Atheist group sues Bush, governor over National Day of Prayer

[abulfares]

Yet you magically posses that knowledge?

I'll quote an earlier post of yours.

I never claimed to have the knowlede if He needed an assembler for himself or not (this is what you were arguing).

if "everything needs an assembler" (aka creator) how come god doesn't need one?

I claimed I see evidence he exists, not if he needed a creator to create him or not.

I hope you see there are two different arguments there.

Just to confirm we are on the same page of the main topic: this National Day of Prayer should have never came from the government in the first place.

[hotdog666al]

Lol, awesome.

Hairy old bush eh?

[Tuffgong4]

Whatever happened to freedom. people should be free to do what they want as long as they are not infringing on others. Who the hell is a day of prayer infringing on. I for one am not religious but I sure as hell live in a free country and should be able to pray or not pray if I want. You can follow Judaism, Christianity or Islam, or whatever you feel like on a "National Day of Prayer". It's not a Christian Day of Prayer or Jewish Day of Prayer, it is a Day of Prayer.

People think this is a way of keeping religion separated from State, but all this is doing is taking freedoms away from law abiding citizens.

If you step back and think about it, we are going to turn into 1984...(if you don't know what that stands for look it up, it sucked but proves my point)

What the hell ever happened to individual freedom?!?!??!!?!?!?!? This will become no different from theocratic countries just in reverse...Death to those that follow something!

I want my freedom!

[Jarik]

i'm amazed that people are so sure they feel there is a god. how do you know you are feeling god and that you don't have some nerve damage in your brain making you feel something wierd that other people don't?

you can't possibly know for a fact that it's god. you believe it's god, which is completely different than knowing. and if you say that "you just know" then you are going against the very basics of logic and your argument is void under the rules of the english language (yes there are actual rules, and yes there are formulas to find out if your argument is valid or not via logic). in a sense you are "cheating" and everything you say doesn't count

I'm not disagreeing with you. I don't feel any God, therefore I am an atheist.

You keep bringing up the notion of proof, yet I have said that there isn't, and can never be, proof of a God. So there is no point in arguing over it.

For a person to be a theist, they have to have a 'connection' with a God. Right ?

If that connection is caused by nerve damage is beside the point. They still believe it to be true.

Likewise, if a person has no connection with a God, they would be an atheist.

I's as simple as that.

[Kirkburn]

By stating that atheists have a belief stucture, you are stating there is something to not believe in.

For example, say religion was all about worshipping giant ponies. Yes, it's ridiculous, and religious people will agree. But you wouldn't go around telling people that don't believe in the Giant Pony in the Sky that they have a belief structure to say that it doesn't exist.

That is, stop approaching atheism as if it's part of religion. It's not. Atheists see no reason why they should come under religion. They are perfectly fine living their lives without it - they aren't thinking "God doesn't exist" all the time.

And for those you keep insisting that this idea isn't crossing the line into the state endorsing religion, see this post: https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?show...amp;p=589918886

[lalalawawawa]

I lol'd. You believe you have a brain? Good going.

Can a computer procreate?

Also, if "everything needs an assembler" (aka creator) how come god doesn't need one?

That is the point. Heavy religious people think that god has no creator. That he is the one, and there is no one above him/her (I don't know what your god's sex is). And according to every possible reason, something to exist, first needs to be created. How can god exist if he was not created by something other than the imagination of some people that had hard time dealing with things (i.e. the people that were desperate during the occupation of Jerusalem by the Romans) and needed so-called holy power :x (holy, like in WoW right? (j/k no personal offense)).

EDIT: And about those statements that atheists believe that there is no god. The way I see it is that, I do not believe that there is a god.

[Cormier6083]

^ I don't see the difference really. :D

Anyways, I do believe, brothers and sisters,....

That this thread should be moved to religions section, because this is just getting a tad bit too heated for this section.

[Minimoose]

Thanks for telling me how my country was founded. One of the reasons that they broke away from English rule was the lack of being able to practice a religion of their own choosing and not the Church of England. They also didn't like thoose funny little girly looking uniforms that the Red Coats wore. :laugh: J/k

lol np :laugh: They were rather girly to be fair.

[PricklyPoo]

Atheism is in no way a religion.

