Total posts: 1,732
-->
@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:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
To have friends, one would need to exist.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
No, I’m unable to distinguish a thing if the given state is what makes up that thing, a helicopter is still a helicopter regardless of the fast label you attach to it just as much as a light is still a light regardless of whether or not it’s on or off, however if I were to try and keep up with the pretense that you are correct in regards to morality’s subjective nature then morality can’t be morality without the subjective label attached to it because that’s what makes morality what it is.
The argument you're making would apply to "objective morality" as well - is objective morality distinct from morality? It seems absurd to me that we should think chocolate ice cream is not really ice cream...or that any 'flavor' of morality is not morality. So long as we're referring to principles/rules of humans interacting with others for the benefit of all involved - its morality. For the record, it is subjective. ;-)
Do you have a position on morality or are you just here to nitpick?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Nah, sorry man. I dont know how to play and don't have a lot of consistent time available.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
In fairness to your potential opponent, the proposition should reference widespread fraud - that is what Trump has been claiming.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Because how would you know the actual value if two individuals, groups, cultures, or societies each said the opposite is the right or good?How do you compare two morals as both being the right one?
This has been answered. Any person or group which holds genocide, rape, eating their neighbor, etc. as a moral good is demonstrably wrong. These things are not good for individual humans and, by extension, humanity. This is verified by objective reality. Repeating your questions (as though they weren't answered) makes it seem as though you're not comprehending my answers or simply ignoring them. Feel free to ask sincere questions if need be.
I don't care what you believe - I care what you can demonstrate through argument and evidence. "No other god is logically possible because this one is my favorite" isn't a logical argument or evidence.What I can demonstrate would never be enough for someone who doesn't want to accept the Judeo-Christian position.
This is a unreasonable rationalization, Peter. Why should I, or anyone, want to accept what has not been demonstrated - whether that be objective morality or the deity claimed to be the basis of it? Besides, wanting to believe in the Christian god didn't stop me from finding my reasons for my belief being insufficient.
I did not see anything else in your most recent posts which had not been previously answered or that deserved any more attention. I think it is safe to say, this topic has been well explored and repetition is not going to get us anywhere. Let me know if/when you'd like to have a debate on Slavery in the Bible or anything else.
Created:
Sorry for the delay - I just saw this post.
[a] This answer is so incomplete it is wrong. Its true some god concepts contradict and cannot be true at the same time. [b] However, not all god concepts are mutually exclusive and [c] they could be true at the same time. [d] Additionally, there could be one god ...or no gods. If your reasoning for the existence of the Christian god is 'no other option is logically possible', you're in for a rude awakening, my friend.[a] Are you saying that the 'gods' of the New Age Movement are the same God of Scripture?
No to all.
I believe they are contradictory to the Judeo-Christian God
I don't care what you believe - I care what you can demonstrate through argument and evidence. "No other god is logically possible because this one is my favorite" isn't a logical argument or evidence.
Just working within your paradigm, it could be a deistic god and your god are one and the same...bam - nows there's 2 god concepts that are true at the same time.
Two contrary things cannot logically both be true at the same time.
I agree, but this is not a refutation of my point.
More to the point, which is it? It can only be one or the other. How would you know there is no God?
My position isn't "there is no god". My position is closer to "For what rational reason should I believe that?". Fallacious answers** equate to "none".
**'How would you know there is no god' is shifting the burden.
I recognize my limitations to an extent. That is why I see the necessity in God setting the record straight.
The question was how do you know your belief in god is not a manufactured meaning, and your answer is literally using your belief to prop up your belief. Pulling yourself up by your bootstraps only works in cartoons. XD
Created:
-->@PGA2.0
Objective morality only applies if God exists, and morality is something Amoranemix and Ramshutu believe is relativistic because it is continually "evolving," although Ramshutu tries to mask it as an objective "imperative." That to him seems to only apply to "the group" that adopts some standard of right or wrong, when it is obvious other groups disagree and preach the opposite standard. So, the objectivity is up in the air. The identity is lost when neither group is wrong yet both preach the opposite.
For the record, you're claiming objective morality only applies if God exists while also highlighting evidence against objective morality.
[a]Moral values that are qualitative need a measurement too. [b]There has to be something we compare something else to or against, and in the case of morals, [c] an unchanging standard, something that is real but abstract.[d] If you don't have a real, unchanging "right" or "good" (the standard of comparison), then how can you say this moral value is better than another?
[a] Ok.
[b] Ok.
[c] why must our reference be unchanging?
[d] We don't need a fixed reference - we need a stable reference. That reference can be arbitrary and mutable yet this in no way prevents comparison. The problem you decry is not a real problem.
Why is what you believe truer than what I think?
It's not a matter of belief versus belief as you keep suggesting. It is a matter of belief combined with data demonstrating if that belief is correct. Someone who believes rape, genocide, etc., is a moral good is refuted by evidence to the contrary. So, 'how do we decide who is right' is answered by "facts of reality".
Maybe we can debate slavery in the bible - just a thought.So, my time is not so free at the moment.
No worries. Family comes first. Let me know when you have more time if you're interested.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
Firstly, are there any Christians who hold to this view and who would be prepared to discuss it further?Secondly, would you consider a debate on the subject?
You should talk with PGA2.0.
Created: