Total posts: 1,740
-->
@Dr.Franklin
i already proved it
If you say so - I obviously missed it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Logic is fakeOh wow okay. LolIs math real?
If all else fails, make shit up, eh?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
My son made the same exact statement to me earlier when I said batman was not real. He shrugged and said"I remain unconvinced."
Chip off the ol' block, eh? Does he have the logical argumentation for the existence of Batman too? (So cute!) Before he gets carried away, it might be a good idea to tell him synthetic truths do not follow from analytic propositions.
It goes to show that even when you show perfect logic such as Godel's modal ontological argument, that sometimes people will just believe what they want to.
Pure logic doesn't generate facts about the real world. ;-)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
How would you with your limited knowledge and significantly lower IQ than God, even be able to realize what perfect was by looking at it or reading about it in this case?
Assuming a god exists and humans (with finite knowledge) cannot recognize perfection then we can't know if God is perfect or not. It makes you wonder how we could define "God" as perfect...
You don't know really if God has directed the writing of the Koran, bible and Tanakh. Perhaps start by looking at things you do know he wrote. Look for him in the laws of nature.
I know of things claimed to be written by gods - I know of nothing that actually is.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
...perfect example of assertion. XD
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
no it clearly does not, i have provided evidence showing that Christianity is the true religion of america
Assertion is not evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
By definition God would have to be perfect.
I guess the authors of the Tanakh/Bible/Quran didn't get the memo. ;-)
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
You're "nu huh" has been noted. Being the only reasoned arguments in this conversation, my points stand.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
the fathers reconginaed the importance of Christianity
Ok, so let track this for a second. First you claimed 'the Christian god was mentioned in the Constitution". When this was shown to be in error, you amended your claim to 'the Christian god was mentioned in the Declaration'. Now that this has been shown wrong, you move the goalposts once again to 'the founders recognized the importance of Christianity'. What will your next 'concession by new claim' be? You're not being an honest interlocutor.
As to your new claim, some of the founders were Christian, some were not. This is not important. What matters is that the final product of their work, the Constitution, did not convey Christianity as of any importance moreso than any other religious view. In fact, it established that the power of the government comes from people, not any god - that isn't a Judeo-Christian principle. It established that every man (person) is equal - again that isn't a Judeo-Christian principle. I could go on and on. Given that you will inevitably abandoned yet another failed claim, its not worth the effort. Suffice to say, the Constitution is not built on Judeo-Christian principles.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
No, the Christian god isn't mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. You're reading the Declaration through a Christian lense.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Sure thing, pops! XD
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
God is mentioned in the Constitution, the fathers understood the influence of ChristianityI'm not sure what you're reading, but it's not the Constitution - there is no mention of God in the Constitution.declration of independence
The Christian god isn't mentioned in the Independence either...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
I haven't seen the ol' "I'm rubber, you're glue" retort in quite a while!- How about the ol' "I'm Pro, you're Con" retort, when is the last time you seen that?
As a rule, I try not to debate children. ;-)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
@zedvictor4
- You shouldn't speak to the mirror like that.
I haven't seen the ol' "I'm rubber, you're glue" retort in quite a while!
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
I never said SCOTUS worked error-free. They have overruled themselves over 200 times in their history. But, when it comes to legality, SCOTUS, in the U.S., is the last word.
SCOTUS has the last word until SCOTUS overrules it - got it.
My position has not changed. I'll wait for legislation or the Supreme Court to catch up to the intent of the godless Constitution that created them. ;-)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
I believe in God, because without qidam (pre-existence, necessity, first principal, ultimate reality...) there can be nothing. There is no world in which there is no qidam.
You're smuggling God in here. You would need to demonstrate "qidam" is part of every world or, at least, this one.
why should I believe what you do?- To attain truth, peace & salvation.
I should accept your belief is true so I could get [1] truth, [2] peace, and [3] salvation?
[1] circular reasoning
[2] peace can be had without your belief
[3] salvation from what?
- I am much more interested in debate. But discussion is ok too.
Currently, I'm not very interested in a debate for two reasons: lack of time and ignorance of the Quran.
My available time is about to improve (I'm quitting my second job - yay!). I would still need to brush up on the Quran - not sure how quickly I could do that...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
- We can give that a shot too. My position regarding what exactly?
- I believe a lot of things. That's a wildly general question. Anything in particular?
Yes. Within the context of the OP its not a general question. How do you define God and why do you believe that; or more precisely - why should I believe what you do?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
God is mentioned in the Constitution [...]
I'm not sure what you're reading, but it's not the Constitution - there is no mention of God in the Constitution.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I've never understood what a Kritick is...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
- What's the point of defending my premises here if we are having a debate?? Unless of course you don't wish to debate, which would be a shame.
As I said earlier, I'm still trying to discover what your position is. Its possible I may agree with you in which case there would be nothing to debate.
We can continue with 'what you believe AND why?' as the OP laid out... or not. Its totally your decision, friend.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Maybe. Once I know more about what your position is (that's what I'm trying to discover now), we can have a debate.- The resolution would be something like 'the Quran is true' or 'the Quran is a revelation from God' or 'Muhammed is a prophet' or something to that affect.
I guess there's nothing left to discover?
- Indeed, why would I! You can find out in the debate
From here, a debate is looking like a timesink. The questions I'm asking are pretty basic and you're trying to kick the conversation down the road.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Oh, but there are ways. Let us have a formal debate over this. I'll be Pro & you be Con. You can prove me wrong there. What say you?
Maybe. Once I know more about what your position is (that's what I'm trying to discover now), we can have a debate.
In short, the provided syllogism doesn't address what I'm challenging. Regardless, continuing from here or not, I appreciate your efforts.- You are making a lot of assumptions... The syllogism perfectly answers the question, that much is obvious. You are assuming the premises can not be proven! Why would I mention P1 & P2 if they are unprovable!
Indeed. Why would you mention P2, say it is defensible, and not defend it? Unsubstantiated claims have no value.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
What are you going on about? Surely, you're not trying to suggest SCOTUS is absolute and without error? If so, you'd better take a harder look at historical SCOTUS rulings. If not, you have no argument - Supreme Court rulings are not the end of all discussion on a given subject.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Of course establishing P1 & P2 is not evident. To establish P1 we need to prove that the Quran we have today was preserved *verbatim* as it was first taught by the Prophet 14 centuries ago. To establish P2 we have to prove that the Prophet is actually a *true* prophet who indeed received his revelation from God not a false prophet who made up his own "revelation".
Whether the words were preserved perfectly from 14 centuries ago is irrelevant if we can't establish the words were given by a deity. I see no way to establish (P2) Mohammed had anything revealed to him other than the fact he said so, or more precisely, it was written that he said so.
In short, the provided syllogism doesn't address what I'm challenging. Regardless, continuing from here or not, I appreciate your efforts.
Created:
-->
@coal
My apologies, I did misunderstand you.
The words "under God" were, therefore, not meant to (and do not) make theological claims about the particularities of God and/or religion. Rather, it was to make a statement about the relationship between the state and the individual, where the limits of the state's authority over individuals subject to it were limited by something more than just a piece of paper a bunch of people wrote in 1789. It was to reinforce the idea that the source of our rights is grounded in our being; in our nature and in natural law.
This is certainly in-line with my understanding of the founders intent. However, the addition of "under God' is a clumsy way of trying to reinforce this. It suggests the power of the US government might come from a diety rather than from the people. Without a doubt, this is how Christian Nationalists have (wrongly) understood it.
Created:
-->
@coal
Maybe I misunderstood you. Were you saying "God" was not necessarily referring to the Christian god?
Created:
-->
@coal
Cool. I suppose you have no issue with "God damn it", either?
Created:
-->
@Lemming
'Being tolerant of' and 'accepting as an equal' are not the same thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
I don't feel that answers the question - why should a non-Muslim recognize the Quran as truth?- That's a different question. Answer: because it's the truth, or more precisely, the Quran is revealed by God to Prophet Muhammed.
This translates to 'the Quran is true because the author claimed to speak for God'. ...its 'true because someone said its true'.
Ok. If you say so. ;-)
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
'All ice cream is equally tasty and chocolate is the best'. This is a logically incoherent statement -- Just like 'a government meant to uphold religious freedom can favor one religion over others'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
- That's his choice, wether he wants to pursue Truth or not.
I don't feel that answers the question - why should a non-Muslim recognize the Quran as truth?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Why should a non-Muslim accept the Quran as authoritative here?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
On this matter, SCOTUS overrules your opinion.
SCOTUS certainly does not overule logic. ;-)
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Freedom of religion requires a government to be free of religion.No, wrong interpretation
Its not an interpretation - it is just simple logic. You can't advocate for equality of anything while also favoring one option over others.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
God was no more than a generic reference to a freedom of religion
Freedom of religion requires a government to be free of religion. A reference to a diety, any diety, disallows the option of no diety. Quite simply, "under God" does not represent religious freedom - it can't, and it is beyond absurd to pretend otherwise.
If the pledge offends you by the reference, "under God," don't say it.
I don't - how could I in good conscience say what I don't accept as true? ...and why should I? It is not necessary to believe in a god, much less that our nation is under one, to be an American.
On the other hand, a pledge without the phrase "under God" would include believers and non-believers alike making it more unifying than one with it.
Does the majority get to have its say, too?
If the majority doesn't understand religious freedom and runs roughshod over the first amendment, America will cease to be "America". So, I think a better question should be 'do dogmatists understand what they are advocating'?
Besides that, less than 50% of Americans belong to a church, synagogue, or mosque. The writing is on the wall, my friend. Just know, I will not force you to share my lack of belief in the name of patriotism when the shoe is on the other foot.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
You can say 'under God' is a deistic reference, but in practice, it is understood with religious implications - and I think that is how it was intended.
The fact that dogmatic Christians get bent when a different ( vague) reference is used for a particular God gives away the game. "Allah" does the same work as "God" except, instead of Christian connotations, it has Islamic connotations.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
...not so vague references to the Christian diety in our pledge?My #23 post to Lemming:Oh, how I wish y'all would stop depending on Wiki as a solitary source.
You're dodging of the core question of my post: 32.
Besides that, I think it is fair to say "under God" is commonly understood as a reference to the Christian diety regardless of its original intent.... which, with a charitably broad evaluation, seems meant to reference the Abrahamic god. Look into Rev. George Docherty.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Oh, ok...?
How does quotes from Jefferson (who advocated for a separation between state and religion) and Adams (who oversaw the unanimous ratification of the Treaty of Tripoli - "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion") support not so vague references to the Christian diety in our pledge?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
@Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge:Yes it is - capital "G" god, specifically refers to the gods of the abrahamic religions, don't try to pull that semantic stuff.
fauxlaw:"...the liberties of a nation cannot be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God." - Thomas Jefferson"...our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people and was wholly inadequate for the government of any other."' - John Adams
I'm not following the thought process of this response to Weakeredge.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
The pearl clutching from Conservatives here is delicious. XD
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I nominate Ramshutu should he be willing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Good routine - seems fairly accurate!
Created:
-->
@Wylted
That didn't answer the question.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
A recount is pointless. You need the ballots audited. If you keep recounting the same fraudulent ballots, the numbers will keep coming up the same.
Do you mean "audited" like the multiples times the ballots have already been audited?
Created:
-->
@Wylted
I want you to explain why an if there is no fraud, that they are trying to prevent audits. These audits are harmless if they are innocent
Trying to prevent audits? Even if that were true, they would be trying to stop...what..the 3rd or fourth recount? The first few were just practice runs, eh? ...same with the 50+ meritless challenges in the courts too, eh? Once we get a recount by people who are not biased to reality, we'll finally have a 'legitimate' conclusion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
What's the harm if god [of the Bible] exists, then?
It means a powerful, ignorant, and malicious being who fancies himself righteous and perfect in every way plays hide and seek with humanity and tortures for all eternity those who don't find or pretend to find him.
Besides that...everything would be hunky dory. XD
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
What's the harm in the devil existing, tell me?
The devil is the antihero to Yahweh's antivillian. A conscientious objector cast from heaven and consigned to be the benchmark of evil by the "good guy". If the devil existed, he would be the least of our transcendent problems.
Created: