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

[spongebob]

Am I talking to a wall?

i dont know but if you are your just as dense as the wall.

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

i understand that.

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

yes, but to a lesser degree. it is there, it is not bothering anybody, it doesnt prohibit you from earning a living, raising a family, buying groceries, to be honest its probably hardly reconized by the students themselves and/or put into such a grand scheme of things as all the adults seem to be doing. can you tell me what harm it does to have a classroom of children saying the pledge? why go thru all of this for two little words? is it really that important? im mean i could probably find plenty of things to sue the school district for but i dont.

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.

you are wrong. i understand the debate over this issue is multi-demensional, but we(you and i) have only discussed one side of it. i never gave you my opinion one way or the other regarding the side that wants it to stay.

 

[spongebob]

What's up sponge. Good to see you!

Now, do your little boxing style dance and waive your arms over your head and point your glove at your opposition and taunt them!

Yeh...that's it!

Pretty cool!

i just saw you here, and it wouldnt let me give you karma so im responding in kind to your kindness. hi there ol' pal. now come gimme a big hug(not the kind you give to girls with big jubilee's but the kind of hug you give when you dont touch in the frontal area and only pat each other on the high part of the shoulder at the end of the traps((i know this is long)) and give three pats with one second pauses in between so as not to show too much attachment or passion.)

 

[musclebrains]

i just saw you here, and it wouldnt let me give you karma so im responding in kind to your kindness. hi there ol' pal. now come gimme a big hug(not the kind you give to girls with big jubilee's but the kind of hug you give when you dont touch in the frontal area and only pat each other on the high part of the shoulder at the end of the traps((i know this is long)) and give three pats with one second pauses in between so as not to show too much attachment or passion.)

LOL LOL....I know that one so well.

 

[plornive]

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.

I attempt to make measured assessments with as few initial steps in the directions of actual conclusions as possible. I then attempt to use demonstrably accurate processes to reach conclusions.

You let your emotions and desires guide you. Emotions and desires are demonstrably unreliable and inaccurate --- they blind you.

Ask yourself if you came to the conclusion of god before or after you decided why.

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.

It was an exercise in thought demonstrating interdependence. I don't think we know enough about physics or the universe to conclude that there must be an outside cause. Here is my reasoning:

Time seems to behave relative to the third dimension of space similarly (not exactly and not linearly, with thermodynamics being one of the exceptions) to the way the third dimension of space behaves relative the second dimension of space. There may be more dimensions. This would negate any supposed necessity for an outside cause, and be just as likely in my opinion.

I think a relationship of dimensions similar to a group 69, with randomly occuring orgasms which reverberate throughout the ring of naked bodies, is a possibility. Seriously.

Basically, I think you are jumping to one conclusion out of many possibilities.

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

I'm not sure if you have a point here or not. I will just say that my example was an attempt to illustrate how biology could hierarchically assign relative perceived values to individual organisms and things. Biological creatures are complicated, as is apparent to me and you.

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.

People have different definitions of good, as most dogs probably have different definitions of physical goodness from most cats. I guess perfection would be the optimal goodness relative to a certain conception of goodness, but that is just semantics. The definition of optimal goodness might change as the relative definition of goodness and the organisms/whatever that define them change. I don't think perfection needs to be defined --- it is just a concept.

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

Ok.

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.

You did not include consciousness in your definition of intelligence above. An ant colony is not necessarily self-aware, but it seems to aquire knowledge and apply it. Knowledge, in this instance, could be marks in sand, chemicals in the air, etc. It seems to act as a whole, as well. Why does intelligence require consciousness?

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...

You define it as a whole. I agree that it works as a whole. So what?

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.

Why do you believe it is eternal? What point supports this?

"Intelligent design" only says that whatever supposedly created/caused the universe is intelligent. All observable earthly forms of intelligence are systems working together as far as I know. This indicates that, according to "intelligent design", whatever created/caused the universe has order. But then what created it?

Perhaps intelligence is not required to create perceived order. Perhaps a creator or cause caused itself to transform into the universe. Perhaps the universe is intelligent. Perhaps the universe is eternal.

These conjectures are all as valid as your idea that god exists and 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?

Oh, ok. I reread your original point. This is just an accessory to "intelligent design". The same rebuttal applies to this point.

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??

My comments were not really in rebuttal to your point. I really didn't understand what you meant by eternal. I'm not sure any eternal truths about being exist --- I don't know why they need to. Can you give me an example? I seriously can't think of any verifiable eternal truth about being.

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?

We are part of the universe. Just like an ant colony is animate to me, the universe may be animate. The universe may be able to aquire knowledge because its subparts (us) aquire knowledge and apply it.

We don't know if the universe can act as a whole. We don't even know if humans act completely as wholes. Our brains can play "tricks" on us. We can use drugs to affect different parts of our brains, which in turn may or may not affect the whole.

While I'm not saying that the universe is likely to be conscious, it is as much of a possibility as the existence of god.

...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.

I'm not putting words into your mouth. I said "might" to show that I was demonstrating a concept, not stating a literal. I should have said 'could'.

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.

The conservation of mass and energy indicates that mass and energy cannot be created. It seems to contradict your point, if anything. Are you saying god exists and has mass and/or energy? Think about how you are applying this law.

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"

Ok. I thought you meant something more by this. It seems to be a fact that people feel obligated to act moral, so I agree with what I think you are saying now.

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

I know. This and the next sentence are to be read together.

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.

I think sex is special because it gives me pleasure. It doesn't mean I think there are any 'eternal' truths about sex.

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

The idea that there may be an infinite negative consequence of not believing in god is conjecture as well. Ultimately, Pascal's Wager is moot.

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.

If you define evil only in relation to a supreme being, you are right. I guess my definition would not qualify as evil, so I will partially take my assessment back.

I was going by the definition of evil as concept manifested by the interactions of the universe. This is not necessarily a "force". Like I explained above I don't believe this sort of 'order' requires an intelligent outside force or a supreme being.

 

[plornive]

We are debating the existence of god on Elite!

hahahaha.

Here is why I believe that god does not exist:

1.
God is one idea or set of ideas out of many. There are many other ideas or sets of ideas which contradict the idea of god. Without some kind of evidence, it is just a random idea like the tooth fairy. While I disbelieve the existence of god, I do not disbelieve the existence of an explanation of everything, whether it complies with common sense or not.

2.
Religions have been created by many civilizations.

A. Many religions have evidence, but many of these religions contradict each other.

B. Religion seems to be a tool for society. People seem to want to conform to something and have everything explained to them. Society needs order, law and morals. Religion seems to be structured in a way to facilitate this. This supports the idea that society creates religion. If a likely explanation cannot be found by these creators, they will make something up. How likely is something created independently by society to be correct when there are so many possibilities?

3.
The idea of god seems to have been created by society before any reason for it/him/her to exist. While making hypotheses is practical, god is a giant "leap of faith" --- there is no reason to make this leap of faith without wanting it to be true.

That's all I can think of. God is like a grain of sand in a desert of possibilities. I doubt any particular grain of sand is the 1,034,029th grain of sand.

 

[spongebob]

I did not conform.

his crime: nonconformity. his sentence: the chain gang.

cool hand luke

 

[plornive]

his crime: nonconformity. his sentence: the chain gang.

cool hand luke

HAHAHA...

Ok. I can see your point but respectfully disagree because it is important to ME and MANY OTHERS. We may be crybabies by your definition.

 

[spongebob]

HAHAHA...

Ok. I can see your point but respectfully disagree because it is important to ME and MANY OTHERS. We may be crybabies by your definition.

well if its really that important to you then i guess i will respectfully discontinue the use of the word crybaby and just agree to disagree.

one last comment i forgot to make earlier. i was not born in the fifties when the words were added as you mentioned. i grew up saying the pledge as it is and i really didnt make a huge connection to a certain religion or any supreme being but it did maybe assist in instilling pride in me. not just for my country but as an individual. so to me thats the only way ive known it. and now someone wants to change it or get rid of it. and people tend to resist change so i guess thats what irritates me the most about this lawsuit. its breaking traditions.

if i were living before the words were added then i might have gotton upset about the addition of them. oh well, in the end i will accept it and pratice compromise and tolerance above all else.

 

[plornive]

I added some points to my last two large posts. No more edits now.

 

[rotovibe]

We are debating the existence of god on Elite!

hahahaha.

I attempt to make measured assessments with as few initial steps in the directions of actual conclusions as possible. I then attempt to use demonstrably accurate processes to reach conclusions.

Do you do this with everything (decisions) in your life?

You let your emotions and desires guide you. Emotions and desires are demonstrably unreliable and inaccurate --- they blind you.

You have never been guided by emotion or desire?
Because your earlier posts state that you do.

sheesh...you're right. This is a bit out of scope. I don't know if this is good or bad for this board. LOL

I guess we can move it outta here
Ben, if you would like to continue to discuss politics, religion, etc... feel more than welcome to email me [email protected].
I'd like to get your views on current topics, particulary socio-political trends and throw some ideas at you and see what you think from time to time. Vise versa.

Thanks for taking the time to post your beliefs, and support them.
Take care.
Mel