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

[plornive]

ok now back to the topic at hand, hell what was it? something about the pledge right. yea, ok. yea, well i think thats rediculous to worry about two little ol' harmless words. people are stupid.

Am I talking to a wall?

These two words were added in the 1950s. Do you think the people who added them thought those two words had no effect? Were they cry babies?

Are the people who are adamant about keeping those two words in the pledge cry babies?

You are looking at a three dimensional issue in a one-dimensional fashion. You are denying the obvious: these words are demonstrably very important to both sides of the issue in converse ways.

 

[spongebob]

I did not conform.

Many people conform to their parents' and societies' religions. "one nation under god" assists in conforming society.

You are basically saying "let them eat cake".

and those people are really the ones i feel sorry for.

what next? sue cosmo for promoting a certain type of female which assist in pressuring teenage girls into feeling the need to conform to societies expectations of a women and thereby becoming anorexic.

 

[huntmaster]

SpongeBob---good to see you back man. I have not been here much either, but when I am I enjoy reading your posts.

 

[rotovibe]

rebuttal to decem's post

First of all I would like to personally apologize for my condescending tone. It was not meant to be intentional. I’m assuming you are a network admin and I know that can be taxing at times. So I stand corrected and respect your present position.

I will address your other comments on my post over time.

Your quotes are highlighted.

The issue of man made morality:
Let’s think about this for a second. I will throw out some truisms that you can refute along the way. Only thing I ask is if you can show some evidence of that refutation. I cannot accept declarative rebuttals that don’t have reasonable evidence because I can’t formulate an objection or concede just buy interpreting a declarative statement.

Ok here goes…
You stated…
‘man did create them. culture and society creates moral standards. period.’

How do you define morality?
Webster’s dictionary defines it as:“A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct”

So we can deduct that morality is based on right and wrong.
So we then have to define right or wrong in a sociological context.
Webster’s says : right-‘That which is just, legal, proper, or fitting.’
Wrong-“Not in accord with established usage, method, or procedure”

You also said that morality is inherent in everyone.
“people are shaped from what's already in them, something untouchable,”
I know not to steal, I know that killing someone is bad, I know its good to be in harmony with someone. I agree.

So in summary…
“morality is a system of ideas based on justness and non-accordance with established usage that is inherent in all people.”

Now we have a problem. How do we consider what is right or what is wrong when talking about man-made morals that are shaped by our own personal experiences? In essence, how do I know what is right for me is right for you or any other human considering that my morals are made by me?

Consider cannibalism, I have read about social collectives in the jungles of the Amazon that have no moral objections to eating human flesh. Do you, personally think this is a moral act? What about if I also include that they eat their ancestry for the sake of acquiring their wisdom and knowledge? Does that make it any more moral? It isn’t for me and I would assume that it isn’t for a lot of people.

So how does man make universally consistent, understood morals when we can’t even agree on what’s morally right or wrong? We cannot. Man is fallible we have shown it through history.

We are finite people and morality is transcendent beyond cultures, lifetimes and eras despite our inherent ‘evil’ nature. As you stated…
“you will never be able to fully inhibit what ‘evils’ lie within them”
I am concluding that you’re saying that man is inherently evil.

So in essence how can an evil man make moral absolutes? It can’t. The very fact that we are ‘evil’, as you stated, robs us of that power. How can something evil produce something morally objective? It can only produce evil because it is it’s nature.

The fact of the matter is, there are established moral absolutes and in your definition of evil man , man cannot construct these concepts of morality. Yet they exist.

FINITE BEINGS CANNOT CREATE INFINITE TRUTHS.


On your use of the word ‘evil’:
“you will never be able to instill morals in a person. you will never be able to fully inhibit what "evils" lie within them”

When you say there is evil, aren't you admitting there is good? When you accept the existence of goodness, you must affirm a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But when you admit to a moral law, you must posit a moral lawgiver. For if there is no moral lawgiver, there is no moral law. If there is no moral law, there is no good. If there is no good, there is no evil.

As a professed atheist, it is irrational to believe in evil.

The next issue I will address is the theological explanation of divine inspiration. (I didn't want to go there, but you chose to bring it up )

 

[plornive]

Re: rebuttal to decem's post

As a professed atheist, it is irrational to believe in evil.

I do not believe in evil, but you are wrong.