If you deny my belief of invisible pink pony gods dancing upon my head all day long - according to you, thats a religion.

How about the millions of other beliefs in gods people hold that you would logically claim are false? So does that mean you follow millions of religions?

Edited October 6, 2008 by PricklyPoo

[PermaSt0ne]

I'm not trying to use science to prove God exists. I have no idea how you got that from my post. All I posted was logical steps we follow when we encounter something to determine whether to believe or not.

I used analogies to compare, that's all. Sorry if these analogies happened to be scientific since that seems to tick you off.

the logical steps are to try to re-create what happened and then figure out how it happens, not believe that there is an all powerful being controlling everything. as for you analogies, they were bad analogies and could be explained by science. next time when you are using an analogy to try to explain how we don't know everything, don't use stuff that can be explained by science.

Maybe he does, maybe not. Again, our human knowledge cannot comprehend beyond this (it doesn't matter if you believe or not).

if human knowledge can comprehend that we have a creator, then they can comprehend that our creator also has a creator. it's the same logic over and over again

@PermaSt0ne, it might be nerve damage if its one or two percent of the population on earth are believing in God, but not when they are the overwhelming majority. So, no it is not a disease rofl.

i was talking about how you specifically can feel gods existence. everyone i know that "believes" in god can't actually feel his presence.

as for the overwhelming majority part, it's only the overwhelming majority because for the last five thousand years, societies constantly ran around slaughtering and murdering anyone who refused to say they believed in god. so the only people that have been alive are the ones willing to say "god exists" whether they actually believe in him or not. and thus it's become a big part of our society.

you can tell by asking people what specific event, or at what time specifically, they realized that there is an invisible man in the sky controlling everything that led them to go out and seek if there are other people like them only to discover this thing called religion and then after researching all the religions in existence they chose the best on that suits them. oh that's right, that doesn't happen. instead kids are dragged to church and are told that god absolutely exists and there are no alternatives, which is called brainwashing. don't get me wrong, that's a parents job, to tell kids what is right and wrong. but just as well, you can't deny that it is in fact brainwashing.

Whatever happened to freedom. people should be free to do what they want as long as they are not infringing on others. Who the hell is a day of prayer infringing on. I for one am not religious but I sure as hell live in a free country and should be able to pray or not pray if I want. You can follow Judaism, Christianity or Islam, or whatever you feel like on a "National Day of Prayer". It's not a Christian Day of Prayer or Jewish Day of Prayer, it is a Day of Prayer.

People think this is a way of keeping religion separated from State, but all this is doing is taking freedoms away from law abiding citizens.

If you step back and think about it, we are going to turn into 1984...(if you don't know what that stands for look it up, it sucked but proves my point)

What the hell ever happened to individual freedom?!?!??!!?!?!?!? This will become no different from theocratic countries just in reverse...Death to those that follow something!

I want my freedom!

you have the freedom to pray whenever you want. you do not need a federal mandated holiday to do it. so please, PLEASE tell me why you need one?

the problem is once the government starts representing religions, other people are automatically being persecuted. the government represents its people. not all people believe in god.

do you seriously think it's ok for the government to start representing religions?

[Mrs_Angel_D]

you have the freedom to pray whenever you want. you do not need a federal mandated holiday to do it. so please, PLEASE tell me why you need one?

the problem is once the government starts representing religions, other people are automatically being persecuted. the government represents its people. not all people believe in god.

do you seriously think it's ok for the government to start representing religions?

++++++1 THANK YOU!!!!!!

[Shadrack]

you have the freedom to pray whenever you want. you do not need a federal mandated holiday to do it. so please, PLEASE tell me why you need one?

the problem is once the government starts representing religions, other people are automatically being persecuted. the government represents its people. not all people believe in god.

do you seriously think it's ok for the government to start representing religions?

QFT.

Having an overly religious president playing the "we're mandated by God to do this..." policy scares the **** out of me. Terrorists think they are mandated by God too.

[Elessar]

QFT.

Having an overly religious president playing the "we're mandated by God to do this..." policy scares the **** out of me. Terrorists think they are mandated by God too.

