Atheist group sues Bush, governor over National Day of Prayer

[Shadrack]

This whole thing is contrived to sway voters. It is completely political and an act to show how easy it is to control religious voters. Get them all pumped up about "their very own brand new" national holiday that is completely meaningless but will sway enough votes to keep them in office to do the work of the devil.

[PermaSt0ne]

all I am trying to do is explain why me believing is God is not irrational or illogical because I consider the universe as evidence to his existence (off course u don't agree with me there, and its fine -- just like diagnosing someone with depression, u can't see it and u can't touch it, but evidence suggests that its there and doctors prescribe medicines for it).

evidence is a scientific word. therefore it is bound by scientific rules. something existing is NOT evidence for anything other than it existing (which can be false in itself). it's not existence for how it got there, or how it was made, or what it does, or ANYTHING. the universe is not evidence unless you can offer up a scientific theory that proves it can't exist without god.

you BELIEVE in god. you HOPE there is a god. you have FAITH that there is a god. but you do not KNOW there is a god. having faith in god is completely understandable and fine with 95% of the world, but claiming that you, a mere mortal, KNOWS for a fact, meaning there can be no other possible explanation, which of course you'd have to know literally everything in all time and space, in order to make that statement, is ridiculous.

the words you say (or type) are extremely important. you can use scientific terms unless you adhere to the scientific rules. it's like going into a math discussion of "which is cooler 4x5=20 or 9x5=45" and you popping up and going "that's stupid. you are all wrong because your answers are wrong. i personally consider 1+1 to equal 15, and therefore you are all wrong". see, you can't go into a math discussion if you aren't going to follow the rules of our math system. the same works with logic. logic is bound by a system of rules that make up our english language. you can't run around claiming that anything you believe in is logical, it has to follow the rules.

which is where the word "faith" comes in. there are no strings attached and people can respect it (as people have faith in things everyday, your seat belt for one example). BUT when you start breaking the fundamental rules of our language, that's when people have a problem with what you say

back on topic:

i just gotta mention that not one frickin person who is for this voting day has answered the two questions i've been posting this entire thread. you have the freedom to pray whenever and wherever you want. why do you need a federally mandated holiday in order to pray to your god???? and do you honestly think it's a good idea for the government to start representing specific religions????

the first question is a short answer, the second question is a yes or no. there is no time limit for this pop quiz. ready...........GO

[lalalawawawa]

It's clear this text tries to make you believe there is no Santa. Obviously a religion.

OK, we found the right answer. Everything is a religion.

[wst50]

Can u please go back and read his posts. its not about being critical of a religion. Its about attacking the individuals who choose to to believe in God/hold a religion.

and exactly a debate involves attack AND defenses, not attacks only and certainly not attacks on individuals. besides, how did I attack him personally in the last comment to call it ad hominem?

I stated a fact based on observation, "having problem with anyone believing in God/holding a religion".

calling people irrational and illogical just because they chose to believe in God/hold a religion isn't ad hominem enough?

this confirms what I was saying to u earlier about these forums when it comes to debates like this.

1) USE ENGLISH. 2) He has attacked and defended. You have attacked and defended. 3) I don't see how being called 'illogical' is an attack. I'm illogical. I put my left shoe on before my right. Is it a probem? No. Illogicality isn't a bad thing neccesarily, remix17 (and similarly, I) have a problem with the pushing of religion onto other people.

And there's definitely a problem with GWB mixing politics and religion.

[abulfares]

1) USE ENGLISH. 2) He has attacked and defended. You have attacked and defended. 3) I don't see how being called 'illogical' is an attack. I'm illogical. I put my left shoe on before my right. Is it a probem? No. Illogicality isn't a bad thing neccesarily, remix17 (and similarly, I) have a problem with the pushing of religion onto other people.

And there's definitely a problem with GWB mixing politics and religion.

In which post did you understand that I was pushing religion onto anyone?

Throughout the discussion I felt that my views of God were "irritating" remix and others, so I was trying to explain my position. Off course you don't have to agree and definitely I am not pushing my views on you.

About mixing politics with religion, who said I disagreed? How many times do I have to state that I disagree with what GWB did?

btw, I would take science and scientific findings any day. It does not clash with my religion; in fact it is encouraged. But science cannot explain everything. For example, physics cannot disprove God. But besides the issue of God's existence, I seek science through thinking, reflecting, experimenting, and so on...

[PricklyPoo]

For example, physics cannot disprove God.

Oh no you didn't.

[abulfares]

Oh no you didn't.

I lol'ed. out of the whole post, I knew someone was gonna pick this one up hehe. It took you 20 minutes though, a bit disappointing.

[Kirkburn]

But science cannot explain everything. For example, physics cannot disprove God. But besides the issue of God's existence, I seek science through thinking, reflecting, experimenting, and so on...

Physics cannot disprove anything that is explicitly not within the realm of physics.

It's like saying X can't explain Y because I'm defining X as being unexplainable by Y. It might be true, but only cause you defined it so.

Obviously science can't explain things that aren't science ... but that doesn't mean there's something to explain.

Edit: you knew someone was going to pick it up? Well, duh. It was a silly thing to say.

[remix17]

Thank you, now u r making yourself more understood. I didn't find your earlier posts nearly as reasonable as this one.

Glad we have this sorted out

So from above you believe that religion is:

• "silly"
  
• "denial of reality"
  
• "stories"
  
• not something for a "grown man"
  
• "fairy tales"
  
• "absurd"
  

Anything else to add to the list?

About a million different things. But I will once again direct you to the link in my sig. It saves me so much typing. I completely agree with every single point there.

But science cannot explain everything. For example, physics cannot disprove God. But besides the issue of God's existence, I seek science through thinking, reflecting, experimenting, and so on...

Science cannot explain everything? Well I tend to agree, but who gets to decide where the limit of scientific progress ends? Certainly not you or me. Only time will tell.

Physics cannot disprove God? Fine. It can't disprove magical pink unicorns either. Does that mean we should all start believing in those too?

[Ayepecks]

Lack of religion is not a religion. Lack of belief isn't a belief.

A belief that there is no God is a belief.

[Kirkburn]

A belief that there is no God is a belief.

These has been dealt with several times. You're evidently not reading it, or ignoring it.

Not believing that there is a Pony in the Sky is not a belief in the sense you want to suggest it is. You have faith. We do not.

Edit: to make this clearer: we start life believing nothing. Our beliefs are created by the world around us ... religion does not come from personal experience. You would not become Christian, Muslim, Buddist solely from personal experience - you could be spritual, yes, but you couldn't be part of a religion. Religion only comes from what you read, or what you are told by your parents or peers.

Now, atheists have either been told these things and rejected them, or have just not ever become religious. Assuming most are the former, why would you reject these things? Similar reasons to why you reject a guy telling you to drive up and down a hill five times every day. You see no reason to. The person has weighed up what he has been told, and has ignored it. You wouldn't call it a religion to not drive up and down a hill five times every day.

Many religious people look at the world and see God, and may not bother thinking further. Atheists look at the world and see the world, and want to find out more.

Edited October 8, 2008 by Kirkburn

[wst50]

In which post did you understand that I was pushing religion onto anyone?

I never said you were. I said that was the main problem with religion.

[brentaal]

A belief that there is no God is a belief.

Bravo, you're absolutely right. Except he clearly stated "Lack of belief isn't a belief", not "Atheists believe there's no god, but that's not a belief".

[Kirkburn]

Bravo, you're absolutely right. Except he clearly stated "Lack of belief isn't a belief", not "Atheists believe there's no god, but that's not a belief".

I would alter the second to be "Atheists see no god, and that's not a belief". Semantics make it a little confusing otherwise.

[sweetsam]

This lawsuit only proves that there are many people who have way too much time in their hand with nothing to do, looking to retire early. What is the gain/loss from this lawsuit ? Is it even worth it ? Got time in your hands ? try to be useful. We have a crisis so many people are loosing everything they have. There are so many pressing issues that could use your help. Do something that will make a positive change to your surroundings to your fellow human beings and the generations to come instead of filing stupid lawsuits.

For those of us who are more than happy to inform that we can gain one business day please... we can gain a lot more by doing other things than just one business day.

For the record I really don't care about the lawsuit because in the end I decide what I believe in... and not a stupid holiday.

[Budious]

Physics cannot disprove God? Fine. It can't disprove magical pink unicorns either. Does that mean we should all start believing in those too?

I actually find the physics aspect of this debate intriguing to say the least, there would seem to be some higher order of governance in the manner of which all of the laws of physics interact and co-exist together as to create a functional environment.

[Typhon]

Bravo, you're absolutely right. Except he clearly stated "Lack of belief isn't a belief", not "Atheists believe there's no god, but that's not a belief".

Not believing in a fantasy is not a belief it is thinking rationally.

[PricklyPoo]

I actually find the physics aspect of this debate intriguing to say the least, there would seem to be some higher order of governance in the manner of which all of the laws of physics interact and co-exist together as to create a functional environment.

The only thing 'god' thrives off of is the lack of knowledge. So does everything else that is logically impossible - like the invisible pink ponies that dance on my head.

So there is absolutely nothing in physics that even so much as hints there is a 'god'. People just say, "Wow, this stuff is really complicated - how it all works together...It must be the work of god!"

No evidence for god - just the lack of knowledge we currently have on the subject and blindly attributing it to god.

[Ayepecks]

These has been dealt with several times. You're evidently not reading it, or ignoring it.

Not believing that there is a Pony in the Sky is not a belief in the sense you want to suggest it is. You have faith. We do not.

Edit: to make this clearer: we start life believing nothing. Our beliefs are created by the world around us ... religion does not come from personal experience. You would not become Christian, Muslim, Buddist solely from personal experience - you could be spritual, yes, but you couldn't be part of a religion. Religion only comes from what you read, or what you are told by your parents or peers.

Now, atheists have either been told these things and rejected them, or have just not ever become religious. Assuming most are the former, why would you reject these things? Similar reasons to why you reject a guy telling you to drive up and down a hill five times every day. You see no reason to. The person has weighed up what he has been told, and has ignored it. You wouldn't call it a religion to not drive up and down a hill five times every day.

Many religious people look at the world and see God, and may not bother thinking further. Atheists look at the world and see the world, and want to find out more.

I've read it. And you all have yet to give a valid reason as to why. It's an opinion. All we're doing is arguing what we consider the meaning to be. To me, you have a belief that there is no supreme being. I have a belief that there is. That's a fundamental difference between us. Your beliefs tell you there is no God. My beliefs tell me there is. If you don't think there is a God, is that not a belief in and of itself? Your foundation is telling you that... you set of beliefs.

So if someone doesn't believe in global warming, what would you call that? I say it's a belief that there is no global warming.

(And what is it with atheists always insisting on making silly comparisons like a "Pony in the Sky" or "Magic Spaghetti Monster"? Ridiculing someone's point or belief with stupidity does not make your point or belief any more relevant. Is the ozone layer a "magical bubble of invisible goo" because you can't see it or feel it?)

Bravo, you're absolutely right. Except he clearly stated "Lack of belief isn't a belief", not "Atheists believe there's no god, but that's not a belief".

Wait, so because he said it that makes him right and me wrong? Huh?

[R-Flex]

I've read it. And you all have yet to give a valid reason as to why. It's an opinion. All we're doing is arguing what we consider the meaning to be. To me, you have a belief that there is no supreme being. I have a belief that there is. That's a fundamental difference between us. Your beliefs tell you there is no God. My beliefs tell me there is. If you don't think there is a God, is that not a belief in and of itself? Your foundation is telling you that... you set of beliefs.

So if someone doesn't believe in global warming, what would you call that? I say it's a belief that there is no global warming.

(And what is it with atheists always insisting on making silly comparisons like a "Pony in the Sky" or "Magic Spaghetti Monster"? Ridiculing someone's point or belief with stupidity does not make your point or belief any more relevant. Is the ozone layer a "magical bubble of invisible goo" because you can't see it or feel it?)

Atheists do not necessarily believe that there is no god(s). It is a lack of belief in these god(s). To use your global warming analogy, it would be similar to a person who does have enough evidence to make a decision, and therefore does not, but will not believe in global warming because it is the positive claim.

Invisible Pink Unicorns and Flying Spaghetti Monsters are perfectly logical arguments to the questions regarding existence of god(s). It perfectly answers many theist arguments- Namely, that you cannot disprove the Abrahamic god. Similarly, you cannot disprove our unicorns and monsters. Naturally, there are some philosophically strong arguments for theism, but most of the arguments presented here by theists are easily countered logically, often by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[Ayepecks]

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.

[wst50]

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

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

Strong Atheism = I believe there is no god.

Agnosticism = I believe that we do not know if there is a god or not / I don't know.

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.

When someone brings up god as an argument against evolution*, those are my thought proceses. Why is the FSM/IPU not a valid argument when a god is? Both are illogical, neither have any physical evidense supporting thier existence other than human-made documents (which, as humans believe all sorts of crazy ****, is not valid in this context).

*As an example. There are others but that was my immediate comparison.

[PricklyPoo]

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.

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

Explain to me how god can be everywhere / everything, know everything including the future, exist outside the boundaries of everything, have unlimited power....

Thats not to say it is the god you believe in. But it seems that with most organized religions, their god is that ridiculous.

What comparison would you have preferred?

The point is anything, no matter how ridiculous and "condescending" is equally comparable to god. Sounds like you are demanding respect like the religious usually do. Beliefs have to earn respect.

Edited October 8, 2008 by PricklyPoo

[Shadrack]

Would you believe GOD if he told you to kill innocent people needlessly in his name?

Historically, religious people have said: YES!

This is why we must separate religious from the rational. Supporting this holiday is another step backwards for America.

[David Scaife]

Wait, so because he said it that makes him right and me wrong? Huh?

be?lief

–noun

1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.

3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.

4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

It's a misunderstanding of what exactly constitutes a belief. Atheists generally go through logical thought processes based on verifiable facts, or ideas which hold true to what we observe. Atheists recognise the as-yet unexplained questions, and strive to find answers for them. Theists, on the other hand, have no such process; they begin with an answer ("there is a god which created everything", etc), and let everything be explained by that. Such a way of thinking is just as nonsensical to atheists as the idea of the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster, an imaginary entity created in an attempt to show theists how ridiculous it is. I don't think any reasonable person uses it as a malicious argument, it is just designed to bring your attention to the problem.

Also, a product of the logical way of thinking is the observation that the existence of a creator answers no questions. Does it really explain our existence? To atheists, no. The idea that it does completely falls apart when one questions the existence of such a creator; how is its own existence explained? Theists typically argue that it has existed forever, or transcends space and time, therefore doesn't need an explanation. Such an answer is ridiculous to an atheist, because if such answers are acceptable for a creator, why are they not acceptable for our own (read: the uni- or multi-verse's) existence?