Atheist group sues Bush, governor over National Day of Prayer

[R-Flex]

I thought that atheists believed there is no God and that agnostics lacked belief?

Invisible Pink Unicorns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster are not logical arguments at all. Not even close. It's an attempt to discredit your opponent by trying to make them look silly by comparing their claim to a completely and utterly stupid issue. It's deflecting the actual belief. How is that logical?! It's hiding behind not knowing the truth and attempting to make someone look less intelligent than they really are. Yeah, that's logical.

I'm sorry, but you can't say any argument is logical when you attempt to deflect the actual question at hand. It's a pretentious analogy that has no relevant background to even be brought up. The only purpose of the statement is to make the person you're arguing against seem inferior intellectually. Don't even try to say otherwise -- it's obvious. If it wasn't an attempt to humiliate/talk down to the other person you'd use a more feasible (but still unlikely) comparison.

I love the irony that in your attempts to argue that the FSM is not a logical argument, you present no logical argument whatsoever. You make some claims, but provide no evidence or logic. You clearly demonstrate your lack of understanding of logic.

Firstly, it does serve to discredit the person I argue against. I won't argue against that point. It does indeed make them look silly. Yet, that is the effect that is intended. I could choose any such idea of a supernatural creature, but the sillier concepts work to emphasize that the logic behind theism is faulty. Absolutely, it does have a intention to make your opponent "seem inferior intellectually". Yet, it is not using the FSM itself that does that, but using the logic of the FSM. However, it is not an "attempt to deflect the actual question at hand". You may claim that, but it is not truth.

Let me demonstrate how it is logically relevant. By using the logic of whomever you argue against to conclude ridiculous things, you call into question the logic itself. Recently, we have heard this logic (I have simplified it, so disregard the poor philosophical structure):

1. You cannot disprove my god

2. Therefore, he exists / it is likely that he exists / etc.

It may sound like fairly good logic. After all, how can I question your god when I have no evidence to support an argument of nonexistence? In this instance, we call into the logic of the Flying Spaghetti Monster:

1. You cannot disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster

2. Therefore, he exists / it is likely that he exists / etc.

It merely calls into question that logic because both the Abrahamic god and the Flying Spaghetti Monster have equal evidence to their existence. They are at equal standing. However, with your god being realistic to many, we apply a silly concept to show that such logic is silly. To many atheists, the idea of God is just as silly. I could easily substitute 'god' or 'FSM' with 'book' or 'bird', but these aren't as silly. It is much more effective to use the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The logic even works with advanced theistic thought, some that are often considered sound and not unreasonable. Take the argument from creation (teleological argument) as an example. Again, if I put it simply (disregarding the full argument in favour of a quick one):

1. The world is too complex to be the product of nature.

2. The complexity must be from an intelligent designer.

3. This intelligent designer is God.

Not a bad argument. However, should we substitute the Flying Spaghetti Monster:

1. The world is too complex to be the product of nature.

2. The complexity must be from an intelligent designer.

3. This intelligent designer is the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

It introduces the concept that too often in philosophy, theists will choose to ensure that their beliefs be justified. In the teleological argument, if we choose to accept it (which I do not; but I will speak hypothetically), then all we have is an intelligent designer. We don't know who this designer is. It could be the FSM. Many philosophical arguments will conclude the existence of God, but realistically, they merely conclude the existence of a higher being. It could be the FSM.

Overall, the Flying Spaghetti Monster serves as a reminder that with the lack of evidence for God, any such being can be substituted and make as much sense logically. There is an equal amount of evidence: None.

Lastly, I would like to note part of your writing. When I use the FSM, it is certainly not "hiding behind not knowing the truth". It is completely open that I do not know the truth. 'I do not know' is what any rational person should think. You cannot say to me that you know the truth of the meaning of life, what happens after death, or any other question we have. You have merely chosen one answer and stuck to it vehemently without evidence whatsoever. It is irrational to choose to do so.

[remix17]

For the Abrahamic God - yes, actually a pink pony is more logical.

Exactly! Pink unicorns are actually logical and physically possible. However, there is NOTHING logical about Abrahamic God, not one thing I can think of.

[brentaal]

I'm sorry, but you can't say any argument is logical when you attempt to deflect the actual question at hand.

Okay, let's take a look at the question at hand.

An omnipotent omniscient god created two faulty humans and told them not to eat an apple. The humans ate the apple, and god, the loving being that he is, condemned the whole human race for eternity. He ordered countless murders and acted like a villain in the OT, but suddenly he changes. He rapes a virgin, and she gives birth to his son. His son pays for the sins of humanity (wait, humanity? what about god's sins from OT? doesn't he have to pay?) by dying on a cross.

I see, now it makes much more sense. :whistle:

R-Flex, how dare you compare this with a Pink Unicorn? :rolleyes:

[grimman]

Okay, let's take a look at the question at hand.

An omnipotent omniscient god created two faulty humans and told them not to eat an apple. The humans ate the apple, and god, the loving being that he is, condemned the whole human race for eternity. He ordered countless murders and acted like a villain in the OT, but suddenly he changes. He rapes a virgin, and she gives birth to his son. His son pays for the sins of humanity (wait, humanity? what about god's sins from OT? doesn't he have to pay?) by dying on a cross.

I see, now it makes much more sense. :whistle:

R-Flex, how dare you compare this with a Pink Unicorn? :rolleyes:

Didn't you know? The Pink Unicorn baby died on a rainbow for YOUR sins!

[~Matt~]

Actually, religion should not be involved in ANYTHING and, like a viral infection in the human body, should be eradicated completely!

That four word statement is laughable and also illogical. Trusting in something that does not exist and was made up from the minds of other mortal men? Pfft, that's weakness personified!

What about holidays, such as Christmas and the Easter holidays?

[LOC Veteran]

As Arthur C. Clarke once said: The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion.

[brentaal]

What about holidays, such as Christmas and the Easter holidays?

What about them?

[Ayepecks]

Okay, let's take a look at the question at hand.

An omnipotent omniscient god created two faulty humans and told them not to eat an apple. The humans ate the apple, and god, the loving being that he is, condemned the whole human race for eternity. He ordered countless murders and acted like a villain in the OT, but suddenly he changes. He rapes a virgin, and she gives birth to his son. His son pays for the sins of humanity (wait, humanity? what about god's sins from OT? doesn't he have to pay?) by dying on a cross.

I see, now it makes much more sense. :whistle:

R-Flex, how dare you compare this with a Pink Unicorn? :rolleyes:

You're discussing RELIGION. I am discussing A SUPREME BEING. Please at least attempt to comprehend the difference.

I love the irony that in your attempts to argue that the FSM is not a logical argument, you present no logical argument whatsoever. You make some claims, but provide no evidence or logic. You clearly demonstrate your lack of understanding of logic.

Firstly, it does serve to discredit the person I argue against. I won't argue against that point. It does indeed make them look silly. Yet, that is the effect that is intended. I could choose any such idea of a supernatural creature, but the sillier concepts work to emphasize that the logic behind theism is faulty. Absolutely, it does have a intention to make your opponent "seem inferior intellectually". Yet, it is not using the FSM itself that does that, but using the logic of the FSM. However, it is not an "attempt to deflect the actual question at hand". You may claim that, but it is not truth.

Let me demonstrate how it is logically relevant. By using the logic of whomever you argue against to conclude ridiculous things, you call into question the logic itself. Recently, we have heard this logic (I have simplified it, so disregard the poor philosophical structure):

1. You cannot disprove my god

2. Therefore, he exists / it is likely that he exists / etc.

It may sound like fairly good logic. After all, how can I question your god when I have no evidence to support an argument of nonexistence? In this instance, we call into the logic of the Flying Spaghetti Monster:

1. You cannot disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster

2. Therefore, he exists / it is likely that he exists / etc.

It merely calls into question that logic because both the Abrahamic god and the Flying Spaghetti Monster have equal evidence to their existence. They are at equal standing. However, with your god being realistic to many, we apply a silly concept to show that such logic is silly. To many atheists, the idea of God is just as silly. I could easily substitute 'god' or 'FSM' with 'book' or 'bird', but these aren't as silly. It is much more effective to use the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The logic even works with advanced theistic thought, some that are often considered sound and not unreasonable. Take the argument from creation (teleological argument) as an example. Again, if I put it simply (disregarding the full argument in favour of a quick one):

1. The world is too complex to be the product of nature.

2. The complexity must be from an intelligent designer.

3. This intelligent designer is God.

Not a bad argument. However, should we substitute the Flying Spaghetti Monster:

1. The world is too complex to be the product of nature.

2. The complexity must be from an intelligent designer.

3. This intelligent designer is the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

It introduces the concept that too often in philosophy, theists will choose to ensure that their beliefs be justified. In the teleological argument, if we choose to accept it (which I do not; but I will speak hypothetically), then all we have is an intelligent designer. We don't know who this designer is. It could be the FSM. Many philosophical arguments will conclude the existence of God, but realistically, they merely conclude the existence of a higher being. It could be the FSM.

