Export thread
Atheists the scum-dogs of the universe...apparently
#1
Bones
Bones
so I was told today, as a casual atheist/agnostic/I don't give a rat fuck about the existence of god there is science that needs doing, that I am bad person and need to see the light of god. oddly this was provoked over the fact I was ignoring one of those people who hand out the new testament on campus. just the fact he stuffed a bible or w/e in my hands and I proceeded to stuff it down his pants because I didn't want it and I didn't feel like finding a trashcan to dispose of it in.
so I guess score one for people who are sick of having others beliefs shoved down their throats?
so I guess score one for people who are sick of having others beliefs shoved down their throats?
#2
MindDetective
MindDetective
Apparently the Pope thinks we are Nazis: The Pope, Nazis, and atheism | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine
Edit to type gud
Edit to type gud
#3
Silver Jelly
Silver Jelly
I'm pretty sick of it too, even if I'm not an atheist. I wish people stopped telling me I'm an idiot for believeing in something, there's plenty of other stuff to call me an idiot for.
(I'm talking about you, though. Just to make it clear. I hate people who try to push their beliefs on me from both sides, but in my context, this usally means the option I ranted about)
(I'm talking about you, though. Just to make it clear. I hate people who try to push their beliefs on me from both sides, but in my context, this usally means the option I ranted about)
#4
Bones
Bones
I agree completely on both sides, I just hardly ever see atheists out in force trying to convert people, although I am sure they exist. I personally believe that you should believe what ever makes you happy. I choose to believe in nothing because it makes my life all that much easier to live. also its fun to watch people horrifying reactions when you mention shit like that in casual conversation. try it sometime just say something like "there is no god....there is only ZUUUUUUL!". people....shit...a...brick... in anycase I was just venting....
#5
Dave
Dave
Atheists also try and shove their beliefs down people's throats, but they use such things as online forums, comments to news stories and the occasional lawsuit against something they perceive as religious (i.e. In God We Trust, one nation Under God, etc.).
Neither side is without guilt.
Neither side is without guilt.
#6
Bones
Bones
I don't believe anyone was denying that?
#7
Math242
Math242
gott mitt unsApparently the Pope thinks we are Nazis: The Pope, Nazis, and atheism | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine
Edit to type gud
#8
HCGLNS
HCGLNS
You assaulted someone for handing you a book?he stuffed a bible or w/e in my hands and I proceeded to stuff it down his pants because I didn't want it and I didn't feel like finding a trashcan to dispose of it in.
#9
Bones
Bones
I plead the fifth!
#10
Espy
Man, I had a guy give me a Harry Potter book and I made him eat that mothertrucker.
Give ME a book will you? HMPH!
Espy
You assaulted someone for handing you a book?[/QUOTE]he stuffed a bible or w/e in my hands and I proceeded to stuff it down his pants because I didn't want it and I didn't feel like finding a trashcan to dispose of it in.
Man, I had a guy give me a Harry Potter book and I made him eat that mothertrucker.
Give ME a book will you? HMPH!
#11
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
How dare that motherfucker encourage me to read?!
I'M BLESSED IN MY IGNORANCE!!!
I'M BLESSED IN MY IGNORANCE!!!
#12
HCGLNS
HCGLNS
Not allowed at the local library:
Bones, espy SpecialKO
Bones, espy SpecialKO
#13
makare
makare
I would rather have the quiet old guys on campus who peacefully hand out tiny bibles than those sandwich board wearing screeching nutjobs who condemn me to hell because Im a female in college.
I have gotten to the point where someones behavior and discourse almost means more to me than his actual belief.
I have gotten to the point where someones behavior and discourse almost means more to me than his actual belief.
#14
David
David
That's actually something I've been thinking about recently. How is it forcing beliefs down people's throats for me not to want to have to acknowledge the existence of what I believe is a false idol in order to pledge allegiance to the country? Nobody is making anyone say "one nation, without god" or "one nation, under the light of Islam guided by Allah." How is this any different? Why is it considered me forcing my beliefs down other people's throats for me to want to stop having other people's beliefs down my throat?Atheists also try and shove their beliefs down people's throats, but they use such things as online forums, comments to news stories and the occasional lawsuit against something they perceive as religious (i.e. In God We Trust, one nation Under God, etc.).
Neither side is without guilt.
#15
Chazwozel
.
---------- Post added at 11:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:47 AM ----------
Yeah there are asshole atheists:
Chazwozel
Apparently the Pope thinks we are Nazis: The Pope, Nazis, and atheism | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine
Edit to type gud
---------- Post added at 11:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:47 AM ----------
I agree completely on both sides, I just hardly ever see atheists out in force trying to convert people, although I am sure they exist. I personally believe that you should believe what ever makes you happy. I choose to believe in nothing because it makes my life all that much easier to live. also its fun to watch people horrifying reactions when you mention shit like that in casual conversation. try it sometime just say something like "there is no god....there is only ZUUUUUUL!". people....shit...a...brick... in anycase I was just venting....
Yeah there are asshole atheists:
#16
Krisken
Krisken
Man, i really miss the old pope. The Emperor is a jackass.