Belief in evil does not imply belief in god(s), spirit(s) or creator(s). It is possible for the concept of evil to be a force in the universe without any of these, just like it is possible for the concept of gravity to be a force in the universe without the existence of these.

 

[plornive]

As I noticed you using your orginal points to support your arguments and critique others' arguments with, I decided to refute your points.

I wasn't planning on doing this, since I think it is usually pointless and tedious for atheists and theists to debate the validity of each others' claims, but I didn't like seeing your idea that morality is absolute.

If you would like, I will put together an argument for the disbelief of the idea of god.

 

[spongebob]

SpongeBob---good to see you back man. I have not been here much either, but when I am I enjoy reading your posts.

this is the second time someone mentioned me being back. how long was i gone because it only felt like a day or so. actually like a lifetime because thats how much ive been keeping myself busy.

good to see you too as always.

 

[plornive]

Re: my evidence for a divine entity through philospohy...

1) the argument of change.
The material world, as we know it, changes. Oak trees grow for example. When something comes to be in a certain state, like a mature tree, that ‘state’ cannot bring itself to being. For it only is when it comes to that point. Mature or older. It would not exist otherwise. If it does not exist , it cannot cause anything. We can deduce that it has the potential for maturity.
Nothing changes itself. Animal bodies are moved by will – something other than mere molecules. When it dies the molecules remain. But the animal no longer moves because the desire is no longer present to move it. No matter how many things there are in the series, each one needs something outside itself to actualize its potentiality for change.
The universe is the sum total of all these moving things, however many. The whole universe is in the process of change. We’ve seen that change requires an outside force. Therefore there is some force outside the universe, some real being transcendent to the universe.
This being is outside matter, space, and time. It is the unchanging source of change.

Have you ever seen a loop of girls laying naked in a "group 69"? Each one needs an outside force (another girl) to reach orgasm.

The entire circle will change from a group of unsatisfied girls to a group of satisfied girls without any force from outside the circle.

2) Efficient Causality
We notice that some things cause other things to be. A guitar resonates sound because someone is strumming it. When the strumming stops so does the sound. There must be something that all things that need a cause of being are dependent on.

Those naked girls only needed each other.

3) Degrees of perfection
An intelligent being is better than an unintelligent one. A being able to give and receive love is better than one that cannot. Our way of being is better, richer, and fuller than that of a stone.
If the degree of perfection pertain to being and being is caused in finite creatures, then there must exist a ‘best’. A source and real standard of all the perfections that we recognize belong to us beings.
Perfection of all perfections is – a higher power.

Or, social beings define perfection through their interaction and biological structures. Judgement of perfection is based on observation of who brings the most "good" and thus pleasure to thee or something related to that. This is a very loose explanation, but I am just trying to demonstrate the concept.

You need to show me that perfection is an absolute before you even begin to claim that a higher power defines it.

4) intelligent design
The universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility, both within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to others outside themselves. The way they exist and coexist displays an intricately beautiful order. Even chemical elements are ordered to combine with other elements in certain ways and under certain conditions.
Chance is simply not credible. For we can only understand chance only against a background of order. To say that something happened by chance implies that it didn’t turn out like we expected it to. But expectation is not possible without order. We cannot comprehend chance without order.

Firstly, what is intelligence? Secondly, why does intelligence need to occupy a single being?

Ant colonies build great things. I think ant colonies are smarter than the ants themselves. The system of an ant colony is not conscious, to my knowledge. The ants themselves can be simple to the point of non-intelligence. Each ant could be replaced with a robot. These robots could be considered intelligent, but then so would be modern refrigerators and personal computers.

Lastly, how does this intelligent outside force exist? By your theory, wouldn't an intelligent outside force need to create it?

5) argument from contingency
If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.
The universe – the collection of beings in space and time – exist.
Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist.
What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bound by space and time.
Therefore it must transcend space and time.

This point relies on the validity of the previous point.

6) the world is an interacting whole
the world is a dynamic ordered system of many active components. Their natures are ordered to interact with each other in stable, reciprocal relationships which we call physical laws.
With such an intricately interconnected system, each component is defined by its relation to the whole.
If parts only make sense in the whole, and neither the whole or the part can explain it’s existence, then such a system as our world requires a unifying efficient cause to posit it in existence as a unified whole. An intelligent cause.

Define 'define'.

The components of the universe do not need to be defined, as in given meaning. They only need to interact. Why do you say they need to be 'defined'? Why does the universe need to be posited as a whole? What does posited mean?

7) We have a conciousness
When we experience and witness the intelligibility and order of the universe, we are experiencing something intelligence can grasp. Intelligence is part of what we find in the world. But the universe itself is not intellectually aware. As great as the forces of nature are, they don’t know themselves. Yet we know them AND ourselves. The presence of intelligence amidst unconcious material process, and the conformity of those processes to the structure of conscious intelligence supports my previous proposal for DESIGN.

Consciousness is just one of the many components of nature that I see. I look at consciousness like I look at the can of Diet Mountain Dew in front of me.

Anyway, the same rebuttal as for point 4 (design) applies to this point.

Also, how do you know that the universe is not intellectually aware? Is it just your belief? Can you show me that the process you used to reach that conclusion is likely to be correct?

8) my argument for truth
Our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being.
Truth properly resides in a mind.
But the human mind is not eternal.
Therefore there must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside.

Firstly, what does 'eternal truths about being' mean in this context exactly? You need to give an example, because I'm not sure if I know of any 'eternal truths about being'.

Secondly, finite machines can calculate and store infinite values. Human minds can follow the same algorithms as these machines and thus can calculate and store infinite values. Would infinite values qualify as 'eternal truths'? Define 'about being'.

You need to clarify this point before presenting it to others, as it relies on an undefined term.

9) the origin of the idea of God
This argument is made famous by Rene Descartes, FYI.
We have ideas of many things.
These ideas must arise either from us or things outside us.
One of these ideas is the idea of God – an infinite, all-perfect being.
This idea could not have been caused by ourselves because we are limited and imperfect, and NO EFFECT CAN BE GREATER THAN THE CAUSE.
Therefore the idea must have been caused by something outside us that has nothing less than the qualities contained in the idea of God.
But only God has those qualities.
Therefore he must be the cause of our idea of him. (I choose to use ‘he’ as a simple reference)
Therefore God exists.

One can argue that all we have to do is realize the degrees of perfection and just project the scale upwards and outwards to infinity. Bam! You have an idea of God originating from a finite mind. But realize this about my previous point about perfection. We can only know perfection if there is a standard in thought that makes that recognition possible. A STANDARD that is unchanging and independent of finite thought.

I cannot disprove your theory because you can always claim that the ultimate cause of anything is god.

If I give you an example of something causing a greater effect than itself, you might give me a cause of the cause that is more intelligent, namely god.

However, you also cannot prove that 'no effect can be greater than the cause'. You don't even support this claim.

All you have is a claim with no support.

10) the moral argument
Real moral obligation is a fact. We are really, truly, objectively obligated to do good and avoid evil.
Either the atheistic view of reality is correct or the ‘religious’ one.
But the atheistic one is incompatible with there being moral obligation.
The religious view of reality seems to be probable.

Moral values or obligations themselves,- and not merely the belief in moral values – are OBJECTIVE facts.
Moral obligation can hardly be rooted in a material motion blind to purpose.
The most compatible view is one that sees real moral obligation as grounded in its creator, that sees moral obligation as rooted in the fact that we have been created with a purpose and for an end.

You claim that real moral obligation is a fact without any support. Everything else relies on the validity of this claim.

Morality can be defined as a pattern of behavior. Why do you consider this pattern of behavior to be sacred?

11) argument for aesthetic experience
There is the music of Johann Sebastian Bach (sp?)
There must be a God.

You either see this one or you don’t.

Nope.

12) pascal’s wager

What if there is an infinite negative consequence of believing in god?

Some of my notable ‘others’ is religious experience, common consent, desire, argument for conscience.etc…

This discredits any claim for the objective validity of your belief in god.

 

[rotovibe]

I will refrain from commenting on the questions about the first two articles. Ahem! Silly, silly boy...
Well I will say a few things...
This article closely resembles scientific determinism.
Those naked girls only needed each other.
So what? they don't breath? What about nurishment? In that 'group 69' would they need gravity to stay in the 'circle'? Beleive me, they depend on other things. Material and immaterial. A group of females, undulging in self pleasure is a crude example of a counterpoint. It's narrow in scope, disregarding other know testable material entities involved in your hypothetical scenario. I'm talking about perpetual change, they eventually break from this 'circle' do they not? And as seperate entities, they in turn will interact with other things in material existance. Am I right?

Furthermore...
In 1929 the astronomer Edwin Hubble made a discovery that revolutionized both astronomy and science as a whole. He discovered that the universe was expanding . Galaxies were moving away from each other like dots on an expanding baloon. If the universe were expanding it had to start somewhere. As physicist Stephen Hawkins said, "Hubble's observations suggested that there was a time called the big bang , when the universe was infinitesimally small and infinitely dense." This was the beginning of the Big Bang Theory, which states that the universe must have a beginning.
Astrophysicists then got findings from the (COBE) satellite confirming the big bang creation event.

"It's the most exciting thing that's happened in my life as a cosmologist."
- Carlos Frenk

"It is the discovery of the century, if not all time."
- Stephen Hawking

"What we have found is evidence for the beginning of the universe." He added, It's like looking at God."
- George Smoot

According to science historian Gredric B. Burnham (spelling might be off), a community scientists observing the findings was prepared to consider the idea that God created the universe " a more respected hypothesis today than at any time in the last hundred years."

Basically the hot big bang model says that the entire universe - all the matter and energy and of the four demensions of space and time - burst forth from a state of infinite, or near infinite density, temperature and pressure. If the universe which is wearing out, according to the second law of thermodynamics, did not have a beginning it would have already worn out. Something set the universe in motion.

THERE IS A FORCE OUTSIDE THIS UNIVERSE.

If you don’t believe this, you can take it up with the fraternity of great minds of our century that had nothing better to do than to ask the question “How did we get here?” I don’t think they will go for the whole ‘group 69’ example though.


Or, social beings define perfection through their interaction and biological structures.
Judgement of that is based on observation of who brings the most "good" and thus pleasure to thee or something related to that.
Perfection, in your defenition is who or what brings the most good and pleasure to yourself? Very egocentric

You need to show me that perfection is an absolute before you even begin to claim that a higher power defines it.
Ok, do we know the definition of imperfect? What about the striving for perfection? Would the desire to be perfect qualify that as an absolute? Everyone wants to be perfect.

Firstly, what is intelligence?
Intelligence is acquiring knowledge and applying it. It also means that there is the ability to reason.etc...

Secondly, why does intelligence need to occupy a single being?
In one instance?
Becasue intelligence is being self-aware. A state of self awareness can only happen as an individual revelation. I can be externally aware of other people but that is a different thing.

Ant colonies build great things. I think ant colonies are smarter than the ants themselves. The system of an ant colony is not conscious, to my knowledge. The ants themselves can be simple to the point of non-intelligence. Each ant could be replaced with a robot. These robots could be considered intelligent, but then so would be modern refrigerators and personal computers.

Ant colonies is an excellent exaple of a collection of components intricately working together as a whole. Ants are grouped by specific duties. Worker ants, Queen ant,drones, etc... it a beautiful thing...

Lastly, how does this intelligent outside force exist? By your theory, wouldn't an intelligent outside force need to create it?
No. I believe God is eternal.

Define 'define'.
The components of the universe do not need to be defined, as in given meaning. They only need to interact. Why do you say they need to be 'defined'?
First of all, defining physical law is not finding meaning. Based on your rebuttal, I don't think you understand what I wrote.
define; To describe the nature or basic qualities of; explain.
Well, we can't progress in science without first defining the elements right? If we don't define anything how can we test, measure, etc...
we wouldn't have been able to go to the moon if we hadn't defined how far we needed to travel.(ie. distance from earth to moon and back). How about not defining the atom and the protons and neutrons?

Firstly, what does 'eternal' mean in this context exactly? You need to give an example.
Secondly, finite machines can calculate and store infinite values. Human minds can follow the same algorithms as these machines and thus can calculate and store infinite values. Would infinite qualify as 'eternal'?
You need to clarify this point before presenting it to others, as it relies on an undefined term.
I guess you don't know the difference between infinite and eternal.
eternal is Being without beginning or end; existing outside of time.
Mathematics has a beginning, its called zero (at it's most basic form, I'm not getting into discrete math on this post). Infinity is a mathmatical term implying amount. It's a term which is in essence bound by sequence 0,1,2,3,4 it has a beginning.
infinite:In it's very definition, is being measured.
small|large, big|small, finite|infinite.
Eternity has no beginning.

Did I really need to explain this?

Also, how do you know that the universe is not intellectually aware?
Is it just your belief? Can you show me that the process you used to reach that conclusion is likely to be correct?
Shure.
can the universe acquire and apply knowlwedge? No. Acquiring and applying knowledge is a cognitive action.
Can the universe reason? No. Again it's inanimate.
Should I go on?

...you might give me a cause of the cause that is more intelligent, namely god.
Are you implying that I use SUBJECTIVE reasoning? My conclusions are philosophical statements based on measurable evidence. Every philospher has to answer the question of existence. Existance is measurable. Definitions of words are measurable. Self awareness is an agreed upon reality. I have conducted my points with reasonable philosophical/ grammatical/ scientific evidence that we all can agree on and THEN I make reasonable, arguable, conclusions from there. I could have easily said 'God made it and that is it' but THAT would be subjective. If there is a solution to all my questions and they lead to the non-existance of God then I will conciously 'step' that way. But to this point, I can't find a reasonable amount of evidence that can refute the 'signature' of a divine creator that put things in motion.

However, you also cannot prove that 'no effect can be greater than the cause'. You don't even support this claim.
All you have is a claim with no support.
How about...the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy? Thermodynamics? Primarily the article that states that the total amount of mass and energy in the universe is constant. If you have a constant amount of mass and energy, then creating something bigger than the originator would introduce more mass into the construct would it not? If it doesn't, then it would have to take it from something else. in essence, another collection of mass. It would then exert more energy to degrade this mass and you have more energy produced. Let's say this occurs exponentially. Then you would have a massive chain of events that would render all mass to be in a constant shift of energy. Existance would be a big explosion.
If there is sufficient evidence to do so, yes. But you can't show me an instance you mentioned.

You claim that real moral obligation is a fact without any support.
Just ask a simple moral question like "is it ok to kill a person, in random, with no cause or purpose?" to as many people as you can, measure their response and tell me if that isn't proof of a fact. You can even run several hundred samples and questionares and derive a statistical mean to be more accurate. I'm shure we can merit that evidence as fact. "random killing is immoral"

Morality can be defined as a pattern of behavior.
Shure, morality is a pattern of behavior. But by stating that, you are just generalizing the subject matter. Not proving a point.
You realize that right?
Patterned bahaviour is a category of behaviors. Morality is a pattern behavior. Therefore morality is a behavior.
That doesn't disprove my point.
n=1 , a=2 , a+n=3 , 3=3 and a+n<=3

Why do you consider this pattern of behavior to be sacred?
Because of the very definition of morality. Moral behavior is actions that are motivated by the assesment of right & wrong. I would at least consider that 'more special' than my other patterned behaviors.

What if there is an infinite negative consequence of believing in god?
Conjecture...

This discredits any claim for the objective validity of your belief in god.
Yup. Wouldn't you say that anyway? How can you objectively validate a belief in anything? Belief is belief. You have to make a step in any direction in order to beleive which implies moving from where you were, objectivity.
But you haven't gotten that far. As you said in your early posts. You like to remain neutral. Open minded. That's cool with me.

Belief in evil does not imply belief in god(s), spirit(s) or creator(s). It is possible for the concept of evil to be a force in the universe without any of these, just like it is possible for the concept of gravity to be a force in the universe without the existence of these.
A force in the universe? And you are grouping it with gravity? Hmmm...where do I start.
First of all, quantifiable ocurrances such as gravity does not remotely relate to the concept of evil. Evil is a collective term that describes 'something that is morally bad'(webster) gravity is a measurement of the earth's magnetic pull.
Why not call it just a force? Obviously you would use 'evil force' right? Even if you refer to evil as a force you still have to refer to it as 'the evil force' in order to even convey, and differenciate, your thought about a 'force' that is 'evil'. Well, what deems it evil? What is evil? Goes back to my discussion.
Secondly, evil doesn't imply diety, a notion of a diety is needed to affectively define evil. Evil is a religious term.

 

[spongebob]

Well, who cares? How often do you say the pledge of allegiance anyway. I've changed my mind and agree with the sponge.

damn ryan, for once we agree. see people can work together despite thier differences. if we all practice tolerance, understanding and compassion and a willingness to compromise with each other we can all make a difference in this world. lets quit trying to step on the other mans toes. is this too sappy? oh well, anyway back to the discussion at hand. yes ryan, it would be quite enjoyable if the student is 20, 21. i guess it would add to the daddy/student relationship aspect of it. i think i might get me a new avatar now.