Pledge of Allegiance IS Unconstitutional!!!!!!!!!!!!

[plornive]

Re: Re: in addressing the God influence in our government...

um dude.. if it was an absolute.. it wouldn't be able to dissolve.. BUSTED!!

I agree with basically all of your responses except this one. The fact that he believes in absolutes does not preclude him from imagining a supposedly fictitious world without them.

I think that religion has been necessary in the past. I also think that we need some modus operandi of conformity, whether it is inherent in our existence (biology, mind, whatever) or not. However, I don't think this *needs* to be anything more than an agreement to conform to certain standards of behavior.

The above is somewhat theoretical, and I think a practical solution for the times will not necessarily be ideal. Perhaps religion is a good thing in our day and age. This doesn't mean I believe in it and it certainly does not mean anyone should be coerced into participating or believing in it.

 

[HappyScrappy]

these are all conjectures. Much like the statment: "what if monkeys fly out of my butt". You can't even measure these because they don't exist. I thought we were discussing things that can be measured or has occured and is in existance in some form or another?

Wolfram shows that he already is on the path of solving it (and has shown many times that complexity can easily come from patterns if observed on a large enough scale or over enough time), so it is a little bit more plausible than the monkey/ass conjecture.

you arguement works equally against you there. that is why religious debate can never get anywhere - there is nothing on either side to definitively prove that either side is right.
as Sagan said, it is like the invisible dragon in my garage.

 

[plornive]

where do you get morals from religion? i seriously doubt you follow your religion exactly as you are supposed to so does that mean that your obligation to follow its moral system can be loosely interpreted? people do not follow any moral system because of religion. the only thing that stops them from doing acts that we consider immoral are because of the punishments here on earth that are carried out by other men. men decide the laws. religious men break our laws and laws written in religious documents. religion has offered no universal moral system.

I could steal pieces of bread from my company's cafeteria every day without being caught. I would feel ashamed. This is sociological, not legal.

I would not rob a bank for both social and legal reasons.

I get pissed off if I see someone stealing something. This is because I value society, not because of any legal reasons.

I like many different recreational drugs and legality does not stop me from using them. I use my mind and see that these drugs are no more harmful than alcohol or donuts. I could get caught, but I take the risk.

We are social and sexual beings. We want respect and we value others. This is where my morality comes from. Laws only further prevent me from breaking some of my moral ideals. Laws don't prevent me from living out my dreams in an illegal fashion.

 

[rotovibe]

decem
read my post in context. What did I say in my previous sentences?
Doing so will help you understand what I meant by dissolving moral standards.
It's obvious to anyone that you can't dissolve something absolute. But was I declaring that fact? no I wasn't. It was part of a whole thesis of my statment meant to be taken in context to support my point. Nothing more.

'taxes is a rape of society'

figure that statement out...
I suggest you read up on critical reading methods.

 

[HappyScrappy]

hmm, this thread is moving into the political science realm

 

[decem]

decem
read my post in context. What did I say in my previous sentences?
Doing so will help you understand what I meant by dissolving moral standards.
It's obvious to anyone that you can't dissolve something absolute. But was I declaring that fact? no I wasn't. It was part of a whole thesis of my statment meant to be taken in context to support my point. Nothing more.

'taxes is a rape of society'

figure that statement out...
I suggest you read up on critical reading methods.

i suggest you bite me

 

[rotovibe]

good point HappyScrappy,
I would have to now say that a step of faith is needed to believe in such things. That transcends logic or any other form of testing so I chose to leave that out of discussion. I am mearly ingaging in reasonable evidences that are measurable.

 

[plornive]

you arguement works equally against you there. that is why religious debate can never get anywhere - there is nothing on either side to definitively prove that either side is right.
as Sagan said, it is like the invisible dragon in my garage.

It could be said that nothing can be definitively proven. I believe that Christianity is highly unlikely. That is enough proof for me that Christianity is not true, just like measuring the same rate of accelleration of gravity repetitively is enough proof for me to believe the rate of accelleration of gravity will be the same the next time I measure it.

 

[plornive]

i was referring to people who want to do the crime but dont do it because something is holding him back. someone who doesnt respect the social obligation to do the right thing. a murderer would not be deterred from committing his crime by religion, he would be more concerned with his prison sentence. i dont do things like steal because i know it is wrong. i do not need religion to tell me so. i guess what im saying is that in no way does religion enforce any kind of morality.

But it causes some people to abide by certain moral standards! Is that not enforcing morality?

If what you are saying is true, then religion does not cause anyone to abide by any moral standards. I have a fictitious friend who doesn't steal because he doesn't want to go to hell. Proof by contradiction.

 

[rotovibe]

decem,
hey i'm just saying that everyone here has at least read and tried to analize my writing and looked at it objectively. I suggest just reading more thoroughly and offer statements that are sensitive to the scope of our conversation...we're on 'political constructs and the role of morals and it's necessity or not'
patience my rebuttals are coming...