|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Open letter to all Atheists. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
For evolution to be true, there can be no God - or at the very least He would become a liar. That would only follow if God has announced that there was no such thing as evolution. If so, he would indeed be a liar. Also, he'd exist, and atheism would be false. But that would apply to any false statement. If God had announced that 2 + 2 = 5, that would also make God a liar. But it does not follow from that that people teaching that 2 + 2 = 4 are teaching atheism. Your reasoning is hard to follow. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
riverrat writes: As far as separation of church and state goes, that should not be used to take God out of government. That's not what it was meant for. Our very first document states that our rights are endowed by our creator. What a load of horseshit. "Creator" didn't mean the same thing to them as it does to you. It certainly didn't mean the Christian deity.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
faceman Member (Idle past 3416 days) Posts: 149 From: MN, USA Joined: |
The "days" and "nights" in Genesis clearly rule out evolution, from God's perspective anyways. There would simply not be enough time.
If 2 + 2 could ever equal 5, then that might suggest that the laws of logic are in fact evolving. From a purely materialistic point of view, an atheist has to consider that as a possibility. So it follows that an atheist is the one who may one day teach 2 + 2 = 5. Or maybe 2 + 2 = banana. I like that one better.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
riverrat writes: Religious leaders have no place in our government, but government leaders can be religious. To stop that is an infringement on many rights. Lookit you! Singlehandedly felling vast armies of strawmen! I am in awe. Nobody that I know has ever talked about banning government leaders who are religious. In fact, I've heard a hell of a lot more people say they'd never vote for an atheist than have said they'd never vote for a Christian.
riverrat writes: The Declaration of Independence mentions a diety more than once. That is the foundation of the bill of rights and our constitution. No, it absolutely isn't. But thanks for playing. {AbE}
riverrat writes: I am also offended by several labels that were placed on me in this thread. So the hypocrisy continues..... religious bigotry. You guys have no right to anger. You won't stop name calling with name calling. Hmmm, I've scanned the thread and I can't find anyone calling you any names. I've seen people take issue with ridiculous things you say, and attacking your specious arguments, but nobody calling you names. Can you give examples? Edited by subbie, : As noted.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
As far as separation of church and state goes, that should not be used to take God out of government. That's not what it was meant for. Well, perhaps on that subject we should listen to James Madison, who wrote the Bill of Rights. For example, he had this to say about the appointment of Congressional chaplains:
Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation. The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. This seems to shed some light on what he was thinking when he wrote the First Amendment. He also writes:
Religious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings & fasts are shoots from the same root with the legislative acts reviewed. [...] The members of a Govt as such can in no sense, be regarded as possessing an advisory trust from their Constituents in their religious capacities. They cannot form an ecclesiastical Assembly, Convocation, Council, or Synod, and as such issue decrees or injunctions addressed to the faith or the Consciences of the people. If you're really concerned about what the First Amendment was meant for, you now know that its author meant it to exclude such things as official ministers and official prayers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
If 2 + 2 could ever equal 5, then that might suggest that the laws of logic are in fact evolving. From a purely materialistic point of view, an atheist has to consider that as a possibility. So it follows that an atheist is the one who may one day teach 2 + 2 = 5. Or maybe 2 + 2 = banana. I like that one better. You seem to have gone a little loopy.
The "days" and "nights" in Genesis clearly rule out evolution, from God's perspective anyways. That would be your perspective. If you can prove that it's God's perspective, then you will have proved that God exists and that he is wrong. Philosophers yet unborn will thank you. --- Look, consider the following scenario. Jack starts a new religion, which maintains that God is responsible for the sky being pink with green spots, and that God says so. Jill, a public school teacher who (as it happens) believes devoutly in God, but does not adhere to Jack's religion, happens to mention to her class that the sky is blue. Is she therefore teaching atheism? Was she teaching atheism before Jack founded his cult? If the members of the cult all lose their faith, does the claim that the sky is blue stop being atheist? This is absurd. Surely to be atheistic, a statement has to be, y'know, atheistic, it has to imply that there is no God, not that some particular sect is wrong about some particular question of fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
faceman Member (Idle past 3416 days) Posts: 149 From: MN, USA Joined: |
What part got loopy? The banana? I can concede that.
A blue sky is something we can observe just about every day, so she's no more teaching atheism then if she were to proclaim up is up and down is down. Or that true is true and false is false. Jack, on the other hand, in addition to his pink sky with green spots, might also declare that thick-boned, scaled theropods eventually morphed into hallow-boned, avian feathered flying things. But then, we can't observe that like we can the blue sky, so we would then know that Jack don't know Jack. You're not suggesting atheism implies that there is no God, are you? Because that's unknowable from a natural worldview, so that would make atheism a belief system, possibly even a religion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
If I can't pray in a court house, am I free?
Of course you can pray in a court house. That was not even being questioned. The case was about whether a government body can require prayer.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
A blue sky is something we can observe just about every day, so she's no more teaching atheism then if she were to proclaim up is up and down is down. Or that true is true and false is false. Jack, on the other hand, in addition to his pink sky with green spots, might also declare that thick-boned, scaled theropods eventually morphed into hallow-boned, avian feathered flying things. But then, we can't observe that like we can the blue sky, so we would then know that Jack don't know Jack. The point is that you can't make a statement atheistic by incorporating the opposite of that statement into a theistic religion. This is true whether or not the statement can be checked by direct observation. We cannot directly observe the Earth's core, but if Jack started teaching that God had fashioned it out of billions of happy little monkeys, it would not become atheistic for Jill to teach that it's made of white-hot iron as scientists have inferred from the available evidence.
You're not suggesting atheism implies that there is no God, are you? Because that's unknowable from a natural worldview, so that would make atheism a belief system, possibly even a religion. It should certainly be treated as a religion for the purposes of interpreting the First Amendment, whether or not it technically is one. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
faceman writes: For evolution to be true, there can be no God - or at the very least He would become a liar. So indirectly, atheism is being taught in public schools, via evolution. If you made the foolish choice of believing in a religious doctrine that is directly contradicted by known scientific facts, that doesn't place on public schools any obligation to protect you and your ignorance from the truth. See Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968) .Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
The "days" and "nights" in Genesis clearly rule out evolution, from God's perspective anyways. There would simply not be enough time. Is that what all devout Jews and Christians believe? Because if not, then teaching evolution would not be atheism at all. It would at most be teaching that your set of beliefs is wrong.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
faceman Member (Idle past 3416 days) Posts: 149 From: MN, USA Joined: |
Does evolution leave room for a supernatural Creator?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
faceman Member (Idle past 3416 days) Posts: 149 From: MN, USA Joined: |
No, I'm almost certain that's not what they all believe. There are some Christians who believe in evolution, though I'm not sure how they sell themselves on that.
God is not a democracy. The majority does not get to rewrite the books of the Bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
The "days" and "nights" in Genesis clearly rule out
Fixed that for you. However, that still is only relevant to literalists.
If 2 + 2 could ever equal 5, then that might suggest that the laws of logic are in fact evolving. From a purely materialistic point of view, an atheist has to consider that as a possibility.
Nonsense. What does logic have to do with materialism, anyway?Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Does evolution leave room for a supernatural Creator? It doesn't address the question.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024