I don't mind people handing me things of that nature, but I do get upset when they start telling me I am a bad person for kindly refusing. There is no reason why I can respect a person's right to their beliefs and not get bent out of shape over them while they have to make a big scene over it. I always figure those people are a little too proud of their beliefs. Fucking sinners.
I don't mind people handing me things of that nature, but I do get upset when they start telling me I am a bad person for kindly refusing. There is no reason why I can respect a person's right to their beliefs and not get bent out of shape over them while they have to make a big scene over it. I always figure those people are a little too proud of their beliefs. Fucking sinners.
#17
Iaculus
Iaculus
Weren't both of those examples shoehorned in where no religious message was previously, though? I mean, the 'one nation under God' thing in particular is a relic of McCarthyism. I can see why people might be upset about that.Atheists also try and shove their beliefs down people's throats, but they use such things as online forums, comments to news stories and the occasional lawsuit against something they perceive as religious (i.e. In God We Trust, one nation Under God, etc.).
Neither side is without guilt.
#18
makare
makare
Atheism as a political platform bewilders me. Even though i am an advocate of keeping religious references out of the courts and the political system, I am not comfortable backing people who are against it because it is a reference to God and God doesn't exist. I don't believe that. So if an atheist group wants to get rid of the ten commandments in a court building or Under God in the pledge I can't in good conscience support their platform. I just don't agree with their argument.
#19
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
I am okay with the protesting of the 10 commandments on a courthouse thing simply because I think that our legal system is one of the places where we need to be as explicit as possible about the separation of church and state.
I think that a lot of the hoopla right now about "creeping sharia" is fear based on the pervasive belief in parts of the country that the US' legal foundation and authority is solely based on the Bible and that if some critical mass of Muslimness is achieved, Sharia will replace the 10 Commandements as that foundation.
I think that a lot of the hoopla right now about "creeping sharia" is fear based on the pervasive belief in parts of the country that the US' legal foundation and authority is solely based on the Bible and that if some critical mass of Muslimness is achieved, Sharia will replace the 10 Commandements as that foundation.
#20
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
The funny part about this is that we ALREADY have Sharia and Jewish courts in this country. They merely rule over matter in their OWN RELIGIONS and don't supersede the secular laws of the country.I am okay with the protesting of the 10 commandments on a courthouse thing simply because I think that our legal system is one of the places where we need to be as explicit as possible about the separation of church and state.
I think that a lot of the hoopla right now about "creeping sharia" is fear based on the pervasive belief in parts of the country that the US' legal foundation and authority is solely based on the Bible and that if some critical mass of Muslimness is achieved, Sharia will replace the 10 Commandements as that foundation.
#21
Espy
Espy
I'd take being handed a book over being harassed on every damn street corner by environmental nutjobs with clipboards who want my money and email address and then get all pissy when I won't talk to them.
#22
Krisken
Krisken
Yeah, I'm going to have to say they are both self righteous dicks. Why is it ok for the guy with the book to give people a hard time but the environmentalist is a nutjob?I'd take being handed a book over being harassed on every damn street corner by environmental nutjobs with clipboards who want my money and email address and then get all pissy when I won't talk to them.
#23
Espy
Espy
I don't recall ever saying I was ok with anyone giving anyone a hard time.
#24
phil
phil
I'd rather have the hippy clip boarders than preacher bob ranting about homosexuals and calling all the girls whores for the way they dress!
But honestly just avoid walking through the middle of campus and if you do just switch to the other side of the walkway/street or whatever when you see them.
But honestly just avoid walking through the middle of campus and if you do just switch to the other side of the walkway/street or whatever when you see them.
#25
Krisken
Krisken
I'm sorry, I assumed you were saying it was better for the man in the OP to hand out his book and give him a hard time than an environmentalist. It certainly appeared to be what you were implying with your post.I don't recall ever saying I was ok with anyone giving anyone a hard time.
#26
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
I do have to admit; at least the walking evangelists in my area don't ask me whether I can donate to their cause, and then insist that they're more than happy to take my credit card information if I don't have cash.
#27
Espy
Espy
I was just saying literature/books being handed out are a-ok in my book. Assholes are not, no matter their cause.
#28
sixpackshaker
It always gets their goats.
sixpackshaker
Just tell those people to look to Jesus and away from their hateful ways...I'd rather have the hippy clip boarders than preacher bob ranting about homosexuals and calling all the girls whores for the way they dress!
But honestly just avoid walking through the middle of campus and if you do just switch to the other side of the walkway/street or whatever when you see them.
It always gets their goats.
#29
Covar
Covar
I have to admit, I get more annoyed with the people who gather around them on my campus or worse the asshats who feel the need to argue/harass those morons. All they are doing is justifying their behavior. Just don't give them what they want, ignore them and they will move on to try and find other "sinners" to save.I'd rather have the hippy clip boarders than preacher bob ranting about homosexuals and calling all the girls whores for the way they dress!
But honestly just avoid walking through the middle of campus and if you do just switch to the other side of the walkway/street or whatever when you see them.
#30
Chibibar
I always thought it was interesting to "swear before God" or hand on the Bible before testifying.
