If you are able to change human nature, and remove the emotional aspect of human nature, replace it with pure logic, I salute you. Now you resort to calling me a fool? How exemplary of your own emotionalism.
Doesn't this invalidate the "majority rule" principle?? The system is NOT working! duh! The majority are idiots, complete and utter fools the whole lot of 'em, that is obvious, why should they "rule"?? Only able philosophers and academicians should carry weight, IQ should be a pre-requisite for starters! .. don't you agree??
The systems itself works perfectly. That you think you have overcome your own emotionalism is your right, but it is folly in fact. It is opinion only to say how human beings should approach their methods of living their lives, and their relationship to the unknown. If philosophers, academias, and those who have scored some high score on an IQ test are the ones who carry weight....that would leave you among the weightless.
The system works perfectly?? Q; How to make a 100 mil? A: Ignore the grave package warnings, take SMOKE into your lungs 18 hrs a day for 30 yrs (duh!), Then when your lungs finally cry "uncle", Feign astonishment, ignorance, and "cry" a lot to 12 of your equaly intelligent peers... Yeah that's the ticket!! The lottery ticket!! An idiot, his heirs and an opportunist are now millionaires many time over. Justice done. Sys working great. Next case! Don't forget to "tell the whole truth the only truth SO HELP ME GOD"! what a joke!
In fact you have. If you say: "Atheists are outside of the American community at large, that is a fact "then you follow by saying: "No one is putting them outside of the community at large,..." You have contradicted yourself. Yours is an argument for coercive conformity. Americans stating that Americans are outside of the American community at large because of their understanding of things and or their opinions, has no place in a free society. It is separatism. A threat to unified cohesive society. An outsider to your own opinion and beliefs is something I am happy to be. But I would not on the other hand be happy to see an American exclaim exclusion of another American from American society at large because of opinions held. No one from the majority make them outsiders when they have a choice of inclusion. They are already included in the American community. All Americans are. Attitudes of â youâre with us or youâre against us â wonât exclude Americans from the American community at large. You can only exclude others from your own group within the American community at large. The words "Atheists are outside of the American community at large, that is a fact".. is not a fact and furthermore it is divisive and misinformed. Youâre welcome. Atheists are trying to declare their opinion over the theists' opinion by virtue of attempting to change the status quo. The status quo was changed in 1954 . Tt has already been broken. The status quo was present before the alteration in 1954, which was made by foolish politicians on grounds fearful of religion and socialist insurgence. It is religious opinion to state one nation under God. âOne nationâ did just fine. That was the status quo. Just exactly how is the pledge affirming the opinons of others over another group of opinions? "Under God" is an affirming statement. It affirms (swears as true) America is under (is less than something,) God ( a supernatural non existent thingy) There are those who do not favor the opinion of how we spend the tax revenue on military, should we stop affirming the military because a minority is against it? Thatâs a red herring. The pledge affirms nothing about tax revenue or the military. It did have nothing to do with religion until it was altered. All are equal to their opinion. No one is forced to recite the pledge, nor are they forced to think of God in the way that others do The Pledge is about the Flag of America and the people who live as Americans and who salute it. It has nothing to do with one group, whether large or small specially associating themselves with it above other Americans. If the word God does mean anything at all, then the connotations of it are prejudicial to the very ethos of the Pledge. . It is just a word, that has meaning according to what you give to it. The word God does not belong to any church or institution, and the word God can mean many things to many people. Show me where it is writting in any of legal documents what the word God means, or should mean, to those who recite the pledge. So Americans are affirming what as their God? A God of anything means a God of evil is being affirmed as much as a God of avarice. Gods of thunder are being affirmed as much as any graven image. Is that what this so called âmainstream of Americaâ wants? The affirmation by its children that America is under any God, stands for anything at all? It is my stated opinion for taking the words out. You have stated your opinion for keeping the words in. That is what is a fact. Others may well argue for more of God, but as you have already stated âIt is just a wordâ. then what's the purpose for needing more of a word which is just a word? If words are meaningless and have no particular intension or connections, then they are not worth inclusion into a passionate patriotic expression for the citizens of America. The word God is secular. People can use the word God with no specific religion in mind. The word God is not secular. You have made another statement by contradiction. The word God has specific meaning of religion. That makes it non-secular. On the subway walls in London in the 60's you could find the following: "Clapton is God." Hardly an affirmation that Clapton was the Creator of the Universe. Then if it matters not what the affirmation means, you have made an argument for adding any words or taking any words away from it. If words donât matter as you suggest, why is âone Nation under Clapton â any more silly than âone nation under Godâ? If the pledge said "under Natural Law" rather than God, you would not find that offensive, Are you asking me or telling me what I will and will not find offensive? but if people think of natual law when they say God, what is the difference? I think I covered this above. If people think of satan when they say God whatâs the difference You have a hangup on the word God, I don't. Again, are you asking me or telling me what I have a hang up on ? If you do not bother about the word, why argue to keep the word of which you donât care what people give meaning to and which you have no reason to want to include? That remark makes your p,s, sound a little hollow. Responding with phrases which convey disinterest hardly leads me to think you are too bothered about entering into an intelligent debate Then to confirm, you would not object to the Pledge containing the words âone Nation under no Godâ p.s. Thanks for an intelligent debate....they are difficult to come by. Yeah sure
Brilliant rebut.. you are the MAN! haha Stu reamed you a new butthole... no doubt now your a charter member of the "92% club" .. You have no wise rebut but you still have time for your usual futile rationalizations.. time to grasp for straws you go girl give it your all w're rooting for ya! hahahahhha
In fact you have. If you say: "Atheists are outside of the American community at large, that is a fact "then you follow by saying: "No one is putting them outside of the community at large,..." You have contradicted yourself. When people are placed outside of society because of the color of their skin or ethnicity, they have no choice but to me a minority. When people willingly place themselves outside of the mainstream of society, to be a minority in their belief systems, it is by choice. The atheists have made a choice that places them outside of the mainstream thought, the mainstream has not forced them to do so. I am not aware of discrimination or violation of rights by atheists to practice atheism. The majority who practice Theism don't care what the atheists do, as long as what they do doesn't deny them their own rights to their beliefs. Yours is an argument for coercive conformity. Coercive? Who is forcing atheists to conform? They are free not to say the pledge, not to handle money, not to read what is printed on the money. Where is the coercion? If I turn on the TV, and nothing but Bush is on the TV making a speech, and I being coerced into watching Bush? You are free to exercise your freedom of religion or non religion as you see fit. If you don't like what's on, change the channel, or don't watch. Hardly coercion. No one from the majority make them outsiders when they have a choice of inclusion. The do have a choice of inclusion. They can say the pledge with the word God in it. They are choosing to go outside of the mainstream of thought, their right to do so, without persecution for doing so. They are already included in the American community. They are in fact outside of the mainstream of the American community as far as their thought process goes concerning atheism. However, this being outside does not exclude them from anything at all. I have not seen any hiring practices where religion or atheism was an issue in general, atheists are not asked to sit at the back of the bus, atheists don't have separate bathrooms, and I don't see signs that say "Theists only." People are free to hold racist thoughts in this country, they are not free to practice racism where there is harm to the people they are racist toward. Being theist or non theist is not an issue, except for the atheists who don't like the word God. I see no damages because some Theists think atheists are bad or evil. Atheists are trying to declare their opinion over the theists' opinion by virtue of attempting to change the status quo. The status quo was changed in 1954 . You are talking about an event that happened 50 years ago. The status quo of today is the issue. 50 years ago, minority groups did not have the rights they have today....that was the status quo back then too. Shall we return to all values and practices pre-1954? Just exactly how is the pledge affirming the opinons of others over another group of opinions? "Under God" is an affirming statement. It affirms (swears as true) America is under (is less than something,) God ( a supernatural non existent thingy) Under God affirms the belief that the majority of Americans hold. The majority believe that. The majority doesn't share your opinions nor conclusions, which makes you a minority outside of mainstream thought. It doesn't make you right nor wrong, nor does it deny you rights they have, nor does it persecute you for having different ideas. However, that you cannot tolerate the word God, that you have an issue with the word God, does reflect you are the one who is having a problem, not the majority. There are those who do not favor the opinion of how we spend the tax revenue on military, should we stop affirming the military because a minority is against it? Thatâs a red herring. The pledge affirms nothing about tax revenue or the military. It did have nothing to do with religion until it was altered. The pledge has nothing to do with religion, which involves creed and dogma. There is no dogma, no definition of God given to favor, no practice given to do, no religion to follow, no religious leader to follow, no punishment for not saying the word God. You are free to not say the word God. You are not being forced to say the word God, you are not even forced to say the pledge. All are equal to their opinion. No one is forced to recite the pledge, nor are they forced to think of God in the way that others do. The Pledge is about the Flag of America and the people who live as Americans and who salute it. It has nothing to do with one group, whether large or small specially associating themselves with it above other Americans. The pledge is about nationalism, not about a flag, nor God. The flag and God are words, and are symbols of what people think they are. Again, people are free not to say the word God, and the are free not to affirm the word God. They are free to say nothing, or think anything they wish. If the word God does mean anything at all, then the connotations of it are prejudicial to the very ethos of the Pledge. The pledge is about nationalism and country. The majority of people believe in God, and the pledge reflects that. There is nothing prejudicial about the word God necessarily, until meaning is given to the word God by people. Imagine a group who didn't like the flag, that they have a problem with flags for whatever reason, should the word flag be removed?
