Question for our Christian visitors

Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Question for our Christian visitors

Most Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testiment and therefore they are no longer under it. They claim to now be under grace. If that true then why do you get so upset when someone tries to remove dispalys of the Ten Commandments form public places like courthouses or schools?

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: BGH

sugarfree wrote:
BGH wrote:

So to answer your question:

I say yes, remove them all. Taxpayer money does not need to be used for ANY religious monument. Period!

BGH, I fear if you ran this world, it might be very drab, indeed.

So... unless there are constant reminders of your magic friend in publically funded facilities the world is drab. Regardless of others beliefs or non-belief?

You said there bigger issues to worry about. Use the money that would be spent on monuments, installation of monunments, fighting establishment clause cases in court to keep the monuments installed and then subsequent removal of said monuments when the court cases are lost.... take that money and use it for those other causes. Feed people, educate people and use the money for the good of society. Then things might not look so glum without your two ton ten commandment monuments.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: sugarfree

BGH wrote:
sugarfree wrote:
BGH wrote:

So to answer your question:

I say yes, remove them all. Taxpayer money does not need to be used for ANY religious monument. Period!

BGH, I fear if you ran this world, it might be very drab, indeed.

So... unless there are constant reminders of your magic friend in publically funded facilities the world is drab. Regardless of others beliefs or non-belief?

You said there bigger issues to worry about. Use the money that would be spent on monuments, installation of monunments, fighting establishment clause cases in court to keep the monuments installed and then subsequent removal of said monuments when the court cases are lost.... take that money and use it for those other causes. Feed people, educate people and use the money for the good of society. Then things might not look so glum without your two ton ten commandment monuments.

What I meant by that is, unless you are different than others here, I'm guessing you would rather all this talk of God to go away, and for all religions to go away.  If this did, indeed, happen it would be like cutting away 1/3 of what it is that makes us human.  1/3 being physical, 1/3 being mental/emotional, 1/3 being spiritual.  All you have to do is look at history to see we as humans have a spiritual side that is contantly seeking, longing, needing.  You, perhaps see the answer to this longing (religion) as simple mindedness.  To me it is indicative of humanities richness...that we are more than mere animals, but there is a part of us that realizes this life and it's finiteness is not all there is.  It's not about wishfull thinking.  It's about acknowledging who we are.  So, you would have this heritage stripped away from the public square, the schools?  You would not have kids learn about this stuff because that would be "spending tax dollars on religion?"  Well, kids need this stuff, they need to know they are part of something bigger and if you don't give them the opportunity to learn it,  you are stunting their growth.  Moral of the story, be careful what you wish for.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
AiiA wrote:

AiiA wrote:


A logical fallacy is a pattern of reasoning which is always or at least most commonly wrong. This is due to a flaw in the structure of the discussion which renders the argument invalid.
Its simply a flaw in the structure of reasoning.




A "false dichotomy" is another fallacy.
When you basically said having a monument on government property is representative of a god and not having a monument is representative of atheism, you set up a false dichotomy - a either/or dilemma because no monument does not represent atheism.
But, lets be honest. You want God gone and to take him out of the public square would be a "victory" for you. I was just taking the short route to the heart of the matter.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: What I

sugarfree wrote:
What I meant by that is, unless you are different than others here, I'm guessing you would rather all this talk of God to go away, and for all religions to go away. If this did, indeed, happen it would be like cutting away 1/3 of what it is that makes us human. 1/3 being physical, 1/3 being mental/emotional, 1/3 being spiritual.

Okay, this is another place in our worldviews you and I diverge.

You are correct; I am tired of seeing “in god we trust” on the money, and ten commandment monuments in the federal buildings. I am tired of hearing the politicians profess their faith in order to get elected. Religion or lack of religion is a private matter.

sugarfree wrote:
All you have to do is look at history to see we as humans have a spiritual side that is constantly seeking, longing, needing. You, perhaps see the answer to this longing (religion) as simple mindedness. To me it is indicative of humanities richness...that we are more than mere animals, but there is a part of us that realizes this life and it's finiteness is not all there is.

This is a logical fallacy; it is called “Appeal to emotion”. I know you are not aware of all of the logical fallacies but basically it does not make your argument correct just because it “feels good”. There are many of us that do feel this life IS finite and this IS the only one we have. There is nothing afterward, that is why this life is SO precious. Because it is finite I want to make the most of every day, and enjoy every moment I can. There are many other things taxpayer funds could be spent on to make this world and this nation a better place. There is no need to install two-ton marble monuments in federal buildings with tax money from all citizens, believer and non-believer alike, to remind a selection of the population of their god. Tax money is from all citizens and NO monument can represent all citizens. If a church want to install a statue on their front lawn great, I have no problem driving by and laughing at it. My tax money should not install religious decorations in a federally owned public building; it does not serve a purpose there.

sugarfree wrote:
It's not about wishfull thinking. It's about acknowledging who we are. So, you would have this heritage stripped away from the public square, the schools? You would not have kids learn about this stuff because that would be "spending tax dollars on religion?" Well, kids need this stuff, they need to know they are part of something bigger and if you don't give them the opportunity to learn it, you are stunting their growth. Moral of the story, be careful what you wish for.

This is more “appeal to emotion”. Children can be taught their faith from their parents, churches and religious schools. There are plenty of places for children to be taught these things without bringing them to the public square and making it appear as though one religion is favored over all others. To me this is one of the worst forms of indoctrination, making the child follow the faith before they can decide for themselves. But that is another topic altogether.  What do you say to the muslim kids? How about the buddhist kids? How about hindu kids? Non-believers? Scientology? Mormon? Jehovah witnesses?  Your particular faith is not the only faith in this nation. The only fair solution is to remove all religious representation in federal building and stop using tax money to pay for the endorsement of one religion. This is not endorsing atheism. This is endorsing nothing. This is the only way to keep from violating the establishment clause of constitution of the United States of America.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: This is a

BGH wrote:
This is a logical fallacy; it is called “Appeal to emotion”. I know you are not aware of all of the logical fallacies but basically it does not make your argument correct just because it “feels good”.
When it comes to decision making in your life, do you always leave emotions out of it? I agree human emotions can not always be trusted, but to never consult them, either, in your decisions making process, to me, constitutes an error. I do not think we can live this life based on pure logic alone.

BGH wrote:
There are many of us that do feel this life IS finite and this IS the only one we have. There is nothing afterward, that is why this life is SO precious. Because it is finite I want to make the most of every day, and enjoy every moment I can.
Enjoyment. That is an emotion. So, you must value emotions to some degree.

BGH wrote:
There are many other things taxpayer funds could be spent on to make this world and this nation a better place.
I could say you are wasting tax payer money by constantly taking these issues to the courts. Why not leave well enough alone and let the buildings remain as they stand.

BGH wrote:
There is no need to install two-ton marble monuments in federal buildings with tax money from all citizens, believer and non-believer alike, to remind a selection of the population of their god. Tax money is from all citizens and NO monument can represent all citizens.
So, if it is new construction, you disagree with spending money on it. Is it okay to leave the current buildings as is, then, so that we don't spend any more tax payer money on those? For current construction, would you allow tax payer money to go towards beautification of the building, or should all gov buildings exist for practicality sake?

BGH wrote:
This is more “appeal to emotion”.
Emotions are not bad things, right? You talk like they are the ugly step-child.

BGH wrote:
Children can be taught their faith from their parents, churches and religious schools. There are plenty of places for children to be taught these things without bringing them to the public square and making it appear as though one religion is favored over all others. To me this is one of the worst forms of indoctrination, making the child follow the faith before they can decide for themselves. But that is another topic altogether.
So you think the word God here and there, or a prayer now and then is gonna warp a kid?

BGH wrote:
What do you say to the muslim kids? How about the buddhist kids? How about hindu kids? Non-believers? Scientology? Mormon? Jehovah witnesses?
I say, instead of ignoring it all, why not teach about different religions and philosophical ideas and let them begin exploring for themselves. I have no problem with that. After all, if you are right about your atheism, they will come to that conclusion based on the arguments, so you have nothing to worry about.

BGH wrote:
Your particular faith is not the only faith in this nation. The only fair solution is to remove all religious representation in federal building and stop using tax money to pay for the endorsement of one religion. This is not endorsing atheism. This is endorsing nothing.
Which is endorsing the absence of religion. I still say, write up your humanist tenants and put them between Zeus and Moses.


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: I believe

sugarfree wrote:
I believe you have misunderstood me, then, however, I am not sure at what point the misunderstanding occurred. If you give me a little more to go on, I can try to restate my position more clearly.

 

Perhaps I did misunderstand. Are you saying that it is NOT ok for goverment to interfere with religion, but it IS ok for religion to interfere with government?

Quote:
Oh, yes, please, let's play "laugh at the silly little theist" some more. That's always fun.

 

Actually, that was not quite what I meant and I do apologize if it came across that way. I was merely trying to point out the hypocricy of your statement.

 

Even when I was a theist, I felt it was wrong to have this monument in a federal building.  I did not want any religion to gain a foothold in government and just because christians outnumber other religions in this country does not make it right.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
jce wrote: Perhaps I did

jce wrote:
Perhaps I did misunderstand. Are you saying that it is NOT ok for goverment to interfere with religion, but it IS ok for religion to interfere with government?
I do not believe this country should have a state sponsored religion. As far as religion interferring with government, I don't know what you mean. Do I think it is okay for religions to be referenced in the public domain because of their historic significance to the human race? Sure. Also, do I think religious leaders have a right to express their views too congressmen, senators and the like? Yes, just as you, as an atheist has that right.

jce wrote:
Actually, that was not quite what I meant and I do apologize if it came across that way.
Okay, no harm done.

jce wrote:
Even when I was a theist, I felt it was wrong to have this monument in a federal building.  I did not want any religion to gain a foothold in government and just because christians outnumber other religions in this country does not make it right.
If you read my earlier posts, I think you will see I conceded that Moses should stand next to Buddha instead of in the middle of the courtyard.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
This is getting nowhere

This is getting nowhere FAST! You seem to be supporting these installations only because they favor your religion and the way to keep your favorites there is to install more illegal monuments. When you cannot give valid reasons for keeping the monumants in place, you start thowing logical fallacies left and right. False dichotomies, ad hominen, appeal to emotion... etc.

sugarfree wrote:
When it comes to decision making in your life, do you always leave emotions out of it? I agree human emotions can not always be trusted, but to never consult them, either, in your decisions making process, to me, constitutes an error. I do not think we can live this life based on pure logic alone.

Yes, I have emotions. Using emotion in a debate is bad form. This is about whether the ten commandments belong (legally) in federal buildings paid for with taxpayer monies. This is not about how they make you "feel".

sugarfree wrote:
Enjoyment. That is an emotion. So, you must value emotions to some degree.

See above statement. ^

This statement was not an argument for the ten commandments, therefore it was not a logical fallacy. It was clearly stating how I live my life because you gave "hope" as one of your "reasons".

sugarfree wrote:
I could say you are wasting tax payer money by constantly taking these issues to the courts. Why not leave well enough alone and let the buildings remain as they stand.

If the godamn things were not where they didn't belong the court cases would not be fought. This argument is asinine.

"Well the rapist no longer rapes so leave well enough alone and do not prosecute", it is still ILLEGAL.

sugarfree wrote:
So, if it is new construction, you disagree with spending money on it. Is it okay to leave the current buildings as is, then, so that we don't spend any more tax payer money on those?

No, it is not okay to leave them as is for reasons already stated. IT IS ILLEGAL. IT VIOLATES THE ESTABLISHMANT CLAUSE.

sugarfree wrote:
For current construction, would you allow tax payer money to go towards beautification of the building, or should all gov buildings exist for practicality sake?

Yes, they are there for practical reasons and they are owned by all citizens. Beatification is okay as long as it does not promote a religion.

sugarfree wrote:
Emotions are not bad things, right? You talk like they are the ugly step-child.

See above^.

sugarfree wrote:
So you think the word God here and there, or a prayer now and then is gonna warp a kid?

The point of the argument which you ignored is this can be done other places than publically funded federal programs and buildings.

And yes, I do think indoctrination warps children.

sugarfree wrote:
I say, instead of ignoring it all, why not teach about different religions and philosophical ideas and let them begin exploring for themselves. I have no problem with that. After all, if you are right about your atheism, they will come to that conclusion based on the arguments, so you have nothing to worry about.

This is not about classes to offer, this is about installation of monuments in federal buildings and the legality of such structures. Please stay on topic, when you try to change issues it show your lack of argument.

sugarfree wrote:
Which is endorsing the absence of religion. I still say, write up your humanist tenants and put them between Zeus and Moses.

Again, NO MONUMENT ENDORSES NOTHING!! There should be no endorsment in federal buildings of zeus, moses, vishnu, allah, yahweh, jesus, magic fairies, buddha, or even "humanist tenants" as you call them.

Leave it all out of publically funded areas and let people relish in their faith elsewhere.

You see?


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
BGH: It appears I have

BGH: It appears I have offended your Logic.

They are historical record. Leave them alone. That's the cheapest alternative.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: BGH: It

sugarfree wrote:
BGH: It appears I have offended your Logic. They are historical record. Leave them alone. That's the cheapest alternative.

You have only offended my logic by refusing to use logic, refusing to discuss certain points or even acknowledge the existance of a legality issue.

You are being asked to question things that go against your faith. Things you wish were true but are not. When a solid refutation is made regarding whether they belong in federal buildings you skirt the issue and say 'leave them be, they aren't hurting anyone". The point is they were illegally installed and therfore should be removed. Period!

Please stay on topic. 


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: You have only

BGH wrote:

You have only offended my logic by refusing to use logic, refusing to discuss certain points or even acknowledge the existance of a legality issue.

Given my suggestion for a compromise, I see no legality issue, so why should I acknowledge one.

 

BGH wrote:

You are being asked to question things that go against your faith. Things you wish were true but are not. When a solid refutation is made regarding whether they belong in federal buildings you skirt the issue and say 'leave them be, they aren't hurting anyone".

Umm, no, I just happen to disagree with you, and I also happen to not be bamboozled by your "logic".   This seems a common dispute for atheists..."you are avoiding logic, you are not following my logic" as tho I am obliged to just accept your argument.  As far as the 10 commandments issue, I have stated my opinion.  I cannot help that you do not like it.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Well, at least we have an

Well, at least we have an understanding. I see a legality issue. You love the favortism.

I am not trying to "bamboozle" you with logic. Logic is essentially how people properly debate. Bamboozle would be the term I would use for what goes on in churches on a regular basis.

I think this argument is done so I will restate:

BGH = 1 point

Sugarfree = -1 point 


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: Well, at least

BGH wrote:
Well, at least we have an understanding. I see a legality issue. You love the favortism.
I can try saying the same thing differently: I appreciate religious texts for their historical value and influence on the development of law, and I think it is always important for us to view the present against the backdrop of the past and I am fine with the 10 cmdmts being moved out the center of the courtyard and placed in equal viewing to whatever other historical and/or religious references may be on the publicly funded premises, so as to not suggest governmental favoritism.

BGH wrote:
BGH = 1 point

Sugarfree = -1 point 

I am chuckling, BGH. I suppose you were on the debate team in H.S.?


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: BGH

sugarfree wrote:
BGH wrote:
Well, at least we have an understanding. I see a legality issue. You love the favortism.
I can try saying the same thing differently: I appreciate religious texts for their historical value and influence on the development of law, and I think it is always important for us to view the present against the backdrop of the past

There is another thread that more thoroughly explores this issue and I may be wrong, but I believe BGH has already stated that only two of the commandments refer to any kind of law.  They did not/do not provide significant influence on the development of law.  They represent religious symbolism and do not belong on federal property.

sugarfree wrote:
and I am fine with the 10 cmdmts being moved out the center of the courtyard and placed in equal viewing to whatever other historical and/or religious references may be on the publicly funded premises, so as to not suggest governmental favoritism.

still favoritism

BGH wrote:
BGH = 1 point

Sugarfree = -1 point 

I agree with the score.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10551
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: What I

sugarfree wrote:
What I meant by that is, unless you are different than others here, I'm guessing you would rather all this talk of God to go away, and for all religions to go away.  If this did, indeed, happen it would be like cutting away 1/3 of what it is that makes us human.  1/3 being physical, 1/3 being mental/emotional, 1/3 being spiritual.  All you have to do is look at history to see we as humans have a spiritual side that is contantly seeking, longing, needing.  You, perhaps see the answer to this longing (religion) as simple mindedness.  To me it is indicative of humanities richness...that we are more than mere animals, but there is a part of us that realizes this life and it's finiteness is not all there is.  It's not about wishfull thinking.  It's about acknowledging who we are.  So, you would have this heritage stripped away from the public square, the schools?  You would not have kids learn about this stuff because that would be "spending tax dollars on religion?"  Well, kids need this stuff, they need to know they are part of something bigger and if you don't give them the opportunity to learn it,  you are stunting their growth.  Moral of the story, be careful what you wish for.

To make a brief addition to complete the refutation:

1: Humans are animals. The comment "mere animals" is egotistical and arrogant to an extreme. You deny our ancestors struggles through billions of years. Disgraceful and disgusting.
2: We have art and imagination for societal richness. Religion is redundant and harmful.
3: Kids do not need to be told there's a magical god watching over their shoulder every second. That's harmful in so many ways I'm not even going to bother counting them. You are the one stunting the growth of children. Teaching critical thinking and allowing expression of imagination is the only real way to not stunt the growth of children.

sugarfree wrote:
So you think the word God here and there, or a prayer now and then is gonna warp a kid?

Of course it will. Their own government is telling them it's real, even though it's fiction. Why would kids disbelieve the ultimate authority figure to them?

sugarfree wrote:

I say, instead of ignoring it all, why not teach about different religions and philosophical ideas and let them begin exploring for themselves. I have no problem with that. After all, if you are right about your atheism, they will come to that conclusion based on the arguments, so you have nothing to worry about.

That's what college and university are for. Not public schools.

sugarfree wrote:
I can try saying the same thing differently: I appreciate religious texts for their historical value and influence on the development of law, and I think it is always important for us to view the present against the backdrop of the past and I am fine with the 10 cmdmts being moved out the center of the courtyard and placed in equal viewing to whatever other historical and/or religious references may be on the publicly funded premises, so as to not suggest governmental favoritism.

You really don't get it. Any image of any religion in government is government endorsement of that religion. I'm guessing you're completely clueless when it comes to advertising and the law. Considering your complete ignorance and closed mindedness on this issue, I'm not even going to waste my time trying to point it out to you.

sugarfree wrote:
I can try saying the same thing differently: I appreciate religious texts for their historical value and influence on the development of law, and I think it is always important for us to view the present against the backdrop of the past and I am fine with the 10 cmdmts being moved out the center of the courtyard and placed in equal viewing to whatever other historical and/or religious references may be on the publicly funded premises, so as to not suggest governmental favoritism.

Religious texts can be saved in the attics of libraries to gather dust to preserve their so-called historical value. They had little to no influence on the law at all. Napoleon was the single greatest influence on the law today. No religion, a man. A warlord at that. Go figure.

The second a government spends money on and displays an object of religious value, it has endorsed that religion. And forced everyone under that government to also endorse that religion. But then I don't think you've even really considered the whole issue in the first place, beyond your self centred world view.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


christ101
Theist
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-04-06
User is offlineOffline
We are not under the curse

We are not under the curse of the law (hell)

 

 

 

________________________________________________________

Psalms 14:1  . <nabal>  <'amar> <leb>,  <'elohiym>.  <shachath>, <ta`ab> <`aliylah>,  <`asah>  <towb>.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
christ101 wrote:

christ101 wrote:

We are not under the curse of the law (hell)

WTF??


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: To make a

Vastet wrote:
To make a brief addition to complete the refutation: 1: Humans are animals. The comment "mere animals" is egotistical and arrogant to an extreme. You deny our ancestors struggles through billions of years. Disgraceful and disgusting.
Perhaps I was misleading in my word choice.  I love animals.  I have my own little zoo at home.  Apes and monkeys are pretty cool too.  But, you have to admit, we've never found any religious text, or any text for that matter written by animals, so we are different in that respect.  (Plus, you aren't going to hurt my feelings by calling me an animal, I'm okay with being part of the animal kingdom.)

Vastet wrote:
2: We have art and imagination for societal richness. Religion is redundant and harmful.
Right now I have a funny image in my head of the South Park X-mas special where the kids are dancing around to Phillip Glass on the piano... BTW: I obviously disagree that religion is redundant and harmful.

Vastet wrote:
3: Kids do not need to be told there's a magical god watching over their shoulder every second. That's harmful in so many ways I'm not even going to bother counting them. You are the one stunting the growth of children. Teaching critical thinking and allowing expression of imagination is the only real way to not stunt the growth of children.
Teaching kids that there is a CARING God looking over their shoulder, is a gift the child can carry with them for life. 

Vastet wrote:
beyond your self centred world view.
If I accept what you have said, that my worldview is self-centered, then you must also place that accusation on yourself.  You obviously think my worldview is a load of bull and are dismissing it out of hand based on what YOU think...so, how's that different than what you are accusing me of?


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: BTW: I obviously

Quote:
BTW: I obviously disagree that religion is redundant and harmful.

One word (date, actually): 9/11

Quote:
Teaching kids that there is a CARING God looking over their shoulder, is a gift the child can carry with them for life.

Caring god... hmm... surely he cared about:

- all drowned in the flood (the Noah episode)

- Sodom and Gommorrah

- egyptian children cursed because the Pharaoh refused to comply

- children ordered dead by Herod

- all those people that the Jews supposedly massacred on their way to "the promised land"

- the Jews, giving them a "promised land" which I would personally gladly decline

Caring god... hmm...

Quote:
If I accept what you have said, that my worldview is self-centered, then you must also place that accusation on yourself.  You obviously think my worldview is a load of bull and are dismissing it out of hand based on what YOU think...so, how's that different than what you are accusing me of?

No insulting attachment to a message (or goodwill one, for that matter) makes it more or less true. Nobody should be forced to keep silence about something, if he can offer proof for/against that. Would you agree to keeping silent on flat-eartherners just because "it's their belief and we should respect it", when we know beyond doubt that they are simply wrong ?

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10551
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: Vastet

sugarfree wrote:

Vastet wrote:
To make a brief addition to complete the refutation: 1: Humans are animals. The comment "mere animals" is egotistical and arrogant to an extreme. You deny our ancestors struggles through billions of years. Disgraceful and disgusting.
Perhaps I was misleading in my word choice.  I love animals.  I have my own little zoo at home.  Apes and monkeys are pretty cool too.  But, you have to admit, we've never found any religious text, or any text for that matter written by animals, so we are different in that respect.  (Plus, you aren't going to hurt my feelings by calling me an animal, I'm okay with being part of the animal kingdom.)

Writing does not seperate us from every other life form that exists. We didn't start doing it ourselves until a few thousand years ago.

sugarfree wrote:

Vastet wrote:
2: We have art and imagination for societal richness. Religion is redundant and harmful.
Right now I have a funny image in my head of the South Park X-mas special where the kids are dancing around to Phillip Glass on the piano... BTW: I obviously disagree that religion is redundant and harmful.

And I disagree with your disagreement. And I have evidence backing up my position. You don't need a sky daddy to dance around listening to music.

sugarfree wrote:

Vastet wrote:
3: Kids do not need to be told there's a magical god watching over their shoulder every second. That's harmful in so many ways I'm not even going to bother counting them. You are the one stunting the growth of children. Teaching critical thinking and allowing expression of imagination is the only real way to not stunt the growth of children.
Teaching kids that there is a CARING God looking over their shoulder, is a gift the child can carry with them for life. 

No god is a caring god, and you are not only stunting their growth, you are traumatizing them. For life.

sugarfree wrote:

Vastet wrote:
beyond your self centred world view.
If I accept what you have said, that my worldview is self-centered, then you must also place that accusation on yourself.  You obviously think my worldview is a load of bull and are dismissing it out of hand based on what YOU think...so, how's that different than what you are accusing me of?

Your world view is so obviously self centred that this comment reaks of it. You think you are so superior to animals that you view yourself in a different life category. You think you are superior to those who don't believe in god. You think your beliefs are superior to everyone elses. I don't think any of these things. I just think your beliefs are harmful. And this is based on factual evidence, not a self centred position.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Your world

Vastet wrote:
Your world view is so obviously self centred that this comment reaks of it. You think you are so superior to animals that you view yourself in a different life category. You think you are superior to those who don't believe in god. You think your beliefs are superior to everyone elses. I don't think any of these things. I just think your beliefs are harmful. And this is based on factual evidence, not a self centred position.

 No, you're self centered.  No.  You.  I'm not self-centered. You're self-centered. (joking)

 If we keep going back and forth like this we're gonna start to sound like a couple kids.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10551
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Well you certainly are.

Well you certainly are.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: Teaching

sugarfree wrote:

Teaching kids that there is a CARING God looking over their shoulder, is a gift the child can carry with them for life.

Tell that to the children of New Orleans that lost everything including family members. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Susan wrote: sugarfree

Susan wrote:
sugarfree wrote:

Teaching kids that there is a CARING God looking over their shoulder, is a gift the child can carry with them for life.

Tell that to the children of New Orleans that lost everything including family members.

Excellent point Susan. 

I am sure the same parents who think the thought of a sky daddy watching over tthe kids is a "gift" would call New Orleans a "test". 


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: Susan

BGH wrote:
Susan wrote:
sugarfree wrote:

Teaching kids that there is a CARING God looking over their shoulder, is a gift the child can carry with them for life.

Tell that to the children of New Orleans that lost everything including family members.

Excellent point Susan.

I am sure the same parents who think the thought of a sky daddy watching over tthe kids is a "gift" would call New Orleans a "test".

I have no doubt that many good god-fearing xians lost everything in New Orleans.  It saddened me to see how many people were desperately clinging to their faith to get through the horrors of what happened.

As for the "test", I go right back to my example of the abusive husband.  He smacks his wife around just to make sure she really loves him even more afterward.  Huh?  if someone I loved smacked me around, the love would cease immediately and I would get as far away as possible.

It just defies comprehension how people cannot see that. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


1Corithians214
Theist
1Corithians214's picture
Posts: 4
Joined: 2007-04-08
User is offlineOffline
Randalllord wrote: Most

Randalllord wrote:
Most Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testiment and therefore they are no longer under it. They claim to now be under grace. If that true then why do you get so upset when someone tries to remove dispalys of the Ten Commandments form public places like courthouses or schools?

This is probably the dumbest question an atheist can ask.

 

Ok, let's see... to quickly answer this question you first have to understand that the Law of God as to the Ten Commandments. The penal laws of God were not abolished, but fulfilled through Christ since no man, except Christ(who is God), could fulfill all things. The only laws that were abolished were the ceremonial laws. Hebrews Chapter 8-10 tell us this in great detail. Hebrews tells us that the ceremonial laws pointed to Christ. They were a "showdow" of the One to come.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
1Corithians214 wrote: This

1Corithians214 wrote:

This is probably the dumbest question an atheist can ask.

 

Ok, let's see... to quickly answer this question you first have to understand that the Law of God as to the Ten Commandments. The penal laws of God were not abolished, but fulfilled through Christ since no man, except Christ(who is God), could fulfill all things. The only laws that were abolished were the ceremonial laws. Hebrews Chapter 8-10 tell us this in great detail. Hebrews tells us that the ceremonial laws pointed to Christ. They were a "showdow" of the One to come.

Okay... that was one of the dumbest posts on this tread. Try reading the rest of the thread. The discussion took on a completely different argument, you are responding to something probably addressed on the first page. 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10551
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
1Corithians214

1Corithians214 wrote:

Randalllord wrote:
Most Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testiment and therefore they are no longer under it. They claim to now be under grace. If that true then why do you get so upset when someone tries to remove dispalys of the Ten Commandments form public places like courthouses or schools?

This is probably the dumbest question an atheist can ask.

 

Ok, let's see... to quickly answer this question you first have to understand that the Law of God as to the Ten Commandments. The penal laws of God were not abolished, but fulfilled through Christ since no man, except Christ(who is God), could fulfill all things. The only laws that were abolished were the ceremonial laws. Hebrews Chapter 8-10 tell us this in great detail. Hebrews tells us that the ceremonial laws pointed to Christ. They were a "showdow" of the One to come.

This is probably the dumbest response a theist can come up with. Since it doesn't answer the question, and makes a complete idiot of the theist in the process.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


pm9347
Theist
pm9347's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2007-03-12
User is offlineOffline
ten commandments

sorry for being away for so long life has a way of making sure you pay attention to it. first of all i believe in jesus christ,so when i hear the ten commandments being removed i shake my head. (in disqust) why remove it ?why does the ten commandments get everybody in an uproar they are basic rules to live buy. dont steal , dont commit adultrey, dont lie , dont murder, without these guidelines people would do what ever they want causing hugh problems. why does the aclu want all of these rules removed ? because when you read them you instantly reflect on your life to see if your doing them .if not you feel guilty so lets remove them and we wont have to reflect on our lives or feel that we are acountable for our actions , i even heard that the aclu tried to stop the marines from praying during a ceramony why ? do you think the aclu would try to stop the islamic world from praying, ohhh i would love to see that on the news.    


Albert
Theist
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007-04-15
User is offlineOffline
 Christian's don't believe

 Christian's don't believe the 10 Commandments were done away with. The premise of your argument is false. The reason we get upset, is because it is the first of many steps of trying to free society of religious freedom, tolerance and God. Our country was founded on God and biblical principles. That is why He has blessed America. If we push God out of this nation, we are only removing His hedge of pertection and invoking judgement.


mindspread
mindspread's picture
Posts: 360
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
Albert wrote: Our country

Albert wrote:
Our country was founded on God and biblical principles.

 

Sorry, thanks for playing.

Article 11 of the US Treaty with Tripoli:

Quote:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.

There you have it. If this country were founded on Xtian belifs, in any way, this treaty would not have made it through the Senate so easily.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10551
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
pm9347 wrote:sorry for

pm9347 wrote:
sorry for being away for so long life has a way of making sure you pay attention to it. first of all i believe in jesus christ,so when i hear the ten commandments being removed i shake my head. (in disqust) why remove it ?

Because it's divisive, delusional, endorsing a religion above others(without any evidence suggesting that religion is accurate mind you), and a waste of taxpayers money.

pm9347 wrote:
why does the ten commandments get everybody in an uproar they are basic rules to live buy. dont steal , dont commit adultrey, dont lie , dont murder, without these guidelines people would do what ever they want causing hugh problems.

Adultery has nothing to do with causing society huge problems. It's always happened and society is just fine. Theft, murder, and perjury were all crimes long before the ten commandments were invented. And what about the commandments that talk about worshipping one god above all others? There's no law saying you have to worship god.

pm9347 wrote:
why does the aclu want all of these rules removed ?

They don't. Why are you making a strawman attack?

pm9347 wrote:
because when you read them you instantly reflect on your life to see if your doing them .