There is an idea of separation of Church and State but that can never really happen (to an extent) because people will believe what they believe and will mention it on TV, but when government start banning stuff because "it is bad in God's eye" then the religious people are wrong not Atheist.
Chibibar
Well. I think it is more of the government is "pushing religion" into the throat who don't believe in God.Atheists also try and shove their beliefs down people's throats, but they use such things as online forums, comments to news stories and the occasional lawsuit against something they perceive as religious (i.e. In God We Trust, one nation Under God, etc.).
Neither side is without guilt.
I always thought it was interesting to "swear before God" or hand on the Bible before testifying.
There is an idea of separation of Church and State but that can never really happen (to an extent) because people will believe what they believe and will mention it on TV, but when government start banning stuff because "it is bad in God's eye" then the religious people are wrong not Atheist.
#31
HCGLNS
HCGLNS
That reminds me of the time in school when I ate the bible the man handed to me. He said I was blaphemous, but I told him I was gorging myself on the words of god. It could have used some salt though.It always gets their goats.
#32
@Li3n
@Li3n
Take it easy on the guy... his genes made him do it...Yeah there are asshole atheists:
#33
fade
fade
I don't know Dave. If I had a running tally of which "side" got all up in my kool-aid the most, it would be the Fundies. The atheists run a far, far distant second in my own personal experience.
Also I'm not sure how to take "In God we Trust" as anything buy religious.
Also I'm not sure how to take "In God we Trust" as anything buy religious.
#34
sixpackshaker
I always thought it was interesting to "swear before God" or hand on the Bible before testifying.
There is an idea of separation of Church and State but that can never really happen (to an extent) because people will believe what they believe and will mention it on TV, but when government start banning stuff because "it is bad in God's eye" then the religious people are wrong not Atheist.[/QUOTE]
I think a lot of what is happening is the loosening of the term "Freedom of Religion" and "Separation of Church and State." It basically mean that you are free to believe in what faith you choose or to choose not, and that the State is not going to point you to a particular Church. It is not the State's job to act as though there is no God, just not to keep you from what you believe.
sixpackshaker
Well. I think it is more of the government is "pushing religion" into the throat who don't believe in God.Atheists also try and shove their beliefs down people's throats, but they use such things as online forums, comments to news stories and the occasional lawsuit against something they perceive as religious (i.e. In God We Trust, one nation Under God, etc.).
Neither side is without guilt.
I always thought it was interesting to "swear before God" or hand on the Bible before testifying.
There is an idea of separation of Church and State but that can never really happen (to an extent) because people will believe what they believe and will mention it on TV, but when government start banning stuff because "it is bad in God's eye" then the religious people are wrong not Atheist.[/QUOTE]
I think a lot of what is happening is the loosening of the term "Freedom of Religion" and "Separation of Church and State." It basically mean that you are free to believe in what faith you choose or to choose not, and that the State is not going to point you to a particular Church. It is not the State's job to act as though there is no God, just not to keep you from what you believe.
#35
Chibibar
I always thought it was interesting to "swear before God" or hand on the Bible before testifying.
There is an idea of separation of Church and State but that can never really happen (to an extent) because people will believe what they believe and will mention it on TV, but when government start banning stuff because "it is bad in God's eye" then the religious people are wrong not Atheist.[/QUOTE]
I think a lot of what is happening is the loosening of the term "Freedom of Religion" and "Separation of Church and State." It basically mean that you are free to believe in what faith you choose or to choose not, and that the State is not going to point you to a particular Church. It is not the State's job to act as though there is no God, just not to keep you from what you believe.[/QUOTE]
While that is true, but there are occasion where government is putting God in places where it should be neutral.
Chibibar
Well. I think it is more of the government is "pushing religion" into the throat who don't believe in God.Atheists also try and shove their beliefs down people's throats, but they use such things as online forums, comments to news stories and the occasional lawsuit against something they perceive as religious (i.e. In God We Trust, one nation Under God, etc.).
Neither side is without guilt.
I always thought it was interesting to "swear before God" or hand on the Bible before testifying.
There is an idea of separation of Church and State but that can never really happen (to an extent) because people will believe what they believe and will mention it on TV, but when government start banning stuff because "it is bad in God's eye" then the religious people are wrong not Atheist.[/QUOTE]
I think a lot of what is happening is the loosening of the term "Freedom of Religion" and "Separation of Church and State." It basically mean that you are free to believe in what faith you choose or to choose not, and that the State is not going to point you to a particular Church. It is not the State's job to act as though there is no God, just not to keep you from what you believe.[/QUOTE]
While that is true, but there are occasion where government is putting God in places where it should be neutral.
#36
strawman
strawman
Here's a neat trick - most people will let go of the object they are giving to someone else once the object moves.
So when someone puts out a book or literature to hand you, reach out as if to grab it, miss it by a few inches and push it with the back of your hand sideways. Many people will release the object, it will tumble to the ground, and you can go on your merry way as they are distracted in picking the object up.
Not that I would ever engage in such tomfoolery myself, but perhaps others will find this funny and/or useful.
