The supreme court, though the ultimate authority, has made some very poor decisions in the past 50 years. They are the ones who in the 60's mis-qouted a letter written by jefferson and created the "seperation of church and state clause". Prior to that, the first amendment's purpose and definition was only to prevent the states from picking an official state denomination of Christianity. Public schools actually taught lessons out of the Christian bible up until that point. Look at a time line folks, our country has morally gone down hill from there.... (excluding civil rights issues prior to 1980, that's when the shit really hit the fan)
As far as the cults go, including atheism:
Allah=God, so no problem there.
JW's believe in God, but not celebrating or giving oath to anything but God. So they don't say the pledge anyway.
Mormons believe some day, by their works, they may become a God. So they would only be pledging to our nation under the God who is over our world. I don't really see the problem there.
An Athiest believes he is God and would be pledging to himself.
(I'll explain using basic Apologetics) For one to know that there is no God, one would have to know all, and by knowing all, by definition, one would be God.
I'm sure I'll get railed for all this, but it'll give you something to do.
An Athiest believes he is God and would be pledging to himself. (I'll explain using basic Apologetics) For one to know that there is no God, one would have to know all, and by knowing all, by definition, one would be God.
Umm, Atheists don't believe in God...so why would he believe that he himself is God? Wouldn't that mean that he doesn't exist?
An Athiest believes he is God and would be pledging to himself. (I'll explain using basic Apologetics) For one to know that there is no God, one would have to know all, and by knowing all, by definition, one would be God.
Umm, Atheists don't believe in God...so why would he believe that he himself is God? Wouldn't that mean that he doesn't exist?
Actually, Pksyns is right. A lot of Atheists claim to have a similar view, but ironically...a lot of them don't even know what true atheism is all about.
But Anonymous, do you consider a Buddhist atheist? No, they believe in a more spiritual God and technically a Zen Buddhist has this view pksyns mentioned. They believe we are all knowning and we define our own destiny, and therefore, they also have stated that they believe we each are our own gods and that all living things are, for that matter.
_________________ [Disclaimer: All generalizations are false...except at http://ggw.10.forumer.com ]
Actually, Pksyns is right. A lot of Atheists claim to have a similar view, but ironically...a lot of them don't even know what true atheism is all about.
Wrong.
There are two typical atheistic points of view:
"I do not believe gods exist." This is sometimes referred to as "weak atheism". This is probably the more common belief (it's the one I agree with). This is a skeptical point of view, in that those who assert something (i.e. god(s) exist) need to provide proof or evidence that supports the assertion. It is not an assertion that gods don't exist; it is a statement that we have not seen compelling evidence to convince us that god(s) does/do exist.
Think about it this way. You're in chemistry lab and you mix vinegar and baking soda (which goes fizzy bubble). Your lab partner says "It fizzes because little tiny gremlins live in the vinegar and the baking soda makes them fart." You say "I don't believe that." He says "How do you know? Can you see the microsopic goings-on in the solution? You can't prove that gremlins aren't farting in that solution, because that would require being able to look into the solution at the microscopic (maybe even smaller) level." Is your disbelief indefensible because you can't observe the minute details of the reaction? Of course not.
Back to the gods debate. Sure, we can argue until the day we die about who's right, but that doesn't mean either belief is logically indefensible (as pksyns would have you believe).
"I believe no gods exist" or "I believe gods do not exist." This is sometimes called "strong atheism". This is an active assertion that gods do not exist. As with all assertions, the burden of proof is on she/he who asserts something. This statement is very difficult (impossible, perhaps) to make indefensible.
An Athiest believes he is God and would be pledging to himself. (I'll explain using basic Apologetics) For one to know that there is no God, one would have to know all, and by knowing all, by definition, one would be God.
Umm, Atheists don't believe in God...so why would he believe that he himself is God? Wouldn't that mean that he doesn't exist?
Umm NO! The Apologetic does not say that Atheists "believe" they are God. Only argues that to know there is no God, one would have to be an all knowing being (God). Therefore the athiest position is false.
There are two typical atheistic points of view: ...
Sorry for starting this back up but I've been gone for a while...
In an attempt at humor and for the sake of being brief I made a fundamental mistake. Atheism is not a religion. ZKissane is right for calling me on it.
As for the apologetic: In its basic form, the one I wrote, it is NOT an ultimate defense or proof against Atheism. It is easily broken apart and is NOT an effective arguement for in depth debates/conversatations. However, more advanced apologetics (from which the basic form is derived) lead most "strong athiests" into logical barriers and they usually resort to arguing assumptions, backtrack, or respond emotionally.
I do not think that ZKissane is an atheist. By his definition of "weak atheism" I think he is Agnostic. Agnostics do not state that there is no God. Rather, they state that there could be a God, but there is a lack of sufficient evidence to support that conclusion. There are additional criteria that would determine his classification. Either way, his definition leads down a very long road of logical debate. Examples: What do you consider "suficient" evidence? Is that criteria logical? is it realistic? it goes on and on. Therefore both sides are defensible to a point. That "point" varies depending on the arguements used and definitions agreed upon.
He's also right that we can argue until we die. In the end Absolute Truth prevails. As Absolute Truth is NOT relative, either one of us is right or both of us are wrong.
This country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs, not muslim, not buddist. This is why "one nation, under X", where x is Allah, Buddah, etc, is just a silly argument.
Why is God all of the sudden under attack? If our country is founded on these beliefs, wouldn't attacking these beliefs be attacking our history? Where were all of these anti-God people since 1954? Why the hatred for a solid base of good morals?
I just don't understand why, within these past few years, saying God in a non-private arena has become unconstitutional. The government is not forcing you to believe in God just because it is in the pledge. That, after all, is what this country is all about.
I think people that want the phrase out of the pledge are just so blinded by their athiestic emotions and hatred for religion that they have no problem trouncing over the history of our nation.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum