Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 84
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by byronchurch View Post
    Yes the argument is to keep religion out of our government and the only people we are at lengths against are ones trying to keep it or put it in .
    A brief review of the Consitution would reveal language aimed at keeping our government out of religion (not the other way around).

    Interstingly, the applicability of the adjective, religious is not limited to deity-based beliefs. Any ultimate reality will do. Thus, for the government to impose atheism or gnosticism could be viewed as violation of the establishment clause, as clearly there are those who are religiously atheistic.
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    I originally stated that there were those who are trying to remove any reference of God or religion (or sometimes just Christian references) from any aspect in the public eye with the claimed reasoning of their fear that it may possibly offend someone.

    I gave 4 examples off the top of my head without any research (which I still have not taken the time to do). You replied that they had nothing to do with "individual's religious rights except for employees" 50% of my examples were directed at the individual's religious rights, the Christmas employees and the Chaplain offering a prayer.

    The other 50% seems to show a God phobia that seems to dominate many of these discussions with the left. The argument is "If it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, then...." But that does not hold true with the these examples. Both of these specific examples had to do history, not teaching the principles of religion or God or how an individual must believe, behave, or worship. Yet that was the underlaying reasoning or fear behind them.
    I think there are those who simply want to uphold the 1st Amendment when it comes to gov't endorsement of religion. Should gov't endorsing religion be feared? Well the Founding Fathers made that a big hell yea and one only has to look at history to see why.

    Your chaplain story is obvious. Their JOB is to tend to the spiritual beliefs of many different faiths. That's probably why they are told to say "god" instead of "jesus". You do know there are religious faiths that don't worship the historical person known as jeebus right?

    Why can't people be happy with the 1st Amendment? It's perfect. It potects the individuals right to religious choice and worship AND prevents the gov't from forcing some religion on everyone. Unless you like forcing your religion on others. Do ya? Hmmmm?

    Oh, and your stuoid "war on xmas" reference, as I said, irrelevent as it's a private employer. They're paying the employee to interact with customers and can thus tell them how to do it.
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    Thus, for the government to impose atheism or gnosticism could be viewed as violation of the establishment clause, as clearly there are those who are religiously atheistic.
    The arguement that the lack of mentioning the flying spagetti monster translates to a complete disbelief in it is a false arguement.
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    The arguement that the lack of mentioning the flying spagetti monster translates to a complete disbelief in it is a false arguement.
    That's not what he's saying.
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    A brief review of the Constitution would reveal language aimed at keeping our government out of religion (not the other way around)."]


    BYRON CHURCH
    "Come on its the same thing , If you felt that there was an aggressive campaign to get muslim values in our government , and If Allah Bless America was a common phrase There would be no contest ."


    SHOPHARIM
    ["Interestingly, the applicability of the adjective, religious is not limited to deity-based beliefs. Any ultimate reality will do. Thus, for the government to impose atheism or gnosticism could be viewed as violation of the establishment clause, as clearly there are those who are religiously atheistic.
    I Agree . To a point . To label science as a religion is going a little to far .
    Last edited by byronchurch; 03/28/2007 at 03:03 PM.
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs View Post
    That's not what he's saying.
    If I don't believe in this Spagetti guy , am i an atheist or an agnostic ?
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs View Post
    That's not what he's saying.
    It is in the sense of the school science content arguement. Darwinism is being framed as teaching atheism.
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by byronchurch View Post
    If I don't believe in this Spagetti guy , am i an atheist or an agnostic ?
    If you don't believe in the great spagetti monster then you're an atheist, if you don't believe the great spagetti monster's existence can be proven or disproven, you're an agnostic.

  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by byronchurch View Post
    If I don't believe in this Spagetti guy , am i an atheist or an agnostic ?

    You are a greatly decieved optimist...
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by byronchurch View Post
    I Agree . To a point . To label science as a religion is going a little to far .
    Where is there a reference to science=religion?

    I called out athiesm and gnosticism.
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    Where is there a reference to science=religion?

    I called out athiesm and gnosticism.
    Oops sorry I somehow read agnostic which I felt was a little closer to a rational science ...but now I've got to figure what kind of a Pecto lacto Vegan Weak shamanic agnostic I am !

    Strong agnosticism : (also called hard agnosticism, closed agnosticism, strict agnosticism, absolute agnosticism)—the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of god(s) is unknowable by nature or that human beings are ill-equipped to judge the evidence.

    Weak agnosticism : (also called soft agnosticism, open agnosticism, empirical agnosticism, temporal agnosticism)—the view that the existence or nonexistence of God(s) is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if more evidence is available.

    Apathetic agnosticism : —the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of God(s), but since any God(s) that may exist appear unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic anyway.

    Ignosticism : —the view that the concept of God(s) as a being is meaningless because it has no verifiable consequences, therefore it cannot be usefully discussed as having existence or nonexistence.

    Model agnosticism: —the view that philosophical and metaphysical questions are not ultimately verifiable but that a model of malleable assumption should be built upon rational thought. This branch of agnosticism does not focus on a deity's existence.

    Agnostic theism : (also called religious agnosticism)—the view of those who do not claim to know existence of God(s), but still believe in such an existence. (See Knowledge vs. Beliefs)

    Agnostic atheism : —the view of those who do not know of the existence or nonexistence of god(s), and do not believe in god(s).[5]
    Last edited by byronchurch; 03/29/2007 at 01:51 AM.
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    It is in the sense of the school science content arguement. Darwinism is being framed as teaching atheism.
    Maybe it's me, but it seems like you inferred a whole bunch of stuff that just wasn't there.
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs View Post
    Maybe it's me, but it seems like you inferred a whole bunch of stuff that just wasn't there.
    I'm just cutting to the chase.
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    I'm just cutting to the chase.
    Some would call that building a strawman.
  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs View Post
    Some would call that building a strawman.
    Yea, some would.

    Instead of beating on my straw man get over to my USB (off topic) post and give me your thoughts on that?
  16. #56  
    I'm having a little trouble believing that there is a powerful group of atheists out there trying to force its beliefs on the susceptible religious majority.
    In the forty four years it took me to go from a highly religious upbringing to atheism I never met a single atheist! To date i am the only atheist I know.
    I try to not mention my godlessness as it attracts a lot of unwanted attention from my fellow bible belt inhabitants.
    (I need to move.)
  17. #57  
    perditac, you've got to be kidding, right?
  18. #58  
    perditac,

    If you really need to escape from the bible belt, go West! There are several Atheist groups here in Portland, along with a couple of Humanist groups. Speaking from experience, I can say it is both refreshing and stimulating to be in a room full of free thinkers.
    Visor-->Visor Phone-->Treo 180-->Treo 270-->Treo 600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700P-->Treo 755P-->Centro-->Pre+-->Pre 2
  19. #59  
    I have no problem believing there is a group of people out there attempting very diligently to place their views over the majority of the people. So yes, Perditac is kidding or not being honest. The vocal minority is working hard to get their way over the much quieter majority.

    If taken to an extreme science can be equated to religion. One who believes science over everything else...and the funny thing is, science has problems explaining bunches of things. One scientist says ... another says ... and to say Darwin - well, he is not worth wasting any breath over.

    Ben
  20. #60  
    aka lemmings . been there, done that.
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions