tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post3350561008094680211..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: My challenge to JT Eberhard on the Rhode Island prayer casemregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-51550262282789750762014-12-09T17:37:11.395-05:002014-12-09T17:37:11.395-05:00You'd think they would just pray to their God ...You'd think they would just pray to their God and have it sorted:<br /><br />Matthew 18:19 ►"Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.<br /><br />But we atheists have Iron Chariots http://wiki.ironchariots.org/<br /><br />Judges 1:19 ►The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots fitted with iron.<br />Dark Starhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04356850749159919331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-42600288310603806142012-01-23T18:23:21.490-05:002012-01-23T18:23:21.490-05:00http://willisweb.com/dispelling-egnorance/#comment...http://willisweb.com/dispelling-egnorance/#comment-45823calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-43784089138048976062012-01-23T17:04:16.648-05:002012-01-23T17:04:16.648-05:00It's as the useless book says: "Ask, and ...It's as the useless book says: "Ask, and ye shall receive."<br /><br />http://freethoughtblogs.com/wwjtd/2012/01/23/michael-egnor-champion-of-those-who-think-reading-is-a-waste-of-time/<br /><br />http://freethoughtblogs.com/wwjtd/2012/01/23/michael-egnor-champion-of-those-who-dont-read-the-whole-constitution/<br /><br />http://freethoughtblogs.com/wwjtd/2012/01/23/separation-of-church-and-state-isnt-in-the-constitution/<br /><br />http://freethoughtblogs.com/wwjtd/2012/01/23/michael-egnor-champion-of-the-red-herrings/?preview=true<br /><br />JTJT Eberhardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08024228037202117988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-82949343265713093032012-01-23T17:01:13.075-05:002012-01-23T17:01:13.075-05:00Domics on Jan 19, 2012 03:50 AM asked:
"In t...Domics on Jan 19, 2012 03:50 AM asked:<br /><br />"In the "evolutionary biology" is implicit or not the non existence of God and the materialism (i.e.: the soul does not exist)?"<br /><br />It is not implicit in evolutionary biology, and to even ask the question illustrates your scientific ignorance in regard to evolution. Don't take my word for it, look at the official position of the Catholic Church: "In an October 22, 1996, address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II updated the Church's position to accept evolution of the human body:<br /><br /> "In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory." And<br />"A five-day conference held in March 2009 by the Pontifical University in Rome, marking the 150th anniversary of the publication of the Origin of Species, generally confirmed the lack of conflict between evolutionary theory and Catholic theology, and the rejection of Intelligent Design by Catholic scholars.[37]<br /><br />The Church has deferred to scientists on matters such as the age of the earth and the authenticity of the fossil record. Papal pronouncements, along with commentaries by cardinals, have accepted the findings of scientists on the gradual appearance of life. In fact, the International Theological Commission in a July 2004 statement endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger, then president of the Commission and head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, now Pope Benedict XVI, includes this paragraph:<br /><br /> According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution."<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution23calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-20452286808791599152012-01-23T08:25:35.046-05:002012-01-23T08:25:35.046-05:00Iceburn!Iceburn!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-13073636280156398212012-01-23T06:54:42.167-05:002012-01-23T06:54:42.167-05:00"In what way is Ms. Ahlquist now benefitted b..."In what way is Ms. Ahlquist now benefitted by removing the prayer?" 1) She will no longer feel ostracized from looking at it 2) she will no longer feel marginalized to second class citizenry by her own government as excluded from the preferred religion, 3)she has the comfort of knowing she has supported our Constitution and the rule of law--a benefit every American SHOULD access but which you don't. We ALL benefit when the rule of law is upheld, including Ms. Ahlquist.<br /><br />More importantly, why do you even ask this? The real question, and one you avoid assiduously, is "Did the school violate existing case law and jurisprudence?" That is what the trial was about. Nothing else. Keep your eye on the ball.<br /><br />"Would it be of benefit to Ms. Ahlquist to learn to tolerate displays of the beliefs of others?" In terms of the trial, this question is a non sequiter. However, the answer is "In terms of THIS banner, that is her decision to make." As to tolerating "displays of the beliefs of others?", we all--including Jessica--- do this all day every day. From our money, to clothing and jewelry on others, to icons and sayings on their cars, to churches on every corner, to Jehovah Witnesses trespassing on our doorsteps, to Westboro Bapist, to the church organized abortion protests, to bibles in hotel rooms....the list is literally endless. A much better question would be, "Would it be of benefit to people like you to respect the rights of citizens who do not subscribe to your preferred religion?"<br /><br />"Do atheists have a Constitutional right not to see religious expression with which they disagree?" Depending on WHERE that religious expression is and who is promoting it....yep.<br /><br />From the decision (again): "The Supreme Court has traditionally drawn a clear line<br />between government conduct which might be acceptable in some<br />settings and the conduct which is prohibited in public schools."<br /><br />No one claims "atheists have a Constitutional right not to see religious expression with which they disagree" in general. However, they do in specific circumstances. That is exactly what the case was about. How could you miss that? Oh, yeah...you never read the decision.<br /><br />"If atheists don't have that right, what standing did Ahlquist have to bring the suit?" They do have that right in instances like this one. However, the judge addresses standing. Had you read the decision, you would have the answer to this, as well as most of the other questions. If you REALLY want answers to these sophomoric questions, why aren't you reading the actual decision of the court instead of asking them to a music major (Mr. Eberhard)? The pretty obvious answer is you don't really want answers, you are just attempting to sow the seeds of confusion.....and failing miserably, I might add.<br /><br />Well, enough time spent advising you to do the simple thing you should have done long ago: read the decision. Most of the answers you demand are there. Like the old saying says, :When all else fails, read the instructions".23calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-34755292584517974622012-01-23T06:40:51.449-05:002012-01-23T06:40:51.449-05:00"In what way was Jessica Ahlquist harmed by t..."In what way was Jessica Ahlquist harmed by the prayer mural?" The way she was harmed was "legally". If you had read the 40 page decision, you would know this. It is explained clearly and at length by the Judge. Actually, had you read the decision, most of your sophomoric questions would have been answered. Why didn't you bother to read it before exposing your ignorance in this manner?<br /><br />"Is feeling "excluded and ostracized" by a prayer on a wall the reaction of a reasonable person?" Yep. At least, it is the decision of an impartial court that is exactly the reaction of not only a REASONABLE person, but also an OBJECTIVE person.<br /><br />From the decision: "While Plaintiff recalls feeling ostracized<br />and alone, the constitutionality of the Prayer Mural turns not on<br />Plaintiff’s feelings, but rather on the Court’s assessment of how<br />a reasonable and objective observer, fully aware of the<br />background and circumstances, would view the Prayer Mural and the<br />conduct of the School Committee."<br /><br />"During the 50 years the mural was on the wall, how many other people reported experiencing the same harm?" Some, but it doesn't matter how many. Of course, based on the vitriol, ostracism, bullying, harassment, threats of assault,rape, and death from good tolerant Christians over this, very few people would likely have the courage to protect the rule of law as Jessica did.<br /><br />From the decision: “Nor did it matter that few children had<br />complained of the practice, for the measure of the seriousness of<br />a breach of the Establishment Clause has never been thought to be<br />the number of people who complain of it.”<br /><br />And this from the decision: "What to most believers may seem nothing more<br />than a reasonable request that the<br />nonbeliever respect their religious<br />practices, in a school context may appear to<br />the nonbeliever or dissenter to be an attempt<br />to employ the machinery of the State to<br />enforce a religious orthodoxy."<br /><br />This explains it very well: "Tommy P. Baer, international president of B'nai B'rith stated:"We believe in religion and we believe in the importance of prayer. What we don't believe in is government-sponsored religion expressed in public places...As a minority, we have felt the pain of being the outsider. No one -- especially school children -- should be made to feel inferior because they do not believe in the religion of the majority..."23calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-975013835877682742012-01-22T23:31:55.635-05:002012-01-22T23:31:55.635-05:00So the understanding must have changed from the ti...So the understanding must have changed from the time of Andrew Jackson?<br /><br />"While I concur with the Synod in the efficacy of prayer, and in the hope that our country may be preserved from the attacks of pestilence "and that the judgments now abroad in the earth may be sanctified to the nations," I am constrained to decline the designation of any period or mode as proper for the public manifestation of this reliance. I could not do otherwise without transcending the limits prescribed by the Constitution for the President and without feeling that I might in some degree disturb the security which religion nowadays enjoys in this country in its complete separation from the political concerns of the General Government."<br /><br /> Response to request from a church organization of New York, on refusing to proclaim a national day of fasting and prayer<br /><br />Madison clearly understood "wall of separation", but this is what he wrote about the hiring of chaplains, and I believe the principles he espouses may well apply to Kent D.'s question:<br />"The establishment of the chaplainship to Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles....Rather than let this step beyond the landmarks of power have the effect of a legitimate precedent, it will be better to apply to it the legal aphorism de minimis non curat lex: or to class it cum "maculis quas aut incuria fudit, aut humana parum cavit natura (with faults which human nature either has scattered around through negligence or has guarded against too little].."<br /><br />Did you catch that? "RATHER THAN LET THIS STEP BEYOND THE LANDMARKS OF POWER HAVE THE EFFECT OF A LEGITIMATE PRECEDENT"....just regard it as human negligence or something guarded against too little.23calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-15232057842884089592012-01-22T23:10:50.195-05:002012-01-22T23:10:50.195-05:00"Christian? Don't you mean Catholic, Angl..."Christian? Don't you mean Catholic, Anglican, Baptist, Sunni, Shia, etc<br />Christianity is a FAITH, not a religion."<br /><br />I looked up Christianity in dictionary.com, and the first one it gave was:<br />the Christian RELIGION, including the Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox churches. If Christianity isn't a religion (but Methodist,Catholic, and Baptist are), then Islam isn't a religion (but Sunni and Shia are).<br />I googled major world RELIGIONS, and Christianity was one of them.<br /><br />But, if Christianity isn't a religion, then I guess US citizens don't have the freedom to follow it, nor is it protected under the First Amendment. Right? Can't have it both ways, right?<br />But, that doesn't matter. What DOES matter is what RONALD R. LAGUEUX, Senior United States District Judge, has to say about it, and he undeniably sees Christianity as a religion. You can read the entire opinion at: http://www.rid.uscourts.gov/menu/judges/opinions/lagueux/01112012_1-11CV0138L_AHLQUIST_V_CRANSTON_P.pdf<br /><br />"No amount of debate can make the School Prayer anything<br />other than a prayer, and a Christian one at that. Its opening,<br />calling upon the “Heavenly Father,” is an exclusively Christian<br />formulation of a monotheistic deity, leaving out, inter alia,<br />Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists alike. The Prayer<br />concludes with the indisputably religious closing: “Amen;” a<br />Hebrew word used by Jews, Christians and Muslims to conclude<br />prayers. In between, the Prayer espouses values of honesty,<br />kindness, friendship and sportsmanship. While these goals are<br />commendable, the reliance on God’s intervention as the way to<br />achieve those goals is not consistent with a secular purpose."23calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-32728568274292371662012-01-22T22:25:19.637-05:002012-01-22T22:25:19.637-05:00Sexuality inhibits Christianity?!? "....that...Sexuality inhibits Christianity?!? "....that promote various sexual deviances as 'normal'" I don't think Christianity gets to decide what is psychologically "normal". Rex's answer is so vague that it is hard to address, but if you're talking about homosexuality, it isn't deviant...it is normal, and every mainstream psychological and medical organization has recognized it as such. If you are talking about something else, be specific enough that it can be addressed.<br /><br />The idea that any religion gets to set the standard for "normal" and everyone has to bow to it or else be guilty of inhibiting that religion is just goofy. That would make the government saying it is acceptable for women to walk about with their face uncovered to be "inhibiting" Islam. The notion is absurd.23calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-21907284388618464132012-01-22T22:20:48.176-05:002012-01-22T22:20:48.176-05:00Yes we do agree on the lawsuit thing.