. It is just a word, that has meaning according to what you give to it. So Americans are affirming what as their God? You have to ask Americans what they are affirming. That is the beauty of the pledge and America, no one is telling them what the word God means, or should mean for them. The mainstream, if measured, is done so in public opinion polls. You and the atheists who wish to alter the pledge are standing outside of the mainstream according to public opinion polls. We have a pledge that allows anyone to attribute whatever they want in meaning of the words of the pledge, which is American in nature, to allow people to think for themselves. The pledge itself is not mandatory, nor is there punishment for non involvement, just like there is no governmental punishment for not standing and singing the National Anthem. It is my stated opinion for taking the words out. You have stated your opinion for keeping the words in. That is what is a fact. Opinion polls are fact too, and they reflect the majority opinion at present. Others may well argue for more of God, but as you have already stated âIt is just a wordâ. then what's the purpose for needing more of a word which is just a word? Words themselves are without meaning unless you know the language, and context of usage. The word Vishwamitra has little meaning for Americans, but the word has meaning for Hindus. The word God is like saying the word love. It has no specific meaning unless attributed to it, unless it is defined further. People are free to place whatever meaning they wish into the word God, however the majority have a meaning that is different from yours. The word God is secular. People can use the word God with no specific religion in mind. The word God is not secular. You have made another statement by contradiction. The word God has specific meaning of religion. That makes it non-secular. The word God has meaning to the religious, and also has meaning to the atheists...however the meaning is different for both. The word itself is secular in nature, and it belongs to no one single sect, nor religion, nor particular religious goup. Words only have meaning when we place meaning on them. The word God by itself is secular, until it is used in a religious sense. The pledge doesn't tell anyone that they should be using the word God in a religious sense, nor hold a religious meaning. People can think of the word God as love, power, military strength, or whatever they want. No predefined idea is in the pledge of the word God. The pledge has whatever meaning we ascribe to it, as the intent is to pledge to the spirit of what people think America is, to show a sense of nationalism. On the subway walls in London in the 60's you could find the following: "Clapton is God." Hardly an affirmation that Clapton was the Creator of the Universe. Then if it matters not what the affirmation means, you have made an argument for adding any words or taking any words away from it. If words donât matter as you suggest, why is âone Nation under Clapton â any more silly than âone nation under Godâ? It the congress passes legislation, that says "One Nation under Clapton" I would be surprised. However, if that reflects the majority of opinion, the will of the people, I wouldn't mind. I would be free to say the word God instead of Clapton, who would know anyway? Who is monitoring how people say the pledge, or what words they use, etc.? If the pledge said "under Natural Law" rather than God, you would not find that offensive. Are you asking me or telling me what I will and will not find offensive? Not telling, just speculating. I could be wrong. but if people think of natual law when they say God, what is the difference? I think I covered this above. If people think of Satan when they say God whatâs the difference. There is no difference. I have no problem if people think of Satan when they hear the word God. Freedom of thought. If you do not bother about the word, why argue to keep the word of which you donât care what people give meaning to and which you have no reason to want to include? I argue not to let a minority force change on the minority, when the minority is not suffering any harm or known damages by the actions of the minority. Let's say I hate Super Bowl Sunday, nearly a national holiday in this country. Let's say I hate it. Should it be changed because I hate it? It is what people want, so we have it. As long as my minority status toward the value of the Superbowl causes no harm, I just have to accept it. That remark makes your p,s, sound a little hollow. You are free to think that. I am comparing this discussion to the type of comments the other atheists who post here typically make. We may disagree on what constitutes intelligent debate, as you have your opinion, and I have mine. It would seem to me that only those who agree with you are deemed worthy of intelligence, and that is your opinion, and you are free to hold it. I disagree. It is where one person assails another for their opinion, and attempts to judge their intelligence where I have a problem in general, and the process loses the debate status, where one person claims victory, where there is none, nor is there a body or moderator who can declare victory. Flame wars of the axeman type are not debates, nor discussions. As long as things are civil, I don't mind. That is what I was giving your intelligence credit for, civil debate.