No I don't. I instantly get annoyed that some delusional freak is shoving them in my face. I see nothing wrong with a number of them, so the entire concept is flawed. Just because they made a couple of rules that made sense doesn't mean anything to the rest of it. If you really want to see laws enshrined, then it should be real laws. Not fictional ones.

pm9347 wrote:
if not you feel guilty so lets remove them and we wont have to reflect on our lives or feel that we are acountable for our actions

Bullshit. Pure strawman.

pm9347 wrote:
i even heard that the aclu tried to stop the marines from praying during a ceramony why ?

Prove they did first, then I'll deal with any possible why's.

pm9347 wrote:
do you think the aclu would try to stop the islamic world from praying, ohhh i would love to see that on the news.    

It's against their stated objectives to interfere with people praying. They make sure that you religious nuts don't make US pray.

I'd deal with Albert next, but there's really nothing else to say.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Albert wrote: Christian's

Albert wrote:
Christian's don't believe the 10 Commandments were done away with. The premise of your argument is false. The reason we get upset, is because it is the first of many steps of trying to free society of religious freedom, tolerance and God. Our country was founded on God and biblical principles. That is why He has blessed America. If we push God out of this nation, we are only removing His hedge of pertection and invoking judgement.

 

Albert,

We have had xian's come to this website that have said that Jesus did away with the old law so don't tell us you speak for them.

Even the supreme court has agreed that their display on public property can be a violation of the constitution (the real and legal basis of this country, not the Bible). No one is trying to get rid of your beliefs. You can believe anything you want in this country. You just can't have the government endorse your crazy myths, but apparently you feel the need for them to. It must be an insecurity thing on your part.

Your last sentence about God's prtection is purely magical thinking. 

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca


dark_stumpy
Theist
dark_stumpy's picture
Posts: 42
Joined: 2007-03-09
User is offlineOffline
is it possible that the 10

is it possible that the 10 commandments were put in the courts originally as an example of early recorded law? concidering how they are possibly the most famous worldwide example. i know there would have been earlier recorings of laws, but those are the most famous laws i can think of.

hail jesus and rule brittania!

just because you dont believe in something, doesn't mean it's not there.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
dark_stumpy wrote: is it

dark_stumpy wrote:

is it possible that the 10 commandments were put in the courts originally as an example of early recorded law? concidering how they are possibly the most famous worldwide example. i know there would have been earlier recorings of laws, but those are the most famous laws i can think of.

hail jesus and rule brittania!

Okay... I am emailing Merriam-Webster. This thread has GOT to be the definition of "ad nauseum". 


dark_stumpy
Theist
dark_stumpy's picture
Posts: 42
Joined: 2007-03-09
User is offlineOffline
what's ad nauseum?

what's ad nauseum?


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
 Wikipedia: "Ad nauseam is

 Wikipedia:

"Ad nauseam is a Latin term used to describe something that has been continuing "to the point of nausea." For example "This topic has been discussed ad nauseam": it has been discorsed extensively and everyone is tired of it."

 

But we are going to change that definition and just link to this thread. The theists keep saying the same thing over and over in the posts here and it is continually refuted. 


dark_stumpy
Theist
dark_stumpy's picture
Posts: 42
Joined: 2007-03-09
User is offlineOffline
i apologise to all if my

i apologise to all if my random little idea has been rebuked in the past. it was not my intention to go back to an idea that has been discused to the point of it becoming overkill. i was unaware it had already been brought up and rejected as a plauseable theory. again, i apologise.

just because you dont believe in something, doesn't mean it's not there.


Just Me...
Theist
Posts: 10
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
Randalllord wrote: Most

Randalllord wrote:
Most Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testiment and therefore they are no longer under it. They claim to now be under grace. If that true then why do you get so upset when someone tries to remove dispalys of the Ten Commandments form public places like courthouses or schools?

 Very good question.  I'm a non-practicing Christian, and I guess I like to consider myself a bit more enlightened then the rest of the flock (well, at least I hope so).

In any regards, on a personal level I have no problem whatsoever with the 10 Commandments coming out of schools/public buildings/etc.  As a faith based believer (which is, really, all I feel anybody can subscribe to Christianity or any religion with - faith and nothing more), I've never considered the removal of the ten commandments, the bible or any other religious aspects from public places offensive.  Simply put in the most basic terms, all the information in the world is available in a host of places regarding any branch of religion anybody could possibly be curious about; one could go to any of these places (libraries, stores, churches, etc) and ask for information if one was curious.

That being said, I'm also a big fan of the separaion of church and state and feel that removal of the ten commandments or other religious references is unoffensive (and depending on the case and reasons behind it, sometimes a very good idea).  Removing these items does nothing to dissuade me from my own personal belief system, nor does it ruffle my feathers individually.


Sir Valiant for...
Theist
Sir Valiant for Truth's picture
Posts: 156
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
I have only one question:

I have only one question: Why can't there be Jeudeo-Christian imagry in the courthouse if there can be Islamic prayer shrines in the government airports?

(Islamic Taxi drivers recently demanded from an airport for prayer shrines to be put in on government property.)

 The representation of the Ten Commandments is purely symbollic and serves only as a reminder. These prayer shrines are actually being used. 

Just a little bit of favoritism? I think so.

"Truth is the cry of all, but the game of the few." George Berkeley
"Truth is always strange — stranger than fiction." Lord Byron

Fixing the world, one dumb idea at a time.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10551
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Sir Valiant for Truth

Sir Valiant for Truth wrote:

I have only one question: Why can't there be Jeudeo-Christian imagry in the courthouse if there can be Islamic prayer shrines in the government airports?

(Islamic Taxi drivers recently demanded from an airport for prayer shrines to be put in on government property.)

 The representation of the Ten Commandments is purely symbollic and serves only as a reminder. These prayer shrines are actually being used. 

Just a little bit of favoritism? I think so.

I say they should both go.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


The Daily Way
Theist
Posts: 69
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Randalllord wrote: Most

Randalllord wrote:
Most Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testiment and therefore they are no longer under it. They claim to now be under grace.

Jesus came to "fulfil" the "Law", not abolish it. The Law still applies! It is "Salvation" that is through "Grace" because the Law does not save, all it did was show man his sin. 


ranjef
ranjef's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-01-27
User is offlineOffline
When we/you/all use the term

When we/you/all use the term "Law", to what are we referring? For the sake of this discussion, is it limited to what has been traditionally been referred to as the "Ten Commandments"?

To shun ignorance and superstition, to embrace knowledge and reason, to become the sum of all the wisdom that one can absorb in a very limited lifetime—that is the purpose of humankind.


The Daily Way
Theist
Posts: 69
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
ranjef wrote: When

ranjef wrote:
When we/you/all use the term "Law", to what are we referring? For the sake of this discussion, is it limited to what has been traditionally been referred to as the "Ten Commandments"?

 

I don't know about anyone else here, but I view the "Law/Torah" as: "Any Direct Revelation given as a Law, Practice, Custom, Rule, Regulation, Ordinance etc... By God/The Lord" Anywhere in the biblical narrative. (Not just the 5 books of Moses alone, and not the laws/customs of the Jews added outside the God Breathed Word.)


ranjef
ranjef's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-01-27
User is offlineOffline
And when you say that the

And when you say that the "Law" still applies, do you mean in toto as contained in the Biblical narrative?

To shun ignorance and superstition, to embrace knowledge and reason, to become the sum of all the wisdom that one can absorb in a very limited lifetime—that is the purpose of humankind.


The Daily Way
Theist
Posts: 69
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
ranjef wrote: And when you

ranjef wrote:
And when you say that the "Law" still applies, do you mean in toto as contained in the Biblical narrative?

 

Those "laws" that I described in my prior post still apply to this day. There are clarifications of those laws made by Jesus on things such as "Adultry. Murder", but that only clarifies the law, and narrows its scope. 


ranjef
ranjef's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-01-27
User is offlineOffline
And those laws that Jesus

And those laws that Jesus does not address?  They stand as recorded?


The Daily Way
Theist
Posts: 69
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
ranjef wrote: And those

ranjef wrote:
And those laws that Jesus does not address? They stand as recorded?

Yes, indeed they do! But... Remember, ours is no longer to execute judgement! So if this is leading to "stoning" homosexuals, adulterous people. etc... Then:

John 8:7  So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

The Law is the same, it is the covenant that has changed.

"Stoning" and other old arguments that are used to give the appearence of hateful Christians are refuted here:

Titus 3:1  Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,

 We do not violate man's law. It is God who will be the "Judge, Jury, & Executioner"

John 8:10  When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

John 8:11  She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Salvation from sins is by "Grace", punishment can be avoided through "Pardon".


ranjef
ranjef's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-01-27
User is offlineOffline
I would hardly be that

I would hardly be that disingenuous, but I think that this does lead to the need for a new thread before we completely hijack this one from its original intent.  I will put it back on track and create the new thread.

Though I am an atheist, as a former minister I understand that the slow and systematic removal of religious practice from the governmental areas of this nation is not something that would go by without comment or fight.  I led those fights at one point in my local community.

These are symbols of a tradition, practice, world view and way of life for a group of people who whole-heartedly view these things as rational and justified - and sacred.  I fully agree that the use of dispensation on religious grounds is not considerate of the world view of the people that make up this country.  

Certainly the decision to allow Muslim prayer shrines in certain airports was one based on political expedience, not religious sensitivity.  Our country, when it claims equality for all, must either make the public lands available to EVERY world view or none.  My opinion is that by keeping religion out of the government machinery, we risk less chance to offend anyone.

When Freedom of Religion imposes standards upon those that do not hold the same religious dogma, there is the foundation for conflict.  Practices that have been held as acceptable for 200 years are no longer so as we become one of the most culturally diverse enclaves of humanity on the planet.  Freedom of Religion guarantees those cultures the right to practice their specific belief systems as long as it is not endorsed by government and others do not feel compelled to participate without choice.   Whether I agree with the belief system or not is not relevant when it does not compel me to participate.

In short, those that support church and state separation have been more active as a result of increased deliberate moves to interject religion into the government forum.  Those that fight to have the symbols remain in place do so from fear that religion is being legislated out of America.  We both do so for one fundamental reason - the fear of the loss of our culture and the imposition of another.

To shun ignorance and superstition, to embrace knowledge and reason, to become the sum of all the wisdom that one can absorb in a very limited lifetime—that is the purpose of humankind.


jive turkey
Theist
jive turkey's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
I can't speak for anyone

I can't speak for anyone but myself but it makes me feel that I'm being marginalized and that what I perceive as good things (Christian ideas of love and non-violence for example) are being undermined. For me it has nothing to do with law and grace.