---------- Post added at 02:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:54 PM ----------
So when someone puts out a book or literature to hand you, reach out as if to grab it, miss it by a few inches and push it with the back of your hand sideways. Many people will release the object, it will tumble to the ground, and you can go on your merry way as they are distracted in picking the object up.
Not that I would ever engage in such tomfoolery myself, but perhaps others will find this funny and/or useful.
---------- Post added at 02:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:54 PM ----------
This is something so many people misunderstand, and I'm glad you point this out. All "separation of church and state" dictates is that there is no state religion. It essentially points back to England (at the time it was created) where if you were not a member of the church, you were as good as not a citizen as well.I think a lot of what is happening is the loosening of the term "Freedom of Religion" and "Separation of Church and State." It basically mean that you are free to believe in what faith you choose or to choose not, and that the State is not going to point you to a particular Church. It is not the State's job to act as though there is no God, just not to keep you from what you believe.
#37
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
Back in the Dark Ages... about 1988, some one tried to hand my one of those tiny Gideon New Testaments. I told him not thanks and kept walking. He protested a bit, and I told him I had one at home.
#38
SpecialKO
US legal oaths have two purposes.
1) To make it a matter of public record that you are legally declaring your statement to be the truth.
2) To impress upon you the legal and moral implications of making that declaration.
As such, many legal jurisdictions in the United States allow the witness to swear on a recognized religious text of their choice as befits #2, and all of them allow a non-religious legal affidavit/affirmation, because that's all #1 actually is.
SpecialKO
You don't have to use the Bible, actually.I always thought it was interesting to "swear before God" or hand on the Bible before testifying.
US legal oaths have two purposes.
1) To make it a matter of public record that you are legally declaring your statement to be the truth.
2) To impress upon you the legal and moral implications of making that declaration.
As such, many legal jurisdictions in the United States allow the witness to swear on a recognized religious text of their choice as befits #2, and all of them allow a non-religious legal affidavit/affirmation, because that's all #1 actually is.
#39
makare
makare
If we allow the state to acknowledge God in anyway it chooses it is a short path to state religion. If it is acknowledging God fairly and impartially it would have to manage to acknowledge all manner of God AND that God does not exist all at the same time. It is just easier to not have the stuff in the first place.
#40
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
God is a central tenant in nearly all religious life (there are a few atheist Hindus out there.) So how is "So help me God," picking one to be the state religion?
#41
makare
makare
Because atheists don't believe God exists at all so the state acknowledging God at all kind of screws over their beliefs. That's not right either.
#42
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
It is not the separation of lack of belief and state.Because atheists don't believe God exists at all so the state acknowledging God at all kind of screws over their beliefs. That's not right either.
#43
Bones
Bones
its a firestorm!
#44
makare
maybe not but that is pretty much how the courts have tried to interpret it over the years, in an effort to make sure state and belief do stay separate.
makare
It is not the separation of lack of belief and state.[/QUOTE]Because atheists don't believe God exists at all so the state acknowledging God at all kind of screws over their beliefs. That's not right either.
maybe not but that is pretty much how the courts have tried to interpret it over the years, in an effort to make sure state and belief do stay separate.
#45
MindDetective
Atheism is a belief, not a lack of belief.
MindDetective
It is not the separation of lack of belief and state.[/QUOTE]Because atheists don't believe God exists at all so the state acknowledging God at all kind of screws over their beliefs. That's not right either.
Atheism is a belief, not a lack of belief.
#46
strawman
Atheism is a belief, not a lack of belief.[/QUOTE]
Technically that's true, however a lot of people use the term incorrectly to describe their agnosticism, so unfortunately I don't think your statement is true for many people that call themselves atheists.
strawman
It is not the separation of lack of belief and state.[/QUOTE]Because atheists don't believe God exists at all so the state acknowledging God at all kind of screws over their beliefs. That's not right either.
Atheism is a belief, not a lack of belief.[/QUOTE]
Technically that's true, however a lot of people use the term incorrectly to describe their agnosticism, so unfortunately I don't think your statement is true for many people that call themselves atheists.
#47
sixpackshaker
Atheism is a belief, not a lack of belief.[/QUOTE]
It's a circular argument.
sixpackshaker
It is not the separation of lack of belief and state.[/QUOTE]Because atheists don't believe God exists at all so the state acknowledging God at all kind of screws over their beliefs. That's not right either.
Atheism is a belief, not a lack of belief.[/QUOTE]
It's a circular argument.
#48
@Li3n
Atheism is a belief, not a lack of belief.[/QUOTE]
Technically that's true, however a lot of people use the term incorrectly to describe their agnosticism, so unfortunately I don't think your statement is true for many people that call themselves atheists.[/QUOTE]
What?! Agnosticism isn't a lack of belief either... it's a belief that you can't know... (unless you're just about saying you don't know, which is somewhere in between i guess).
@Li3n
It is not the separation of lack of belief and state.[/QUOTE]Because atheists don't believe God exists at all so the state acknowledging God at all kind of screws over their beliefs. That's not right either.
Atheism is a belief, not a lack of belief.[/QUOTE]
Technically that's true, however a lot of people use the term incorrectly to describe their agnosticism, so unfortunately I don't think your statement is true for many people that call themselves atheists.[/QUOTE]
What?! Agnosticism isn't a lack of belief either... it's a belief that you can't know... (unless you're just about saying you don't know, which is somewhere in between i guess).
#49
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
What is there to "believe" in if you don't believe in anything?
#50
makare
makare
Honestly I don't understand atheism or agnosticism but it would suit me fine for the government to be more courteous to those beliefs/whatever and keep as much religious refs out as possible.
#51
strawman
To simplify my statement for non-logisticians:
Proving that God absolutely and provably does not exist is, by definition, infinitely harder than proving God does exist.
strawman
To push the point further, technically you can never prove a negative. So for all intents and purposes, if you believe that there is no God, then your faith must necessarily be greater than those that believe in a God.What is there to "believe" in if you don't believe in anything?
To simplify my statement for non-logisticians:
Proving that God absolutely and provably does not exist is, by definition, infinitely harder than proving God does exist.
#52
MindDetective
[/QUOTE]
Atheists (that are rational) are not trying to prove anything about God, though. And the belief atheists hold is that there is no higher power. Since this is nothing that can be observed (just like a higher power has yet to be repeatably observed), it requires faith to believe it.
MindDetective
To push the point further, technically you can never prove a negative. So for all intents and purposes, if you believe that there is no God, then your faith must necessarily be greater than those that believe in a God.What is there to "believe" in if you don't believe in anything?
[/QUOTE]Atheists (that are rational) are not trying to prove anything about God, though. And the belief atheists hold is that there is no higher power. Since this is nothing that can be observed (just like a higher power has yet to be repeatably observed), it requires faith to believe it.
#53
sixpackshaker
But if the State goes to the extreme of not acknowledging a god, then you are being discourteous to those that do.
sixpackshaker
I am just doing this to keep the debate going.Honestly I don't understand atheism or agnosticism but it would suit me fine for the government to be more courteous to those beliefs/whatever and keep as much religious refs out as possible.
But if the State goes to the extreme of not acknowledging a god, then you are being discourteous to those that do.
#54
makare
makare
No that just means belief stays out of the governmental apparatus. It doesnt affect someone's ability to believe at home.
#55
Green_Lantern
Note, that I put GodS, because I want to ask you, how can you say "So help me God" and not talking about a specific deity from a religion? If the states claims that is a God fearing nation, how it is not saying that it fears a specific God, a concept that can vary greatly even among the Christian/Judaism/Islamic group?
Green_Lantern
I think that many of Budhism sects don't give much emphasis in Gods either, seeing the path for ilumination as one that you have to achieve to yourself (so while they might believe, they don't give much emphasis about it)God is a central tenant in nearly all religious life (there are a few atheist Hindus out there.) So how is "So help me God," picking one to be the state religion?
Note, that I put GodS, because I want to ask you, how can you say "So help me God" and not talking about a specific deity from a religion? If the states claims that is a God fearing nation, how it is not saying that it fears a specific God, a concept that can vary greatly even among the Christian/Judaism/Islamic group?
#56
phil
phil
Can't we just have a holy war to sort this all out?
#57
Green_Lantern
*SMITE EVIL!*
Green_Lantern
If you insist.Can't we just have a holy war to sort this all out?
*SMITE EVIL!*
#58
sixpackshaker
Note, that I put GodS, because I want to ask you, how can you say "So help me God" and not talking about a specific deity from a religion? If the states claims that is a God fearing nation, how it is not saying that it fears a specific God, a concept that can vary greatly even among the Christian/Judaism/Islamic group?[/QUOTE]
God is a general term, his name is not known/spoken...
It is about the swearing party's god. Not the god of the person asking you to swear.
sixpackshaker
I think that many of Budhism sects don't give much emphasis in Gods either, seeing the path for ilumination as one that you have to achieve to yourself (so while they might believe, they don't give much emphasis about it)God is a central tenant in nearly all religious life (there are a few atheist Hindus out there.) So how is "So help me God," picking one to be the state religion?
Note, that I put GodS, because I want to ask you, how can you say "So help me God" and not talking about a specific deity from a religion? If the states claims that is a God fearing nation, how it is not saying that it fears a specific God, a concept that can vary greatly even among the Christian/Judaism/Islamic group?[/QUOTE]
God is a general term, his name is not known/spoken...
It is about the swearing party's god. Not the god of the person asking you to swear.
#59
phil
*SMITE EVIL!*[/QUOTE]
Does that work on someone who is true neutral?
phil
If you insist.Can't we just have a holy war to sort this all out?
*SMITE EVIL!*[/QUOTE]
Does that work on someone who is true neutral?
#60
Green_Lantern
Green_Lantern
Green_Lantern;439911 said:I think that many of Budhism sects don't give much emphasis in Gods either, seeing the path for ilumination as one that you have to achieve to yourself (so while they might believe, they don't give much emphasis about it)God is a central tenant in nearly all religious life (there are a few atheist Hindus out there.) So how is "So help me God," picking one to be the state religion?
