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

[Lao Tzu]

It promotes conformity and abrahamian religions, specifically christianity. I don't want my future child to be subjected to this.

Actually, I think President Bush and congress are being crybabies as much as the person who filed the lawsuit. I could justifiably say that many of the people who are voicing their outrage at the decision are reactionary crybabies.

Very true. If you have to stop the entire judicial system and/or threaten to bring down the 9th circuit of appeals because one agenda mildly bugs you then you are really intolerant.

I'm indifferent to the whole issue (i think i said that already) as it won't change much but one nation under god is a religious endorsement. Just like 'one nation unified, because god is pretend' or 'under the guidance of our departed ancestors' are religious endorsements too.

 

[rotovibe]

plornive
shure pascal's wager. I wasn't thinking about that when I wrote it but essentially, yes.
One article of his proposal that I think is pivotal is the 'wager' itself...we are incapable of proving the existance of God, or his nonexistance. But with reasonable evidence we must make a choice.
So one might conclude that we can make a reasonable argument either way. But I assure you, if you research it enough, someone can reasonably argue for the existance of God.
But please take heed. When we concede that we cannot prove that there is a God we can equally state that it is impossible to DISPROVE the existence of God.

ps- abrahamic (abrahamian) is the term.

 

[plornive]

plornive
shure pascal's wager. I wasn't thinking about that when I wrote it but essentially, yes.
One article of his proposal that I think is pivotal is the 'wager' itself...we are incapable of proving the existance of God, or his nonexistance. But with reasonable evidence we must make a choice.
So one might conclude that we can make a reasonable argument either way. But I assure you, if you research it enough, someone can reasonably argue for the existance of God.
But please take heed. When we concede that we cannot prove that there is a God we can equally state that it is impossible to DISPROVE the existence of God.

ps- abrahamic (abrahamian) is the term.

I have read about and thought about Pascal's Wager extensively before. In my opinion most assesments exclude many possibilities. For instance, there could be a negative consequence of believing in god. I don't know how someone could reasonably argue for the existence of god using Pascal's Wager (by my definition of reasonable).

Like I said before, I think it is highly unlikely that god exists. By your definition of "disprove", I agree with the last sentence in your paragraph. However, I never said that I know that god does not exist. I said I believe that god does not exist --- through an attempt at a measured assesment. I also believe that the tooth fairy does not exist.

I understand that many if not most Christians aknowledge that they do not know if god exists, but that they have faith that he/she/it exists. It is a misconception among many theists that atheists necessarily claim to know god does not exist --- that definition of atheism would be ridiculously narrow.

 

[rotovibe]

oh, ok...
A divine entity backed by arguable evidence in textual and verbal records, further documentation within several cultures, and an existing following with arguable personal testimonies compared to the tooth fairy is a bit lopsided don't you think?
We have too much evidence for its existance to dismiss God that easily.
It's not that simple...
Post-modern thinking can easily dismiss a diety with 'refusal to believe'. But what is stopping us there? I can easily refuse to believe there are laws that govern society. But does that make me right? Why wouldn't anyone else think I'm right, like law enforcement?
When there are objective moral standards there has to be a law setter. Much like I said in my first post. We can't rely on each other to set standards because we differ.

 

[the nature boy]

proof in god is all heresay IMO.

 

[rotovibe]

what kinds of measured assesments are you referring to?

 

[rotovibe]

SmegmaSoldier,
Ok I understand. So what would be a viable argument for the existance of God? What kinds of evidence would you allow in a proposal? Are we talking physical evidence? Metaphysical? We can start with the old standard, the Bible. I can show you evidence of God's existance but will you accept that? We don't have to start there though...we can talk about it from a philosophical assesment. You pick...

 

[plornive]

oh, ok...
A divine entity backed by arguable evidence in textual and verbal records, further documentation within several cultures, and an existing following with arguable personal testimonies compared to the tooth fairy is a bit lopsided don't you think?
We have too much evidence for its existance to dismiss God that easily.
It's not that simple...
Post-modern thinking can easily dismiss a diety with 'refusal to believe'. But what is stopping us there? I can easily refuse to believe there are laws that govern society. But does that make me right? Why wouldn't anyone else think I'm right, like law enforcement?
When there are objective moral standards there has to be a law setter. Much like I said in my first post. We can't rely on each other to set standards because we differ.

You are right. There is much more evidence in support of a belief in god than the tooth fairy.

However, neither tip my scales in the direction of belief. I don't think most people would conclude that either are true through measured assessment. Again, I am distinguising between faith and measured assessment.

History also tells us the stories of many religions in many societies. This pattern is evidence that religion is generally created by society.

 

[plornive]

You're right --- there are very few forms of evidence that would make me believe in god. This does not make it any more likely.

By measured assessment, I am refering to unemotional assessment. In situations where an assessment is important, a demonstrably reliable process of assessment should be used --- such as the scientific process, logic or set theory. I used set theory earlier in this thread to support my disbelief in god.

 

[plornive]

Most forms of evidence in support of god are not derived from demonstrably reliable sources. Many of these pieces of evidence also contradict conclusions reached through demonstrably reliable sources and processes --- like the academic world of physics.

There are supposed pieces of evidence for many religions. The fact that many contradict each other makes them less likely.

There is also sociological evidence that religion is a tool created by society.