Overall, the Flying Spaghetti Monster serves as a reminder that with the lack of evidence for God, any such being can be substituted and make as much sense logically. There is an equal amount of evidence: None.

Lastly, I would like to note part of your writing. When I use the FSM, it is certainly not "hiding behind not knowing the truth". It is completely open that I do not know the truth. 'I do not know' is what any rational person should think. You cannot say to me that you know the truth of the meaning of life, what happens after death, or any other question we have. You have merely chosen one answer and stuck to it vehemently without evidence whatsoever. It is irrational to choose to do so.

Your argument is amusing. You simply say I'm not being logical because you say so... you do nothing at all to say why it isn't logical. You just go on a tirade. At least I supported my point somehow. :rolleyes:

It is an attempt to deflect the argument at hand because you are purposefully deflecting the question and attempting to make the person you're arguing with look stupid! You admitted the latter as much yourself. If you're trying to focus your attention on making someone else look inferior in any way, it is deflecting the issue. That is almost the very definition of deflecting an issue.

All you do in your "argument" (your "steps") is replace the word "God" with "Flying Spaghetti Monster." You say it's a good argument the first time, but when you replace the word "God" with "Flying Spaghetti Monster" it suddenly becomes a flawed argument... I'm sorry, but what kind of logic is that? Furthermore, what you essentially said wasn't the argument. You're arguing agnosticism, not atheism, buddy. Yet again: there's a reason it's called "belief," as I've stated before.

You even admit that my stance is correct in that you're trying to discredit or make your opponent look silly... again, how on earth is that logical at all? That is weak debating skills. If you've ever been in an actual debate, believe me, that's about as big a cardinal sin as saying "nuh-uh, you're wrong!"

It's hilarious to me that you attempt to pigeonhole people into one specific group of how they'll argue about God. That's absolutely ludicrous to me. Stereotyping an entire group of people is akin to racism in my book; I'm sure if someone said something negative about atheists as a whole when it really only applied to a specific section you'd be pretty darn ****ed off. Why on earth would you do that exact same thing to others?

Next time you're going to accuse someone of not having evidence, make sure you have some of your own... oh, wait, it's an argument on beliefs (not the subject, but of arguing) and evidence isn't possible? Now isn't that ironic! :laugh: Please, you can sit here and say I'm being illogical all day, but clearly our definition of illogical is completely different, as you even admitted that you agreed with me on what you're attempting to accomplish with such arguments.

[R-Flex]

You're discussing RELIGION. I am discussing A SUPREME BEING. Please at least attempt to comprehend the difference.

Your argument is amusing. You simply say I'm not being logical because you say so... you do nothing at all to say why it isn't logical. You just go on a tirade. At least I supported my point somehow. :rolleyes:

It is an attempt to deflect the argument at hand because you are purposefully deflecting the question and attempting to make the person you're arguing with look stupid! You admitted the latter as much yourself. If you're trying to focus your attention on making someone else look inferior in any way, it is deflecting the issue. That is almost the very definition of deflecting an issue.

All you do in your "argument" (your "steps") is replace the word "God" with "Flying Spaghetti Monster." You say it's a good argument the first time, but when you replace the word "God" with "Flying Spaghetti Monster" it suddenly becomes a flawed argument... I'm sorry, but what kind of logic is that? Furthermore, what you essentially said wasn't the argument. You're arguing agnosticism, not atheism, buddy. Yet again: there's a reason it's called "belief," as I've stated before.

You even admit that my stance is correct in that you're trying to discredit or make your opponent look silly... again, how on earth is that logical at all? That is weak debating skills. If you've ever been in an actual debate, believe me, that's about as big a cardinal sin as saying "nuh-uh, you're wrong!"

It's hilarious to me that you attempt to pigeonhole people into one specific group of how they'll argue about God. That's absolutely ludicrous to me. Stereotyping an entire group of people is akin to racism in my book; I'm sure if someone said something negative about atheists as a whole when it really only applied to a specific section you'd be pretty darn ****ed off. Why on earth would you do that exact same thing to others?

Next time you're going to accuse someone of not having evidence, make sure you have some of your own... oh, wait, it's an argument on beliefs (not the subject, but of arguing) and evidence isn't possible? Now isn't that ironic! :laugh: Please, you can sit here and say I'm being illogical all day, but clearly our definition of illogical is completely different, as you even admitted that you agreed with me on what you're attempting to accomplish with such arguments.

All I have heard from you is repeated condescending attitudes and laughing mockeries. If you have any evidence for the existence of God, or any philosophical arguments whatsoever, I'd be glad to refute them, but I'd rather not be insulted as a form of debate. All I have done is explain why the Flying Spaghetti Monster is used for philosophical arguments, and you do not understand its significance.

The significance of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is that it is equally as likely to exist as your god does. If we accept many of the philosophical arguments for the existence of God, then it follows that we could accept that same logic for the existence of any possible being- Up to and including very silly things such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. That is the point of the FSM, to demonstrate that just as it is silly, the logic arguing for existence is silly.

[Ayepecks]

I'm sorry, I don't comprehend what I'm being condescending about here? Because I disagree with you? If you're referring to that first quote, maybe you should re-read what I quoted and tell me how that is not condescending. If someone wants to act condescending toward me and doesn't even comprehend what the discussion is about, I have absolutely no qualms with returning the favor. If you're referring to me mocking you for making fun of my "logic" when you use absolutely no logic of your own, then: sorry, get used to it. Don't be a hypocrite. If my logic is flawed, yours is just as flawed... especially when you say that the same argument, only with a different title, is somehow more flawed when you change the name.

Here's the problem: you're viewing things from your own perspective. I make no false pretenses that I'm not going to respond to sarcasm with sarcasm. But maybe you should read what I'm quoting next time and look at it from my perspective before you start pointing fingers, pal.

And the "significance" of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is exactly what you already admitted... that it's an attempt to defame the person you're arguing against. That's not an argument; that's a mockery. It's funny that you say the argument for a supreme being is "fairly goods" (direct quote -- your own words; not taking that out of context), but that when you change the name it suddenly becomes a weaker argument. Do you not see the fallacy in that logic? If Albert Einstein were named Billy Bob Diddlyjoe, would he have been any less intelligent? Less respected, sure, but not any less intelligent. And that's exactly what the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" is for -- not to show a flaw in an argument, but to make it less respected.

[remix17]

And that's exactly what the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" is for -- not to show a flaw in an argument, but to make it less respected.

Well yeah ... when you show a flaw in an argument, generally it becomes less respected. Honestly now, why would you respect a flawed argument?

[brentaal]

You're discussing RELIGION. I am discussing A SUPREME BEING. Please at least attempt to comprehend the difference.

Without religion there's no point in the being. Religion is the only difference between the Pink Unicorn and god. But, if you wanna take that away from god, fine with me.

Oh and, "I am discussing a supreme being" isn't really worth anything when you believe in the being I wrote about. ;) Are you ashamed of it?

[Shadrack]

It's hilarious to me that you attempt to pigeonhole people into one specific group of how they'll argue about God. That's absolutely ludicrous to me. Stereotyping an entire group of people is akin to racism in my book; I'm sure if someone said something negative about atheists as a whole when it really only applied to a specific section you'd be pretty darn ****ed off. Why on earth would you do that exact same thing to others?

It is a defense mechanism. The reasoning is completely different depending on what side of the issue you stand on.

I use to be a very religious person, and for some reason all I could see was persecution from non-believers. It seemed like they were taking over the country, and all these horrible things were going to happen when they did.

I've since changed my mind about the issue. Grown older, thought more about life and things. Now it seems like the complete opposite. The religious people seem to have been responsible for the most persecution across all of history and even today.

So it is a classic case of everyone thinks the other person is wrong and can not grasp basic logic. That is the trick about logic, it is always put in a frame. What is logical has a lot to do with what is moral. The two are intertwined for everyone.

[katiebresee]

As an agnostic I have to agree with the outrage against "National Day of Prayer." However, I am so so sick of seeing "So-in-so sues so-in-so."

What monetary compensation do you need for a holiday?

If you want to make a difference, if you want to separate church and state, protest!

Or create Yay For Atheists Day!

Everyone will be much, much happier.

[R-Flex]

If someone wants to act condescending toward me and doesn't even comprehend what the discussion is about, I have absolutely no qualms with returning the favor. If you're referring to me mocking you for making fun of my "logic" when you use absolutely no logic of your own, then: sorry, get used to it. Don't be a hypocrite.

Here's the problem: you're viewing things from your own perspective. I make no false pretenses that I'm not going to respond to sarcasm with sarcasm. But maybe you should read what I'm quoting next time and look at it from my perspective before you start pointing fingers, pal.

I would repeat these parts right back at you.

You say that the same argument, only with a different title, is somehow more flawed when you change the name.

And the "significance" of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is exactly what you already admitted... that it's an attempt to defame the person you're arguing against. That's not an argument; that's a mockery. It's funny that you say the argument for a supreme being is "fairly goods" (direct quote -- your own words; not taking that out of context), but that when you change the name it suddenly becomes a weaker argument. Do you not see the fallacy in that logic? If Albert Einstein were named Billy Bob Diddlyjoe, would he have been any less intelligent? Less respected, sure, but not any less intelligent. And that's exactly what the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" is for -- not to show a flaw in an argument, but to make it less respected.

You still do not understand it at all.

Firstly, when I referred to some theistic arguments as "fairly good", I was speaking about those that aren't immediately rejected by the philosophical community. Some philosophers do advocate them. I do not find them sound; perhaps I should have been more clear.

As for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I am not saying that using the FSM instead of God creates a weaker argument only by the name being changed. What it does illustrate is that much of the logic used to justify the existence of God can be equally applied to arguing for the existence of the FSM. The logic is completely equivalent, and by using a silly being such as the FSM, it becomes clear that the argument must be flawed. Usually, the argument is logically flawed well before the FSM enters the argument, but too many people use illogical arguments, and the FSM serves to better show why it is illogical. Neither do I get your point about Albert Einstein, as that has no analogous relevance whatsoever.

[~Matt~]

You're discussing RELIGION. I am discussing A SUPREME BEING. Please at least attempt to comprehend the difference.

Your argument is amusing. You simply say I'm not being logical because you say so... you do nothing at all to say why it isn't logical. You just go on a tirade. At least I supported my point somehow. :rolleyes:

It is an attempt to deflect the argument at hand because you are purposefully deflecting the question and attempting to make the person you're arguing with look stupid! You admitted the latter as much yourself. If you're trying to focus your attention on making someone else look inferior in any way, it is deflecting the issue. That is almost the very definition of deflecting an issue.

All you do in your "argument" (your "steps") is replace the word "God" with "Flying Spaghetti Monster." You say it's a good argument the first time, but when you replace the word "God" with "Flying Spaghetti Monster" it suddenly becomes a flawed argument... I'm sorry, but what kind of logic is that? Furthermore, what you essentially said wasn't the argument. You're arguing agnosticism, not atheism, buddy. Yet again: there's a reason it's called "belief," as I've stated before.

You even admit that my stance is correct in that you're trying to discredit or make your opponent look silly... again, how on earth is that logical at all? That is weak debating skills. If you've ever been in an actual debate, believe me, that's about as big a cardinal sin as saying "nuh-uh, you're wrong!"

It's hilarious to me that you attempt to pigeonhole people into one specific group of how they'll argue about God. That's absolutely ludicrous to me. Stereotyping an entire group of people is akin to racism in my book; I'm sure if someone said something negative about atheists as a whole when it really only applied to a specific section you'd be pretty darn ****ed off. Why on earth would you do that exact same thing to others?

Next time you're going to accuse someone of not having evidence, make sure you have some of your own... oh, wait, it's an argument on beliefs (not the subject, but of arguing) and evidence isn't possible? Now isn't that ironic! :laugh: Please, you can sit here and say I'm being illogical all day, but clearly our definition of illogical is completely different, as you even admitted that you agreed with me on what you're attempting to accomplish with such arguments.

Well said Sir!

[Aperture]

Wow, seems like the ability to not believe in God is still looked down upon by the religious communities worldwide. I tend to believe that time wasted debating anything outside of my control, is possibly the worst thing I could do with this relatively short stay on Earth. Live, people. Breathe, take pictures, see sights, do what you can before the worms start eating your eyes out 6ft under!

[Ayepecks]

Well yeah ... when you show a flaw in an argument, generally it becomes less respected. Honestly now, why would you respect a flawed argument?

You may want to read that quote -- apparently you didn't. I said when there's no flaw. ;)

I would repeat these parts right back at you.

You still do not understand it at all.

Firstly, when I referred to some theistic arguments as "fairly good", I was speaking about those that aren't immediately rejected by the philosophical community. Some philosophers do advocate them. I do not find them sound; perhaps I should have been more clear.

As for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I am not saying that using the FSM instead of God creates a weaker argument only by the name being changed. What it does illustrate is that much of the logic used to justify the existence of God can be equally applied to arguing for the existence of the FSM. The logic is completely equivalent, and by using a silly being such as the FSM, it becomes clear that the argument must be flawed. Usually, the argument is logically flawed well before the FSM enters the argument, but too many people use illogical arguments, and the FSM serves to better show why it is illogical. Neither do I get your point about Albert Einstein, as that has no analogous relevance whatsoever.

Firstly, it doesn't matter. You referred to them as a "fairly good argument," regardless of what you were specifically referring to, you said it wasn't a bad argument, agreed? Yet when you replace the name with "Flying Spaghetti Monster" it's suddenly a lesser argument? That's not even remotely true. It's a less respected argument because that's what you set out to do -- make it less respected, and thus make people think less of it. But it's the exact same argument. Period.

And your argument is absolutely ludicrous. Giving God a different name and simply calling him the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't change the fact that you're arguing about a supreme being. Usually the argument is logically flawed before the Flying Spaghetti Monster enters the argument? Again: please stop stereotyping.

The point about Albert Einstein is the EXACT same thing you're doing here. It is a DIRECT ANALOGY.

@ mac: If you're referring to me, I'm not looking down upon their beliefs at all. I'm pretty sure the exact opposite is occurring.

[Glowstick]

Weak Atheism = I don't believe there is a god.

Strong Atheism = I believe there is no god.

More like:

Weak = I don't believe there is a god.

Strong = G-what?

Because if you don't acknowledge the existence of a god, you don't need to believe in that fact.

[Ayepecks]

Without religion there's no point in the being. Religion is the only difference between the Pink Unicorn and god. But, if you wanna take that away from god, fine with me.

Oh and, "I am discussing a supreme being" isn't really worth anything when you believe in the being I wrote about. ;) Are you ashamed of it?

Sorry, but this is what happens when you make assumptions -- it makes you look like an idiot. I do not believe what you wrote about, and therefore I am not ashamed of it. Maybe you should think before you attempt to categorize me. You're too busy trying to create a fury in me where it does not exist to actually attempt to realize that not everyone who disagrees with you is the same.

[R-Flex]

You may want to read that quote -- apparently you didn't. I said when there's no flaw. ;)

Firstly, it doesn't matter. You referred to them as a "fairly good argument," regardless of what you were specifically referring to, you said it wasn't a bad argument, agreed? Yet when you replace the name with "Flying Spaghetti Monster" it's suddenly a lesser argument? That's not even remotely true. It's a less respected argument because that's what you set out to do -- make it less respected, and thus make people think less of it. But it's the exact same argument. Period.

And your argument is absolutely ludicrous. Giving God a different name and simply calling him the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't change the fact that you're arguing about a supreme being. Usually the argument is logically flawed before the Flying Spaghetti Monster enters the argument? Again: please stop stereotyping.

The point about Albert Einstein is the EXACT same thing you're doing here. It is a DIRECT ANALOGY.

@ mac: If you're referring to me, I'm not looking down upon their beliefs at all. I'm pretty sure the exact opposite is occurring.

Screw it. You have no clue what I'm talking about, and will likely never understand. I'm finished here.

[dead.cell]

I believe the thread ended here:

I definitely like the idea of this lawsuit. You can ignore this "National Day of Prayer" (I definitely do), but the fact is that the President and many other government officials are endorsing religion by creating and supporting such a holiday. That is where it crosses the line.

Religion needs to be completely kept out of politics.

The original topic has driven into if "not believing" is believing and so forth. The original argument isn't about any of that though. It's about whether a national day of prayer should exist. Government and religion are supposed to be separated, and this day definitely goes against that.

While many of us couldn't give a sh-- (myself included), it doesn't mean we should allow for it. We either stand for the constitution or we can continue turning our heads every time our government wants to make a change. It's your decision.