Do i support...Yes we do agree on the lawsuit thing.<br />Do i support any sort of posters such as these in a public school? NO.<br /><br />But a lawsuit is just giving atheists bad publicity. We have enough of that as it is - with politicians going around saying we're not 'real citizens' (Bush Sr.) to being the most untrusted minority group in the U.S. (Oh boy, i can hear the jokes already from Pepe or whoever else...)<br /><br />This country has become lawsuit crazy over the past, what, 20-30 years? <br />What the girl should have done, if she couldnt get anywhere with the principal, then demand a secular and/or atheistic poster be put up as well.Mulderhttp://muldonia.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-26872603436353830322012-01-22T18:09:41.554-05:002012-01-22T18:09:41.554-05:00Ah, I see what you're saying, Crus. "Oh ...Ah, I see what you're saying, Crus. "Oh Heavenly Father" isn't religious. I get it.<br /><br />Then why not say "Oh Mystical Mother"? Or "Oh Heavenly Bull-headed Man"? Or "Oh Deceased Plump Chinese Guy"? Or "Oh Ancient Alien Overlord"?<br /><br />But if we put up 100 different versions, we ought to have a fair representations of the beliefs in our country. I'm all for that - plaster sayings compatible with the top 100 faiths in the U.S. in every school. That's fair. Let children see the true variety, and understand that all those different faiths are all equal.<br /><br />But I don't suppose that's what you meant. You don't object to "Oh Heavenly Father" because that fits YOUR religion. <br /><br />Geez, Crus - I never figured you for someone who would run and hide behind semantics. But I guess you'll dance around the truth with mincing little steps while wearing a tutu if it supports your argument.RickKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-74015026540396633672012-01-22T06:54:36.090-05:002012-01-22T06:54:36.090-05:00"So when you talk about "CONSTANT need&q..."So when you talk about "CONSTANT need", take a moment to look at the banner at the top of the blog ..."<br />I am referring to the need of certain Atheists to compare a simple core belief to complex ideological systems. Then when the argument is turned on them and their base system is seen as lacking the intricacies of a full blown religious system, to rush and declare: Atheism is not religion!<br />NO SHIT!?<br /><br /><br /><br />"As for "our faith", we don't have one."<br />I call it a (un)Faith...and yes you do. <br />You have an absolute position on this most profound issue. The only people with NO faith (ie no base BELIEF) -ether way- are agnostic. <br />Let us be frank enough to admit that? <br /> <br /><br />"...is a desire to find and understand the truth."<br />A desire you few share with the many faithful. Do you recognize that desire from/in your opposites? <br /><br />@Mulder,<br />"THAT name calling."<br />Ah okay. Well it seems more like goading or teasing to me. But anyway, I am not sure WHY you protest? Goose and gander. <br />Don't dish it out, if you cannot take it back. Don't attempt to make everyone who believes in God look a superstitious fool if you do not want them to attempt to make you look like a shallow minded materialist.<br /><br />"So that poster stayed up for 50 years, then came down from a lawsuit (which i still dont agree with)...."<br />GOOD! That's all that matters to me. Glad to hear we can agree on a common sense level. <br />The lawsuit was a BAD PR move, and a BAD exercise in censorship. The religious aspect just aggravates it all in my mind. <br />Perhaps I misread your original post. I thought you were comparing an Atheist with a Religious position. Apples and Oranges etc. <br /><br />"And you still havent described how atheism is a religion. I think you guys just say that to try to get atheists pissed off or something"<br />I am convinced some people do exactly that, in order to force atheists away from comparing their unFaith to organized religion. Pissing them off is merely a side effect.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-87260739996083708792012-01-21T21:38:31.604-05:002012-01-21T21:38:31.604-05:00It could be hung in all sorts of public places wit...<i>It could be hung in all sorts of public places with public support. <br />That would probably not be such a bad idea. <br />You know? Protest for the 99% and all?<br />FORCE the censors to replicate THOUSANDS of law suites and their costs while Forcing the agenda of censorship out into the open.</i><br /><br />Good plan. Especially since the loser pays the legal costs of the winner. Theists would be bankrupted in no time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-30631046808664642372012-01-21T18:21:18.723-05:002012-01-21T18:21:18.723-05:00RickK,
Allow me to clarify my position.
Christiani...RickK,<br />Allow me to clarify my position.<br />Christianity is a broad FAITH group. Not a specific religious system. <br />You make a simple category error. No biggy. <br />Easily corrected. <br />So, perhaps the problem is that my answer was not direct enough for you. <br />Here it is simplified, and without the rhetorical question. <br /><br />You ask: "How many Christian prayers on a school wall does it take to constitute government sponsorship of religion? If one prayer doesn't, does two? Does 10? Does 50? "<br />My response: This prayer is not specifically Christian, never mind any specific religion within that faith. There is no references to the Trinity, Christ, or any sort of clergy or Saints. <br />This banner is, perhaps, broadly Theist while borrowing some Abrahamic language ('Heavenly Father '& Amen'). <br />So in plain English: ANY NUMBER of these could be replicated and hung all over your country and it would not violate a law against establishing or oppressing any specific religion by the state or federal government. <br />It could be hung in all sorts of public places with public support. <br />That would probably not be such a bad idea. <br />You know? Protest for the 99% and all?<br />FORCE the censors to replicate THOUSANDS of law suites and their costs while Forcing the agenda of censorship out into the open. <br />That kind of thing. <br />The banners could be like this one and espouse no specific religion or even faith, just the broad sense of being that your majority feels is adequate to recognize their diverse faiths, religions, and individual choices Churches and Temples. A common ground of morality. A GOOD thing. A Godly thing. <br />This simple, humble, unassuming, broadly theist banner worked for years, until a sad little girl focused her anger on it, and the lawyers swooped in like carrion birds. <br />Maybe these meek words should get a second life on a much larger scale? <br /><br />@Mulder,<br />'Yet you still refer to atheism as a religion.'<br />No. I do not. <br />I refer to it as a (un)Faith. <br />Saying it is simply a 'lack of faith' is inadequate to illustrate the real implications of this idea of nothing is a cop out...just plain lazy. <br />Modern Atheism is a component belief of a larger compound ideology, if you like. It is enables and facilitates certain patterns in the way people think and behave, just as a faith does. <br />There are currently several popular Atheist friendly doctrines that would be better described as 'pseudo religious' or cult-like and so a closer match. I would still resist calling them religion, as it seems an unfair comparison to those ancient traditions. <br />Let's face it, nature abhors a vacuum and a negative position on Cosmology creates one HELL of a vacuum.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-13162792055452135842012-01-21T15:41:15.480-05:002012-01-21T15:41:15.480-05:00One was in a state-sanctioned public school, the o...One was in a state-sanctioned public school, the other is printed on U.S. currency.<br /><br />Whats your point?Mulderhttp://muldonia.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-70156762380829079902012-01-21T15:33:15.627-05:002012-01-21T15:33:15.627-05:00Rex: "But name calling.... not sure what you ...Rex: "But name calling.... not sure what you mean."<br />(by Egnor): "Are you really that stupid?"<br /><br />THAT name calling.<br /><br />When someone writes an article, or blog post in this case, and responds in such a way to opinions contrary to his own, its very revealing of the inner anger and hatred of the original writer.<br /><br />And i wasnt comparing atheism with religion. Where did i do that? I said: "...if an atheist society, or principal posted a sign or poster declaring their thoughts on god in a public school."<br /><br />My point was to make the comparison to see the difference in reactions between the two types of people. So that poster stayed up for 50 years, then came down from a lawsuit (which i still dont agree with) but if it were as like i proposed, then it wouldnt last a day, with whomever taking the removal into their own pious hands...in whatever anger or violent form..<br /><br />And you still havent described how atheism is a religion. I think you guys just say that to try to get atheists pissed off or something.Mulderhttp://muldonia.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-88597262826972740862012-01-20T16:16:36.050-05:002012-01-20T16:16:36.050-05:00So, your argument is that because the 14th Amendme...So, your argument is that because the 14th Amendment was not subjected to a case or controversy in 1868, then how people behaved at that time is the correct manner to interpret it, and case law developed over the next several years as the Supreme Court worked out all of its implications is invalid. I assume that you contend that <i>Plessy v. Ferguson</i> is the only valid interpretation of the equal protection clause as well?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-90930835575180967282012-01-20T15:02:16.652-05:002012-01-20T15:02:16.652-05:00Crus - the atheists on this blog are defending the...Crus - the atheists on this blog are defending themselves from the relentless, hate-filled attacks posted almost daily by Michael. So when you talk about "CONSTANT need", take a moment to look at the banner at the top of the blog page and reflect on who it is that is warped by an obsessive constant need.<br /><br />As for "our faith", we don't have one. The only unifying factor I've found among atheists - whether I meet them at at a dinner with NY Skeptics, or in the book discussion group before Sunday services at one of our local churches - is a desire to find and understand the truth. <br /><br />It's that simple. I value truth. Therefore, I find no evidence of divine magic, and I find thousands of examples of things falsely attributed to divine magic - from transubstantiation during communion along the railing at the Church of St. Francis to accusations of witchcraft in Chad. Not even Michael could come up with a single definitive example of divine magic any time since the origin of the first cell. Finding no evidence for divine magic and so much against it, I don't think it is true.<br /><br />Similarly, since I don't believe divine magic is true, then I don't believe that human exceptionalism or my life's meaning are inserted through divine magic. <br /><br />Finally, even though you keep telling me that because I don't believe in divine magic, my life doesn't have meaning, I know you are wrong. I know what you say is not true, because my life does indeed have meaning. All around you people without an ounce of faith in the divine live of great meaning, great accomplishment, great charity. You cannot deny this. And I'm astonished by the twisted arrogance it requires for you to make such disparaging statements about other people's lives.<br /><br />It's that simple. I respect things that are true, and don't respect things (ideas, statements) that I don't believe are true. And when I talk to other atheists, they say the same thing: "I just never believed it was real" or "I came to realize it was just a bunch of stories." <br /><br />Faith is the ability to believe what you know to be untrue. Well, in that regard I don't respect faith at all.<br /><br />If such a worldview seems like a vacuous "graphic novel" to you, then I suggest it is you who are guilty of projection. Perhaps it is you who are incapable of seeing depth in those whose ideas you oppose.RickKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-40506956617637048062012-01-20T08:07:30.270-05:002012-01-20T08:07:30.270-05:00'And rex, religious belief is practically the ...'And rex, religious belief is practically the definition of paralogia. SWOOSH to you too.'<br /><br />mulder, <br />Atheism is not religion, remember? <br />So why the CONSTANT need BY ATHEISTS to compare religion and atheism?<br />Broad THEISM (faith) is what you should contrast with. Remember? <br />Our faith in a God and purpose; a prime mover and a reason for it all.<br />You faith in an abstraction referred to as 'science' or 'progress' AS the reason for it all, and 'stuff happened' as a form of a theory origins/cosmology. <br />Religion is about how we symbolize that faith. It is about ritual and tradition. Like communion for us, or vivisection to you. <br />Like when a rabbi, minister, or priest gives a sermon or mass on human exceptionalism, purpose and meaning,<br />or an atheist professor, author, or hack (mis)represents fossils to argue for abg, randomness, and futility.<br />That kind of thing. <br />But name calling.... not sure what you mean. <br />Shall I call you a name? Would that make you feel vidicated? Okay. Here goes!<br />You belong to the most vacuous and banal form of pseudo philosophical 'nerd cult' that has ever burst forth from the acne of academia! <br />That feel better? That fit into your graphic novel reality? <br />"KAPOW!"<br />I don't really mean it... well, not entirely - but you seem to really need the beating. <br />Enjoy.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-40252223883380905462012-01-20T02:19:35.687-05:002012-01-20T02:19:35.687-05:00Mulder, I did a very simple question:
what is the...Mulder, I did a very simple question:<br /><br />what is the difference between 'Our Heavenly Father, Grant us' and ''In God we Trust'.<br />If you have the answer post it.Domicshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02108175024624509183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-49481731066778478302012-01-19T21:45:18.781-05:002012-01-19T21:45:18.781-05:00Mulder,
That's what we expect from religious ...Mulder,<br /><br />That's what we expect from religious fanatics - violence.<br /><br />After all, referring back to an earlier (and frankly disgusting) post by Michael - what religion were the murderers and arsonists who carried out the atrocities on Kristallnacht? Hmm... <br /><br />Let's look it up: 54% Protestant and 40% Catholic - and only 1.5% non-believers according to the 1939 census. So the atrocities performed on Jewish people were carried out by people almost entirely raised within the warm embrace of Jesus's love.<br /><br />Let us hope Jessica doesn't fall victim to "His terrible swift sword."<br /><br />Once again, Michael stands atop his teetering mansion of cracking glass as he throws his stones.RickKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-13000986928266226342012-01-19T21:31:51.578-05:002012-01-19T21:31:51.578-05:00Ok, Crus - whatever you say. Christianity is not ...Ok, Crus - whatever you say. Christianity is not a religion. Yeah. <br /><br />I guess it was too hard a question for you to answer directly.RickKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-90166583023736414372012-01-19T19:14:34.774-05:002012-01-19T19:14:34.774-05:00@Anonymous:
You seem to be assuming that all secu...@Anonymous:<br /><br />You seem to be assuming that all secularists are anti-religious. I make no such assumption. Some very religious people are opposed to governmental religious expression. Some religious people even appear to be opposed to any expression of religion in the public square (i.e. any exercise of non-private, non-governmental religious expression). From the Protestant Christian tradition, one prominent example comes to mind, at least with respect to one expression of religion. If memory serves, J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937) was strongly against prayer in public schools.<br /><br />In any case, you fail to address the historical facts. If the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 means what the secularists claim it means, how is it that highly public government expressions of religion permeate the decades following the ratification of the amendment? People in government, and the citizenry in general, were too stupid to recognize the obvious contradiction and lawlessness of such expressions? Far be it from me to deny that government, and the general public, can be myopic in the extreme: witness our last presidential election and the rotten fruits that it has borne. But I don't think myopia on the part of government or the <i>hoi polloi</i> is indicated in this case. As I wrote before:<br /><br /><i>[President Johnson's Thanksgiving Day proclamation] caused no particular consternation at the time for the simple reason that in 1868, the generally accepted understanding of the so-called "wall of separation between church and state" meant something very different than the present-day secularist conception.</i><br /><br />Would you care to try to make the case that this proposition is false?Kent D. (Omaha)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-19264131252753417402012-01-19T11:48:13.062-05:002012-01-19T11:48:13.062-05:00Its a pretty story, except for the fact that the b...Its a pretty story, except for the fact that the bulk of those who have argued in favor of (and for judges, ruled in favor of) the dissociation of the government from religious entanglement have been religious themselves. Blaming "secularists" for decisions like <i>Everson</i>, <i>Engel</i>, <i>Lee v. Weisman</i>, <i>Santa Fe ISD</i> and so on is simply denying reality. For example, the people who objected to school-led prayer in <i>Engel</i> were Jewish organizations, not "secularists".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com