Note, that I put GodS, because I want to ask you, how can you say "So help me God" and not talking about a specific deity from a religion? If the states claims that is a God fearing nation, how it is not saying that it fears a specific God, a concept that can vary greatly even among the Christian/Judaism/Islamic group?If is a general term, how can it mean anything? "One nation under Ambiguious-generic-entity-that-we-don't-want-specify" sounds like nonsense and pointless.God is a general term,
Yet people came up with a bunch of names for it/them during the course of history. You say that his not know/spoken, so I guess anyone who gave God(s) a name was wrong in your opinion?his name is not known/spoken...
I really din't understood that statement, or at least, how it makes it any better.It is about the swearing party's god. Not the god of the person asking you to swear.
#61
tegid
But if the State goes to the extreme of not acknowledging a god, then you are being discourteous to those that do.[/QUOTE]
Can you seriously not distinguish between not acknowledging god and acknowledging there is no god?
tegid
I am just doing this to keep the debate going.Honestly I don't understand atheism or agnosticism but it would suit me fine for the government to be more courteous to those beliefs/whatever and keep as much religious refs out as possible.
But if the State goes to the extreme of not acknowledging a god, then you are being discourteous to those that do.[/QUOTE]
Can you seriously not distinguish between not acknowledging god and acknowledging there is no god?
#62
Chazwozel
Nah, sane atheists realize the term "God" is being used in a manner to describe either events out of your hands (randomness) or just a higher order of the universe. It doesn't have to imply "invisible sky daddy".
Chazwozel
Because atheists don't believe God exists at all so the state acknowledging God at all kind of screws over their beliefs. That's not right either.
Nah, sane atheists realize the term "God" is being used in a manner to describe either events out of your hands (randomness) or just a higher order of the universe. It doesn't have to imply "invisible sky daddy".
#63
Element 117
Element 117
Some one hands you a book you dont want.If you say "no, thank you" and try to hand it back, and if they don't take it back, drop it and walk away. Don't continue talking to them, because every second you waste with them is another second you can be doing other things.
#64
sixpackshaker
The answer on being general? we are not saying The God of Abraham, Yaweh, Allah, Jesus Christ, Brahma, the Invisible Pink Unicorn... just God. And the courts don't ask you to swear to god. Just to swear to tell the truth, the whole whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The swearing party answers according to their conscience (that is what makes it better.)
Now some courts take the opinion that the only Holy Scriptures to be used for swearing the the King James Version. Those courts will likely have to change their ways once it gets to the supreme court.
I did not say that a thing that I am debating here is my opinion. I am just telling you what is happening.
---------- Post added at 09:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:06 PM ----------
But if the State goes to the extreme of not acknowledging a god, then you are being discourteous to those that do.[/QUOTE]
Can you seriously not distinguish between not acknowledging god and acknowledging there is no god?[/QUOTE]
I do not want to see all the holiday decorations taken down. I'd still like to have a Christmas, New Year, Easter, Thanksgiving, ... holiday. Do we need to shut down St Patrick's Day parades because they use the streets that are payed for by taxes?
sixpackshaker
What's with the slip-shod editing crap? Have a conversation that can be continued.*snip
The answer on being general? we are not saying The God of Abraham, Yaweh, Allah, Jesus Christ, Brahma, the Invisible Pink Unicorn... just God. And the courts don't ask you to swear to god. Just to swear to tell the truth, the whole whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The swearing party answers according to their conscience (that is what makes it better.)
Now some courts take the opinion that the only Holy Scriptures to be used for swearing the the King James Version. Those courts will likely have to change their ways once it gets to the supreme court.
I did not say that a thing that I am debating here is my opinion. I am just telling you what is happening.
---------- Post added at 09:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:06 PM ----------
I am just doing this to keep the debate going.Honestly I don't understand atheism or agnosticism but it would suit me fine for the government to be more courteous to those beliefs/whatever and keep as much religious refs out as possible.
But if the State goes to the extreme of not acknowledging a god, then you are being discourteous to those that do.[/QUOTE]
Can you seriously not distinguish between not acknowledging god and acknowledging there is no god?[/QUOTE]
For some of the things that Atheists push for, you will have to remove all references to god, as though he does not exist. You will never please everyone.I am just doing this to keep the debate going.
I do not want to see all the holiday decorations taken down. I'd still like to have a Christmas, New Year, Easter, Thanksgiving, ... holiday. Do we need to shut down St Patrick's Day parades because they use the streets that are payed for by taxes?
#65
Cajungal
Cajungal
Lol. "Sky Daddy." Sounds more like a pimp than a deity.
#66
LittleSin
LittleSin
How come I never meet religious crazies?
I used to dress like a goth...and the only harassment I got was from people in general, not religious folks.
I used to dress like a goth...and the only harassment I got was from people in general, not religious folks.
#67
Krisken
Krisken
No.
These are the scumdogs of the universe.
These are the scumdogs of the universe.
#68
Cajungal
Cajungal
^Yeah, I gotta say... I've come across some jerks on both sides, but most people are fairly respectful... maybe a bit uncomfortable around the opposing side at times, but respectful.
#69
makare
makare
know what I'm sayin?Lol. "Sky Daddy." Sounds more like a pimp than a deity.
#70
Baerdog
Yes, I know what you are saying. You don't need to keep asking.
Baerdog
know what I'm sayin?[/QUOTE]Lol. "Sky Daddy." Sounds more like a pimp than a deity.
Yes, I know what you are saying. You don't need to keep asking.
#71
Cajungal
Cajungal
God... it would also be a great online handle. Someone be Sky Daddy!
#72
Green_Lantern
But if the State goes to the extreme of not acknowledging a god, then you are being discourteous to those that do.[/QUOTE]
Can you seriously not distinguish between not acknowledging god and acknowledging there is no god?[/QUOTE]
You might argue that "they always can deny use anything", that is just as good as the don't ask and don't tell policy, because if you deny or request the use of another religious text it will be a recorded religious related action that you will be forced to make in public.
First, I don't consider "not give tax money" as oppression, and if you really want a St Patrick Parade, why not make a private funded event with the permission to use the streets for that day?
Second (once that I said the First and I believe that I made myself clear enoug), I honestly don't see much of a problem with governement to give fund to help cultural/artistic events including religion-specific holidays, as long it is not used as a form to promote a political agenda for that religion. Still, Is a case that I am not 100% sure about.
Green_Lantern
What? You mean how I make multiple quotations? Well, sorry, I like to answer that way.What's with the slip-shod editing crap? Have a conversation that can be continued.*snip
I am just doing this to keep the debate going.Honestly I don't understand atheism or agnosticism but it would suit me fine for the government to be more courteous to those beliefs/whatever and keep as much religious refs out as possible.
But if the State goes to the extreme of not acknowledging a god, then you are being discourteous to those that do.[/QUOTE]
Can you seriously not distinguish between not acknowledging god and acknowledging there is no god?[/QUOTE]
NiceI am just doing this to keep the debate going.
And for the things that Non-Atheists push for, only a group of religious views will be referenced, as if god does exist (I am oppressing you for saying the opposite of your views?)For some of the things that Atheists push for, you will have to remove all references to god, as though he does not exist. You will never please everyone.
How would you feel like if it was a "Gods" or "Goddess"? And how can something be "just God"? Each of your examples would implie a load of different things, if the state is going to say that "God in a general term" it is essencially creating definition of its own and making it official, that would oppose the views of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc.The answer on being general? we are not saying The God of Abraham, Yaweh, Allah, Jesus Christ, Brahma, the Invisible Pink Unicorn... just God. And the courts don't ask you to swear to god. Just to swear to tell the truth, the whole whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The swearing party answers according to their conscience (that is what makes it better.)
Why is so integral that the swearing part to put a hand in a copy of a religious text??? How about if someone's religion be a matter that can be kept private unless is relevant to the case?Now some courts take the opinion that the only Holy Scriptures to be used for swearing the the King James Version. Those courts will likely have to change their ways once it gets to the supreme court.
You might argue that "they always can deny use anything", that is just as good as the don't ask and don't tell policy, because if you deny or request the use of another religious text it will be a recorded religious related action that you will be forced to make in public.
I confess, that is a part that I am myself unsure how to proceed.I do not want to see all the holiday decorations taken down. I'd still like to have a Christmas, New Year, Easter, Thanksgiving, ... holiday. Do we need to shut down St Patrick's Day parades because they use the streets that are payed for by taxes?
First, I don't consider "not give tax money" as oppression, and if you really want a St Patrick Parade, why not make a private funded event with the permission to use the streets for that day?
Second (once that I said the First and I believe that I made myself clear enoug), I honestly don't see much of a problem with governement to give fund to help cultural/artistic events including religion-specific holidays, as long it is not used as a form to promote a political agenda for that religion. Still, Is a case that I am not 100% sure about.
#73
strawman
strawman
You'll have to find someone else this time, I like being First Lady Puffinstuff.God... it would also be a great online handle. Someone be Sky Daddy!
#74
Cajungal
Cajungal
Hah, I thought you didn't like it!
#75
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, the use of a religious text is to impress upon the witness the moral responsibility to tell the truth that they are publicly assuming. As a result, many, many jurisdictions in the US allow for the substitution of other religious texts as the witness would prefer, and every single one of them, by law, accepts non-denominational or non-religious affidavits, so if you don't want to swear on some version of the Bible, you don't have to.Why is so integral that the swearing part to put a hand in a copy of a religious text??? How about if someone's religion be a matter that can be kept private unless is relevant to the case?
#76
CincyGuy
CincyGuy
Brother Jed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This was the religious blowhard that always showed up at my campus back in the day. One of the old-school fire and brimstone ministers who believed we were all going to hell for the most ridiculous of reasons. I used to get some great promos from this guy for my College Radio Heavy Metal show...I wonder how he would have felt about me using him to bump Slayer?
Edited for a horrific mistake my old Journalism prof would have crucified me for...
This was the religious blowhard that always showed up at my campus back in the day. One of the old-school fire and brimstone ministers who believed we were all going to hell for the most ridiculous of reasons. I used to get some great promos from this guy for my College Radio Heavy Metal show...I wonder how he would have felt about me using him to bump Slayer?
Edited for a horrific mistake my old Journalism prof would have crucified me for...
#77
Green_Lantern
"the use of a religious text is to impress upon the witness "
So essencially, it is the state using they religion agaisnt them, how nice that freedom of religion includes "have the legal system manipulate me using my faith".
Also, I said before that this kind of thing forces the person to take a public stance about religion. It doesn't matter if the person has the choice to "not swear over anything", even not doing it is something that is a public manifestation, and I still want to know why does the witness needs to be forced to so and how it isn't a violation of her rights as human being of having its own opinions, and most importantly the right to keep it to herself.
Green_Lantern
Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, the use of a religious text is to impress upon the witness the moral responsibility to tell the truth that they are publicly assuming. As a result, many, many jurisdictions in the US allow for the substitution of other religious texts as the witness would prefer, and every single one of them, by law, accepts non-denominational or non-religious affidavits, so if you don't want to swear on some version of the Bible, you don't have to.[/QUOTE]Why is so integral that the swearing part to put a hand in a copy of a religious text??? How about if someone's religion be a matter that can be kept private unless is relevant to the case?
"the use of a religious text is to impress upon the witness "
So essencially, it is the state using they religion agaisnt them, how nice that freedom of religion includes "have the legal system manipulate me using my faith".
Also, I said before that this kind of thing forces the person to take a public stance about religion. It doesn't matter if the person has the choice to "not swear over anything", even not doing it is something that is a public manifestation, and I still want to know why does the witness needs to be forced to so and how it isn't a violation of her rights as human being of having its own opinions, and most importantly the right to keep it to herself.
#78
Baerdog
Baerdog
I think that if I'm ever called as a witness I will swear on a Calvin and Hobbes collection.
#79
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
Or, just affirm that you will tell the truth. That is all that is asked of you.I think that if I'm ever called as a witness I will swear on a Calvin and Hobbes collection.
#80
SpecialKO
Exactly.
SpecialKO
Or, just affirm that you will tell the truth. That is all that is asked of you.[/QUOTE]I think that if I'm ever called as a witness I will swear on a Calvin and Hobbes collection.
Exactly.
#81
Bones
Bones
isnt the point just to set up for perjury?
#82
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
That and backing up sworn statements with public testimony usually helps convince juries, but I imagine it's also a historical remnant of our predominantly Christian population at the time of our founding (plus the influence of the English legal system, whose ultimate authority was originally the crown, with all the religious implications therein). If the stability/strength of the government is in question, the threat of legal action for perjury may not be particularly strong.isnt the point just to set up for perjury?
#83
SpecialKO
That, or they'll switch to ereaders. Which would be kind of awesome. Until the religious texts are replaced with Court EULAs.
SpecialKO
Yes, it is. If they allow them to, at least. I think it would be much more problematic if we didn't allow people to make a different choice of affirmation.So essencially, it is the state using they religion agaisnt them
It can be, certainly. I suspect these days that lawyers on both sides advise their witnesses to do one or the other based on how they think the jury will react.I said before that this kind of thing forces the person to take a public stance about religion. It doesn't matter if the person has the choice to "not swear over anything", even not doing it is something that is a public manifestation
Historical remnant. It is pretty ridiculous that the default position today isn't with the religious part removed. Eventually, I'm guessing that the "so help me God" portion of the oath will be done away with just so courts don't have to keep a ready supply of various religious texts in their closets.I still want to know why does the witness needs to be forced to so
That, or they'll switch to ereaders. Which would be kind of awesome. Until the religious texts are replaced with Court EULAs.
Okay, you lost me on this one. How is having the choice to include or not include that statement preventing anyone from having their own opinion? And if you want to exercise your right to keep your opinions to yourself, you might want to avoid testifying in court, period.how it isn't a violation of her rights as human being of having its own opinions, and most importantly the right to keep it to herself.
#84
strawman
strawman
All of the court sessions I've attended don't even have the references anymore.
Witness goes to stand
Bailiff says, "Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?"
Witness answers "Yes" (if they say anything other than yes such as "uh-huh" or "ok" the judge says, "Just say yes, please")
Bailiff says, "You may be seated."
Then the examination begins.
I'm sure many courts follow different procedures, but I suspect that most are moving towards a simple non-religious method to avoid delays, confrontation, and such.
At any rate, you are generally allowed to view court proceedings if you like, go check out your local district court, see what's on the docket, and see what they do in your town.
Alternately, wait until you are called as a juror. It's interesting, though generally boring and tedious. But you'll certainly see a few people go up and be sworn in as witnesses.
Witness goes to stand
Bailiff says, "Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?"
Witness answers "Yes" (if they say anything other than yes such as "uh-huh" or "ok" the judge says, "Just say yes, please")
Bailiff says, "You may be seated."
Then the examination begins.
I'm sure many courts follow different procedures, but I suspect that most are moving towards a simple non-religious method to avoid delays, confrontation, and such.
At any rate, you are generally allowed to view court proceedings if you like, go check out your local district court, see what's on the docket, and see what they do in your town.
Alternately, wait until you are called as a juror. It's interesting, though generally boring and tedious. But you'll certainly see a few people go up and be sworn in as witnesses.
#85
Officer_Charon
Officer_Charon
Down here, they still use "So help you God," which makes things a bit awkward. They've dispensed with the Bible, tho.