"under God"....trivial or not?

[Valvilis]

Alright, Jamie I can deal with, while confused, I'm led to beleive he or she actually has a brain. Mitchell, however, is a different story... yikes.

Well, in the order they appeared, Judaism and Christianity combined still don't reach the half-way mark for the worship of Amen-Ra, and never will. Your religion is in a major downhill slide that it isn't going to recover from, there are less Christians today per capita than there have been in over 300 years. Good news for me, bad news for you.

"God did not create a world intended for destruction..." So tell us, chief, is god omnisentient or not? Either way your little story is going to fall flat on its face. Try a proof read next time to see if you included any other logical impossibilities.

"...in fact probably the most accurate and well preserved of all books, then grab a bible." I'm lucky I wasn't drinking milk when I read that. So, despite having been proven to depict events and locations that never happened/never existed, having a completely inaccurate time table for those events that *did* happen, and containing literally hundreds of contradictions, you call this the most accurate of all books? Perhaps we'd like to have a little chat about the definition of "accurate" some time, eh? Well preserved?! From the way your absolute nonsense reads, I've got you pegged for reading the NIV, the least accurate of all the bible translations I've ever read. Point being, the NT in the NIV, compared to the remaining original preserved Greek, is only about 80-85% consistant. Do you feel content only knowing 85% of god's word? I sure as hell wouldn't if I still bought into your dillusions, as I once did. But then again, maybe I'm just a better Christian than you are.

I'm not even going to touch your skull-numbing idiotic ramblings on what gods are real and which aren't. It's clear your understanding of theological history and comparative religion is limited to what you've been indoctrinated with and has no foundations in reality. It isn't our responcibility to provide you with an education... but there's a nice big library smack in the middle of campus, right full o' books I reckon you can learn from. I'm really not sure why you would come here looking to be respected if this is the extent of your debate capabilities: the same old, tired, unsubstantiated hearsay that you personally were gullible enough to accept. Just because you fell for it doesn't mean it's even remotely convincing.

And then finally, we get your big guns, a poorly rendered regurgitation of one of the most common creationist strawman argument, effectively sumed up as, "I don't understand evolution at all, so I'll mock you." Despite the truely brazen level of supercilious arrogance you executed your ignorance of the subject matter with, it still doesn't make it any more valid than it was 200 years ago when no one bought the argument then either. There are two types of people in the world, those who just belive what they are told, which is the type that would find this sort of tripe compelling, namely, you, and then there are those with a basic understanding of logic and science, and a sense of personal integrity, willing to research a subject at least minimally before making up their minds. I find it amazing that you trolls continue to come in here, not even knowing what you yourselves beleive and expecting to be able to change the minds of well read skeptics who have considered much more sophisticated arguments than your own and were still able to comfortable in maintaining our stance based on the evidence available - and what's worse, you hoped to do it with truely antique, fully debunked arguments that didn't even cut it in their hay-day.

Quite honestly, you are doing Christians as a whole a disservice by being here. The slightest hint of humility would have brought you to realize that your spot would be better filled by a Christian ready and able to fight the fight on our terms, that is, logically and based on the tenants of reality... not your skewed and fallacious personal opinions and various rehashes of your indoctrination. As far as the effect you are having on the atheists here, however... keep up the good work, you're a walking advertisement of every claim we make.

- Valvilis

[Valvilis]

Jamie,

"Your whole arguement is based upon the choice a person can make. A choice that we all make whether or not to believe and devote said life to Jesus Christ. As far as I know, God gave us all a free will to do as we please, which is why there is still evil, greed, etc., etc., in this world today. It's here because there are people that want is here. Plain and simple."

Actually, your whole argument is based upon a choice a person can make. You were at least kind enough to couch your claims in a subjective context, namely, "As far as I know..." Which was either a serendipitous choice of words or a show of personal integrity not always found in the comments of dissenters drawn to our forum.

