Atheist group sues Bush, governor over National Day of Prayer

[Reacon]

Lack of separation from church and state is probably what causes radical groups like Al Queda to stereotype us and portray our country as if we were all "infidels" or what not. We need to become a neutral nation like what our founding fathers intended, not some Christian country that simply claims it's not religiously bound.

Though I really doubt this is going to happen any time soon, this is one step closer I guess..

[remix17]

Oh please, get off that. You believe there is no God. It's a belief because it can't be proven one way or another. You hold a BELIEF that there is no God. You say it's fact. That's fine. But there are plenty of religious nuts that will claim they're stating the fact, too. What makes you right and them wrong? And, please, don't get into some paradoxical "I'm right because I am right."

I don't need to believe there is no God. There is no reason to believe in God in the first place. It's not a belief, it's a position any rational person will hold. Because in the absence of evidence, there is only ONE possible position: disbelief. People are wrong to believe in God even if God exists. I cannot possibly be wrong because my position is not "God does not exist". My position is "There is no reason to believe in God, so as far as I'm concerned he does not exist". The burden of proof is not on me. It's on those who claim God exists.

[GreenMartian]

I don't need to believe there is no God. There is no reason to believe in God in the first place. It's not a belief, it's a position any rational person will hold. Because in the absence of evidence, there is only ONE possible position: disbelief. People are wrong to believe in God even if God exists. I cannot possibly be wrong because my position is not "God does not exist". My position is "There is no reason to believe in God, so as far as I'm concerned he does not exist". The burden of proof is not on me. It's on those who claim God exists.

You, my friend, obviously do not come from a scientific background. Real scientists never say "X does not exist" or "Y is wrong". They say "we could not find enough evidence to support this hypothesis", so *if* they ARE proven wrong, they can always say "i never said it's not there!" :laugh:

Seriously though, why do all RWI discussions end up as a Theist vs Atheist debate (if you can even call it that) about the existence of god? This news is not even about whether god is there or not. It's about The President endorsing a National Praying Day.

[drbobiii]

For those bashing Bush, this is not new legislation. It was made official in 1952 and has been celebrated annually since then (link). At least bash him over something he deserves.

And it doesn't seem unreasonable to have an optional, non religious-specific day set aside for prayer/thoughts to a God/deity/higher power of your choice regarding protection from dangers that threaten our country. Especially when 92% of Americans believe in a God in some form (link), and the whole point of the day is to get people to come together in love of our country.

[brentaal]

They say "we could not find enough evidence to support this hypothesis"

The story of god can hardly be called a hypothesis. It isn't even a coherent idea.

[PricklyPoo]

You, my friend, obviously do not come from a scientific background. Real scientists never say "X does not exist" or "Y is wrong". They say "we could not find enough evidence to support this hypothesis", so *if* they ARE proven wrong, they can always say "i never said it's not there!" :laugh:

Seriously though, why do all RWI discussions end up as a Theist vs Atheist debate (if you can even call it that) about the existence of god? This news is not even about whether god is there or not. It's about The President endorsing a National Praying Day.

I think his point was not believing in something so ridiculous, isn't a belief.

Personally, if you said prancing invisible ponies danced on your head all day long, I don't think it's a belief to deny that claim. Since logically, it has absolutely no scientific basis to back it up.

So like brentaal said, in the scientific world, the idea of 'god' doesn't exactly qualify as a hypothesis in the first place....Of course people will argue that it does, but thats because ANYTHING qualifies as a hypothesis on less strict terms.

But something like the idea of 'god', that has no real definition or explanation...is pretty much reserved for the fairy tail realm of a person's brain. So there's really no point in trying to make sense of it.

Edited October 6, 2008 by PricklyPoo

[Argote]

Then as an atheist you are completely missing the point.

The issue here is the endorsement of religion (through legislation) by the government.

that = bad

I agree with the above statement

[gigapixels Veteran]

@ giga: I don't know if one can reasonable say it does violate the separation of church and state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment...First_Amendment

I'd say the exact words from the Constitution would support the idea that it does in fact violate that clause:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion....

This "National Day of Prayer" does in fact "respect an establishment of religion" (or multiple establishments in this case). It specifically points to any religion that believes in God and leaves out any that do not.

[GreenMartian]

So like brentaal said, in the scientific world, the idea of 'god' doesn't exactly qualify as a hypothesis in the first place....Of course people will argue that it does, but thats because ANYTHING qualifies as a hypothesis on less strict terms.

But something like the idea of 'god', that has no real definition or explanation...is pretty much reserved for the fairy tail realm of a person's brain. So there's really no point in trying to make sense of it.

*shrugs* Some of the most wonderful scientific discoveries are based on the most preposterous premises (during their times) anyway.

I'll keep sitting on my fence for this one, and enjoy both neighbours fight each other about who's right. It's entertaining, really :laugh:

But we're being off topic.

The issue here is the endorsement of religion (through legislation) by the government.

that = bad

(Y)

[abulfares]

I don't need to believe there is no God. There is no reason to believe in God in the first place. It's not a belief, it's a position any rational person will hold. Because in the absence of evidence, there is only ONE possible position: disbelief. People are wrong to believe in God even if God exists. I cannot possibly be wrong because my position is not "God does not exist". My position is "There is no reason to believe in God, so as far as I'm concerned he does not exist". The burden of proof is not on me. It's on those who claim God exists.

so u r rational and anyone who believes in any form of God is irrational?

whatever makes u sleep the night honey.

There is no reason to believe in God in the first place

this is barely a personal opinion.

u r entitled to any position u want to take regarding any issue, but please try to learn from kirk. try to respect the person u r arguing with; it will make it easier for them to understand yr position. (I am not saying im perfect, I get caught up in this mess sometimes, but I apologize if I attack someone.)

Edited October 6, 2008 by abulfares

[Ayepecks]

I'd say the exact words from the Constitution would support the idea that it does in fact violate that clause:

This "National Day of Prayer" does in fact "respect an establishment of religion" (or multiple establishments in this case). It specifically points to any religion that believes in God and leaves out any that do not.

Question: How does it respect an establishment of religion? :blink:

[Ayepecks]

I don't need to believe there is no God. There is no reason to believe in God in the first place. It's not a belief, it's a position any rational person will hold. Because in the absence of evidence, there is only ONE possible position: disbelief. People are wrong to believe in God even if God exists. I cannot possibly be wrong because my position is not "God does not exist". My position is "There is no reason to believe in God, so as far as I'm concerned he does not exist". The burden of proof is not on me. It's on those who claim God exists.

Hence the words faith and belief. You either have faith that it's accurate or you don't. Clearly you do not. But I don't think you're going to find a ton of people who believe in God try to directly prove to you that there is a supreme being -- they are simply confident in their faith that one exists.

In the absence of evidence, people accepted that the earth was flat. Yet there was also another position, as I'm sure you know. (Yes, I'm well aware that statement can be taken for either side of the argument; hence why I used it.)

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

The government can't make a law which is designed to benefit religions.

A national day of prayer falls under that.

Edit: lack of belief != a belief

[vincent]

Here's the problem: it does not endorse religion. It doesn't endorse religion of any kind.

Furthermore, let's take a look at the actual code of law...

It's not forcing anything upon anyone. It says people may turn to God for prayer. It doesn't request it. Doesn't enforce it. Doesn't do any of that. It doesn't request any action, unlike some national holidays.

If it was open to religions of different sorts, it would state

"People may turn to their god."

[betasp]

The government can't make a law which is designed to benefit religions.

A national day of prayer falls under that.

Edit: lack of belief != a belief

What you stated above is no where in the Constitution. It is based on an opinion from a court that can be reversed anytime (again, like Roe v. Wade). For now, that is the court's opinion so it must be followed.

Note: Lack of belief in itself is a belief. You can't state that you don't believe without inherently believing that to be true.

[brentaal]

Note: Lack of belief in itself is a belief.

And bald is a hair color?

[betasp]

And bald is a hair color?

Apples and oranges. Try again.

You state you don't believe in something, you believe that to be true and therefore it is a belief, in nothing. Unless you are lying, which therefore proves your belief in something.

[brentaal]

Apples and oranges. Try again.

So is saying belief and lack of belief are the same.

[wst50]

You, my friend, obviously do not come from a scientific background. Real scientists never say "X does not exist" or "Y is wrong". They say "we could not find enough evidence to support this hypothesis", so *if* they ARE proven wrong, they can always say "i never said it's not there!" :laugh:

You, my bumchum, obviously do not come from a scientific background. Look up Occams Razor and it explains remix17's (and mine) views.

[betasp]

So is saying belief and lack of belief are the same.

Yes.

Belief: any cognitive content held as true

By definition, one cannot not believe.

PS. One can follow a similar logic and show that Aethism is itself a religion (depending on chosen definition).

[vincent]

Yes.

Belief: any cognitive content held as true

By definition, one cannot not believe.

Wrong as MegamanExplosion has stated before:

To believe is to accept. In this case, accepting is theism. If you do not accept, you do not believe. Hence, if you do not accept theism as true, you are necessarily placed in the category of "do not believe god exists." However, do note that not-accepting theism is not the same as concluding it's false. If I do not accept the truth of theism, nor the falsity of it, I would fit in the category of "do not believe god exists" but would not, in any sense, fit in the category of "believe god does not exist." The statements have a nuance of meaning that you're overlooking. One is more inclusive while the other is more exclusive.

[Bryan R.]

What baffles my mind is why topics that come remotely close to religion have to turn into a debate on whether it exists or not. That is not what this is about at all. Government is NOT allowed to create or respect ANY religion. It's GOVERNMENT. Separation of church and state itself is being broken with this policy. I don't care who created this holiday either, the fact it exists and Bush is letting this go to court instead of destroying this policy makes him just a guilty as the people who created it. People on both sides of the fence need to step down from their high horses and get to the topic at hand. If you disagree that government should NEVER involve itself with religion then dispute that, not the existence of religion itself.

[betasp]

Wrong as MegamanExplosion has stated before:

"To believe is to accept." That is not necessarily true.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m234...ag=artBody;col1

Note: Stolen from a source I can't find right now...

For example, a scientist, faced with evidence supporting a theory, evidence acknowledged not to be completely decisive, may choose to accept the theory or not to accept it. If the theory is accepted, the scientist ceases inquiring into its truth and becomes willing to ground her own research and interpretations in that theory; the contrary if the theory is not accepted. If one is about to use a ladder to climb to a height, one may check the stability of the ladder in various ways. At some point, one accepts that the ladder is stable and climbs it. In both of these examples, acceptance involves a decision to cease inquiry and to act as though the matter is settled. This does not, of course, rule out the possibility of re-opening the question if new evidence comes to light or a new set of risks arise.

Edited October 6, 2008 by betasp

[brentaal]

One can follow a similar logic and show that Aethism is itself a religion

How would you name such a religion? (where one believes there is no god)

[gigapixels Veteran]

Uh, atheism :blink:

By definition, atheism is the belief that there is no God. Look it up.

Agnosticism is more appropriate to say you do not believe in such things at all.