
ummmmm pillars of salt.
resurrection?
reviving the dead.
all sound like magic to me without that tag line that jesus or god did it.
miracles ARE magic.
maybe not on the terms that you consider magic to be such as witch-craft and black magic/white magic all that.
but getting down to it.
trying to reproduce "miracles" is dubbed "magic"
and those practicing "magic" are trying to make "miracles" so to speak.
but that's all technological jargon.
miracles/magic do the same thing.
so they are the same thing.
when you add the notions of mysticism magic becomes something different but they are fundamentally the same past that.
EDIT:
and there is NOTHING wrong with an ATHEIST calling miracles "magic", they don't believe in magic in the same way they don't believe in miracles, and since magic and miracles are the same thing it would be silly to use more letters typing miracles than typing magic in the first place.
The "you can't prove a negative" argument (ignoring the fact that they're the ones responsible for presenting evidence for the god hypothesis they're presenting) as well as the semantics debate on the definition of theist, atheist, and agnostic.. All in 2 pages.
And there was a great time of religious enlightenment in Europe Zah, it's called the dark ages.
Wow, Nuestra. Just wow...You've proven to me that you don't really pay attention to anything said in any of the previous religious debates.
I'll take on the flip side yet again...
Trying to say something is NOT real without any proof is just the same.
Perhaps you should visit the doc yourself?
Wrong.
Look up Russel's Teapot, The Dragon In My Garage, etc.
Wrong? That statement is wrong because it doesn't follow Russell's philosophy?
I like that you brought it up, but that doesn't mean my statement is wrong. Saying it is, implies that there is a "correct" on either side.