As far as what you actually said, and not just how you said it, one has a responcibility to identify exactly what one thinks is evil and exactly who is performin gthose acts before they can make blanketed statements concerning evil in the world today. Would you say that sounds reasonable? The prison statistics say it's the protestant Christians, at least in America. Consider this, atheists make up between 10-15% of American society, varied by region, but less than a quarter of a single percent of the violnet prison population. We don't even beleive in "evil," we beleive in what is either good or bad for people as a whole. It has been argued that the very concept of "evil" is a self-fufilling prophesy - the church preaches about how everyone is corrupted by Satan, but the only ones to show the symptoms are are the same Christians who were listening. Somewhat of a psychosomatic condition, if you will.

So let's assume for a minute that you're right, that we have been given free will and some are abusing it. Who exactly did you have in mind and what did you hope to do about it? Jesus was far from the first to be accredited with saying we need to respect one another. The golden rule preceded his supposed lifetime by more than 400 years. Don't you think it is a little self-centered to assume the only people looking to make things better are those who got the message second hand from Jesus?

[profdunebastard]

I was going to get into a big brew haha about evolution, but I find I don't have the time. Suffice it to say, that an organism may have traits or feautures that do not neccessarily aid it in survivable or facilitate successful reproduction but in the same time do not hinder survivability or the creation of property and thus remain:neither selected for or against. It is a misconception that every trait be somehow useful. Our apendices are an exambple:a vestigial organ that has no real use, and is sometimes even harmful. In other circumstances, this would probably be a feature selected against, but since humans are animals who can successfully overcome certain limits of our enviornment and own biology through use of technology, not enough pressure has been exerted on the feature to render any change.

The above paragraph is filled with information based on the collective efforts of scientists using empirical data and the scientific method. It is found in a myriad of different scources that can be referenced and collated. If enough evidence is found to proof this information erroneous, it will be regarded as so and new experimentation and observation will ensue. Natural evidence abounds for the notion of evolution however;every organ, feauture, bauplan, and trait of an organism provides much evidence that as a dynamic process working over vast periods of time has been undergone.

There are limits to scientific knowledge. We don't know about every organisms features. Some are so complex our science cannot replicate its function, such as the human eye or cilliary oprocesses of rotifers. We don't know what happened in dark precambrian seas billions of years ago, no human was there. There are indeed gaps in science. However, it is not logical or scientific to fill those gaps with not-science. Saying Sky-Daddy is responsible for everything we don't understand is so silly I want to cry. The "evidence" is non-falsifiable, non-testable, and is often proven wrong again and again by more logical, empirical, and reliable methods.

It is certainly acceptable to believe what you want, it is a great freedom granted by this country that I am proud of and grateful for. Problems arise when certain believe structures/institutions, get the idea through wishful interpretation of a dubious historical tome/(outdated) moral code, that they have absolute knowledge, must share it with everyone because by the very nature of the knowledge it says they are right, don't may attention to contrary knowledge or counterevidence, and then try to penetrate of all society with it. The goals are altruistic, I'm sure. But THE INABILITY TO TEST, COUNTER, OR QUESTION AN IDEA, THE ABILITY FOR AN IDEA TO BE RIGHT ON THE ARGUMENT OF WE-SAY-SO, IS A VERY DANGEROUS IDEA. I'm sure I am going to be told that I can't be convinced by logic, that I must read a book and have faith. Well I have read it, and the information I found strengthed my argument against it. I guess I was just reading it wrong? I am defunct because my interpretation differs from those who say they are right? I'm sorry, but that is a hard pill to swallow.

[jamie]

"Quite honestly, you are doing Christians as a whole a disservice by being here. The slightest hint of humility would have brought you to realize that your spot would be better filled by a Christian ready and able to fight the fight on our terms, that is, logically and based on the tenants of reality... not your skewed and fallacious personal opinions and various rehashes of your indoctrination. As far as the effect you are having on the atheists here, however... keep up the good work, you're a walking advertisement of every claim we make."

I'm glad we're a walking billboard for you guys. I never had the intent of coming here to convert anyone. I'm not strong enough in my abililties to do that. I'll admit my weaknesses when I have them - in fact, I covet my weaknesses - I came here to give "the other side" to your arguements and give my side, that's all - whether you take it with a grain of salt, that's your choice.

[Rama790]

Hmmm, where to start...

Guest-Mitchell said:

I would like to bring to the table the point that any Christian today will admit that Christianity in and of it's self is not the oldest religion... it has never been claimed to be such. However Christianity has its roots in every Jewish belief... a system of beliefs that, yes, has been around longer then any other religion. Christ came to save the Jewish people from sin... which no man can claim he is without.

Okay, you've straw-manned the point of my post.
In the context of separation of church and state, of course nobody will claim that x-tianity is the oldest religion. That's not what I was saying. What I WAS saying is that the common fundy argument that we were founded on christian principles is wrong, because when you look at christianity there's absolutely nothing whatsoever that's unique about it. It's all been done lots of times before, and the only ideals that you could extract from it as giving birth to our country are the same ideals you'll find in buddhism, krishnaism, shintoism, and pretty much any other religions. Specifically, the stuff like 'don't rape your sister and piss on her grave'. At no point did I make the statement (or even address the statement) that anyone considers christianity to be the oldest religion.
Soooo, this God you speak of. He's omnipotent and omniscient, yes? Tell me what the purpose of his having 'created' free will is again? Surely he knows who's going to love him and who isn't, so why's he playing the game again? If he knows all and is omniscient then why would he not just send certain people to hell and certain people to heaven? He knows who is who, right? More to the point, what was the purpose of God creating a being who had no concept of right and wrong and who was sinless, then putting him in a garden where he's placed two trees they aren't aloud to eat, and not only that but also created the devil who supposedly caused death and famine by tricking Adam into eating the fruit?
What? The free will argument you're presenting is preposterous. If I have a gun, and you're getting gangraped by a bunch of felons with spiny cocks, are you telling me I'm morally obligated to NOT plug the fuckers in the legs? You're saying that by creating the rapists, creating you, and putting you in the same 10 square foot area, I'm not doing anything wrong? Furthermore when I have the option of plugging them in the legs to get them off you to save you pain and anguish, I'm still being just and fair?
The problem with the ridiculous concept of original sin is that there IS NO ABSOLUTE MORALITY. If you take enough philosophy and sociology classes, you will find this is true. If you talk to any respectable professor knowledgable in the area of ethics (No, not theology, and no, their degrees don't count) they will tell you the exact same thing.
This has already been touched upon, but I really feel I have to mention this. I hate to be the one to break it to you but...Lee Strobel lied to you. In The Case For Christ, while purporting himself to be a hard nosed and thorough crime journalist (which he isn't), he doesn't interview a single person who might disagree or refute the wild claims maid by his stable of thelogians. Pretty much every single thing in that book can be refuted, and if you read the book Challenging the Verdict (it's available in the library) then you'll again find that what I say is true. No real historian considers the bible to be a very reliable source, most especially the gospels. Note that I'm making a difference between the head of the history department here at MSU who has two doctorates from harvard and the preacher schmuch whose unaccredited university decided he could call himself doctor because he bothered to learn a few dead languages. Historians and scholars and intellectuals in general seek to discover and define the truth, theologians seek to defend their current view of reality from all attacks. As I said before, I have yet to meet a real professor or scholar who says there is a significant reason to believe in Jesus as an historical person. If you really want to get into the details of it then I'd like to know if you have any idea who Flavius Josephus was? If you remember your Strobel handbook this should be easy for you, and even easier for me because it's one of the more blatant lies he tells. Again by the way, I'm assuming you're familiar with the book only because 90% of the fundies I've met have read it and place great value on it. Now, the bible is not a valid historical reference point and can NOT be considered proof positive that some guy with a beard got killed then came back. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. You get a cookie if you can name that quote without using google.
And finally to evolution...
Your analogy is so hopelessly flawed I'm not sure I should even bother. Maybe if you added a few hundred billion years to the football stadium, countless TRILLIONS of watches, a progression from base life-sustaining components into an actual life form (sundial, grandfather clock, pocketwatch, wristwatch, calculator watch, timex with 2 time zones and 3 alarms, etc...) As someone pointed out earlier, our lack of knowledge in some scientific field is NOT evidence supporting the existance of god, it is evidence supporting the fact that we don't know everything about science. Which is good, because the point of science isn't about proving things right it's about proving things wrong, and if we ever came to the point where we thought we knew everything about physics and chemistry and biology and everything else then I'd be very skeptical to that claim. As a side note, you said there are too many missing links. You get another cookie if you can actually identify those missing links and tell me what the progression is and where it has holes. Go on, you can do it right?
Finally, I demand a definition for the statement that god does not decay. Do you mean the numbers of his followers does not decline? Do you mean the influence of his followers does not decline? Do you mean that the original interpretations of his word do not change? How do you define a god as decaying? Or would you rather abandon that and make your bulwark somewhere else?

[jamie]

It's rather funny to about how everyone quotes statistics when humans are far beyond statistics.

You cannot acurately measure a human through a survey, because they have the ability to go exactly against what they have said previously.

And by the by,

"As far as what you actually said, and not just how you said it, one has a responcibility to identify exactly what one thinks is evil and exactly who is performin gthose acts before they can make blanketed statements concerning evil in the world today. Would you say that sounds reasonable? The prison statistics say it's the protestant Christians, at least in America. Consider this, atheists make up between 10-15% of American society, varied by region, but less than a quarter of a single percent of the violnet prison population. We don't even beleive in "evil," we beleive in what is either good or bad for people as a whole. It has been argued that the very concept of "evil" is a self-fufilling prophesy - the church preaches about how everyone is corrupted by Satan, but the only ones to show the symptoms are are the same Christians who were listening. Somewhat of a psychosomatic condition, if you will."

How many of those in the prison that said they were Christian were Christians who actually lived for Christ, and not just said they were Christian just to say? Oh, and how many of those in prison were converts during their "stay"?

[jamie]

Simply put, God does not decay.

I'm not talking about his followers, his numbers, etc., etc., because those are all not God. God is God himself, and he does not die off nor go away.

[profdunebastard]

Jamie, I would love to continue this debate further in person. The internet debates I've been engaged in tend to be disjointed and fraught with certain immature snipings on character-in part because of the anomynity it offers. I or any of my colleages very much enjoy spirited, civil, logical debate and could provide one. Feel free to attend our meetings, and when the time allows for, we'll be happy to discuss this issue. We can associate a face with the name, take some edge off the arguments, and with maturity and civility will probably learn alot about and from eachother. It is probably the best way to swee results. Thank you very much.

[ebonywnd]

jamie said:

Simply put, God does not decay.

I'm not talking about his followers, his numbers, etc., etc., because those are all not God. God is God himself, and he does not die off nor go away.

So....when everyone else stops believing in him, your god is just going to sit on his thumbs and watch us? I thought he was all-knowing, all-powerful, and all of that. He is going to allow us to forget all about him? Why did he even create us then?

Honestly, I would like to know why you think god created us. Was he lonely? Well...isn't being lonely all about feeling the lack of another person? There isn't really another being for him to pine for, now is there? I realize there are many other views on why he would create us, so please give me yours. The answer that "God is unfathomable" just doesn't work for me. It seems so very convenient.

[Cygnus]

I believe what jamie was trying to say by "God does not decay" is in reference to its being on the US currency. God in principle, is eternal. simply as an idea and nothing more. God isnt religion and religion isnt God, It would be very short sided to equate the two as one and the same. It seems foolish to take words with explicit definitions such as "God" and "religion" and use them interchangeably. It is clear that there is a relationship between the two words. Christianity as a religion depends on God to exist, but it is not necessarily true that God would need religion or followers to exist. Of couse being so myopic in ones certainty that god is not real, it is understandable how one might say that when a religion based on fiction dies so does its ficticious god. Regardless of the truth of any religion or any god, the word God still has a definition which carries the weight and connotation of permanence, which is what i believe Jamie was trying to say when he gave his idea on currency.

[Valvilis]

Well, I guess it doesn't really matter what Jamie was saying, I foolishly gave him/her the benefit of the doubt and got nothing in return.

Jamie, you may wish in the future to pay closer attention to whom some statement is addressed, and make a point to notice when that "whom" is not you. Did I say *you* did a disservice to Christians being here? Or did I say it to Mitchell? It is readint the bible with this same sort of irresponcibility that we're even having this conversation.

Tell me this, you keep stating that you don't know enough about the subject to argue it, or that you are just repeating what you've been told, so, I guess I'm unsure of where your apparent hostility comes from. You seem very quick to judge and not based on merit. You've all but admitted that you don't really know what you ought to believe, only what you happen to. Only a fool runs headlong into battle agianst well armed and armored troops, armed only with a weapon they're inexperienced with. I noticed you had an invite to the meetings, maybe that's something you'd do well to consider.

[profdunebastard]

My problem with that line of reasoning, basicly usuing God as a symbol of indivisibility, perfect unity as it were, is that there are other symbols that relay this thought that are just as universal, yet do not discriminate, do not assume that everyone believes God. My problem with government's endorsement of religion, even if as insignificant as the word god on money, is that as a free country that allows all to belief as they wish acknowledging god denies unbelievers, tells them they are somehow inferior to theists, excludes them. What would be wrong with E pluribus unum on money-it says the exact same thing as the symbol of an undivisible god you used, but it does not marginalize anyone. God in this instance is wholly unneccessary and only serves to further invalidate atheists, whether it is the intent or not. It is far more equitable for all concerned to respect the rights of everyone to believe what they wish(as long as it doesn't bring harm or ostracize) and keep the wall of seperation standing. It does no harm.

[Cygnus]

I agree with you completely.

[profdunebastard]

cool beans then

[jamie]

Valvilis said:

Well, I guess it doesn't really matter what Jamie was saying, I foolishly gave him/her the benefit of the doubt and got nothing in return.

Jamie, you may wish in the future to pay closer attention to whom some statement is addressed, and make a point to notice when that "whom" is not you. Did I say *you* did a disservice to Christians being here? Or did I say it to Mitchell? It is readint the bible with this same sort of irresponcibility that we're even having this conversation.

Tell me this, you keep stating that you don't know enough about the subject to argue it, or that you are just repeating what you've been told, so, I guess I'm unsure of where your apparent hostility comes from. You seem very quick to judge and not based on merit. You've all but admitted that you don't really know what you ought to believe, only what you happen to. Only a fool runs headlong into battle agianst well armed and armored troops, armed only with a weapon they're inexperienced with. I noticed you had an invite to the meetings, maybe that's something you'd do well to consider.

I don't really think it matters what you addressed to a brother of mine, you still said something about him, and I said something that he would fully support. That's all.

And I claim to not know enough about the subject because I don't want to become the 'chairperson of God' as so many atheists, etc., like to make any supporter of God. I know everything I need to know, and I find it funny that you claim that I dont know what I ought to believe when I'm rather full and stable with what I believe - that Jesus Christ is my saviour. That's all.

Val, you make it sound like I'm going to be sad that you gave me the benefit of the doubt and you got nothing in return. I'm not.

Oh, and thanks for calling me a fool - it shows the maturity that is vested in you