This is why i hate our current president and most republicans. There is supposed to be a clear separation between church and state and yet our president has made decisions based on religious beliefs more times than i can count on my hands. As for religion, we should NOT have a day of prayer, nor should students have to say the pledge of allegiance at school. It's not that i hate religion...though admittedly i find all religions a creation of man to control the people...but this country is about freedom and having religion force-fed to us all the time is not what we are about.

[Cormier6083]

the logical steps are to try to re-create what happened and then figure out how it happens, not believe that there is an all powerful being controlling everything. as for you analogies, they were bad analogies and could be explained by science. next time when you are using an analogy to try to explain how we don't know everything, don't use stuff that can be explained by science.

if human knowledge can comprehend that we have a creator, then they can comprehend that our creator also has a creator. it's the same logic over and over again

i was talking about how you specifically can feel gods existence. everyone i know that "believes" in god can't actually feel his presence.

as for the overwhelming majority part, it's only the overwhelming majority because for the last five thousand years, societies constantly ran around slaughtering and murdering anyone who refused to say they believed in god. so the only people that have been alive are the ones willing to say "god exists" whether they actually believe in him or not. and thus it's become a big part of our society.

you can tell by asking people what specific event, or at what time specifically, they realized that there is an invisible man in the sky controlling everything that led them to go out and seek if there are other people like them only to discover this thing called religion and then after researching all the religions in existence they chose the best on that suits them. oh that's right, that doesn't happen. instead kids are dragged to church and are told that god absolutely exists and there are no alternatives, which is called brainwashing. don't get me wrong, that's a parents job, to tell kids what is right and wrong. but just as well, you can't deny that it is in fact brainwashing.

you have the freedom to pray whenever you want. you do not need a federal mandated holiday to do it. so please, PLEASE tell me why you need one?

the problem is once the government starts representing religions, other people are automatically being persecuted. the government represents its people. not all people believe in god.

do you seriously think it's ok for the government to start representing religions?

Agreed.

[Tuffgong4]

the logical steps are to try to re-create what happened and then figure out how it happens, not believe that there is an all powerful being controlling everything. as for you analogies, they were bad analogies and could be explained by science. next time when you are using an analogy to try to explain how we don't know everything, don't use stuff that can be explained by science.

if human knowledge can comprehend that we have a creator, then they can comprehend that our creator also has a creator. it's the same logic over and over again

i was talking about how you specifically can feel gods existence. everyone i know that "believes" in god can't actually feel his presence.

as for the overwhelming majority part, it's only the overwhelming majority because for the last five thousand years, societies constantly ran around slaughtering and murdering anyone who refused to say they believed in god. so the only people that have been alive are the ones willing to say "god exists" whether they actually believe in him or not. and thus it's become a big part of our society.

you can tell by asking people what specific event, or at what time specifically, they realized that there is an invisible man in the sky controlling everything that led them to go out and seek if there are other people like them only to discover this thing called religion and then after researching all the religions in existence they chose the best on that suits them. oh that's right, that doesn't happen. instead kids are dragged to church and are told that god absolutely exists and there are no alternatives, which is called brainwashing. don't get me wrong, that's a parents job, to tell kids what is right and wrong. but just as well, you can't deny that it is in fact brainwashing.

you have the freedom to pray whenever you want. you do not need a federal mandated holiday to do it. so please, PLEASE tell me why you need one?

the problem is once the government starts representing religions, other people are automatically being persecuted. the government represents its people. not all people believe in god.

do you seriously think it's ok for the government to start representing religions?

If our government stops having beliefs then we have no difference between Obama and McCain, Biden and Palin, Clinton and Bush.

Beliefs and faiths drive a lot of the political views we have to listen to and vote for.

Nobody is being persecuted by this day of prayer. If they were, then everyone would be arrested or put to death for believing in something different or not believing at all. It is your belief or opinion that says this is wrong.

I don't believe in persecution of anyone, even if it is with something I disagree with.

Also I have yet to see an army come out to my town to demand that anyone follow a particular religion. I also haven't heard of this made up law saying that we have to follow the religion of the president. Last I remember we have a lot of different religious views in the American government.

We may see a great thing come November inthe US, having our first Black President or having our first Woman Vice President, and surprise both of them are very religious!

But I haven't heard anything about the citizens of the US being forced to believe in either of their religious beliefs.

[remix17]

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:

That's pretty much what I was getting at. I don't know how you read the opposite. :unsure:

this is barely a personal opinion.

No it's a statement of fact. Science is very clear on what qualifies as evidence and what doesn't. There is simply no basis for disagreement.

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.

That's fine. So you admit to being weak-minded. Because that's what faith means. You believe because you want to believe. Glad we agree.

That doesn't make any sense to me. I don't go around telling myself i believe there isn't a god. I just haven't found sufficient reason(s) to believe.

That's exactly what I was saying, GreenMartian. Perhaps I didn't use the best wording.

I respect your opinion, but to me, it is very clear that God does exist. I can see that through evidence everywhere. Just like we never held or saw our own brains to believe they exist, we still believe they are there and they are functional. Even a CAT scan shows you a picture not the actual thing. We believe our brains exist because of the evidence that point towards their existence.

There are plenty of analogies that can follow. Another example is the data traveling through your CPU :) Never seen it but I know it exists.

A computer needs some one or something to assemble it (duh lol); I believe this universe (from the galaxies to the tiniest cell in our bodies) had an assembler, God.

Even the scriptures that are said to be from God, they have much similarities between them although they are few thousands years apart. If they are lies, then with time lies get exposed or just die with time. Not these scriptures though.

Again, this is my own personal opinion. And because of this, I think believing in God is rational and logical.

All wrong analogies. Certainly we can't see our brains or electric currents directly, but we can observe them through evidence.

[PixilEyes]

What annoys me is we have a day to repesent any holiday.

[R-Flex]

If our government stops having beliefs then we have no difference between Obama and McCain, Biden and Palin, Clinton and Bush.

Beliefs and faiths drive a lot of the political views we have to listen to and vote for.

Nobody is being persecuted by this day of prayer. If they were, then everyone would be arrested or put to death for believing in something different or not believing at all. It is your belief or opinion that says this is wrong.

I don't believe in persecution of anyone, even if it is with something I disagree with.

Also I have yet to see an army come out to my town to demand that anyone follow a particular religion. I also haven't heard of this made up law saying that we have to follow the religion of the president. Last I remember we have a lot of different religious views in the American government.

We may see a great thing come November inthe US, having our first Black President or having our first Woman Vice President, and surprise both of them are very religious!

But I haven't heard anything about the citizens of the US being forced to believe in either of their religious beliefs.

It is not that people are losing freedom to choose their religion or lack of, and you are creating a strawman by arguing that such reasoning is foolish. It is foolish, but no one is making that argument.

What is to be argued is that creating such a holiday is unnecessary. Everyone already can pray, and there is not need to have the government mandate a day about praying whatsoever. Even worse, it seems to be an endorsement of religion. It should never be the government's duty to even suggest an idea as a day for prayer.

I believe that to reason as I am about to do is called reducto ad absurdum (am I correct? It's been a while since my philosophy lectures). If there were a national day for prayer that does not restrict freedom directly, what is the harm of a National Don't Pray Day? No one is being forced to do anything (or not do anything), but it's for those who don't pray! In fact, why not any day for religious or political belief? If you accept a day or prayer, then logically you must accept any other day of that method.

It is unnecessary, but if there will be a National Prayer Day, I hope to see you all at National Marxist Day- Naturally, if you want to. No one is forcing you.

[abulfares]

That's pretty much what I was getting at. I don't know how you read the opposite. :unsure:

No it's a statement of fact. Science is very clear on what qualifies as evidence and what doesn't. There is simply no basis for disagreement.

That's fine. So you admit to being weak-minded. Because that's what faith means. You believe because you want to believe. Glad we agree.

That's exactly what I was saying, GreenMartian. Perhaps I didn't use the best wording.

All wrong analogies. Certainly we can't see our brains or electric currents directly, but we can observe them through evidence.

oooooh I just checked the website "Atheists and Anger" in your sig; that explains a hell lot about u.

no wonder u r as close minded as any nut case extreme religious person out there. I don't have a problem with atheists, yet you have a problem with anyone who believes in God/have a religion. no wonder u r attacking (not debating).

'nough said

[Kirkburn]

If our government stops having beliefs then we have no difference between Obama and McCain, Biden and Palin, Clinton and Bush.

Ridiculous. Policies should be based on actual research and science, not what someone has believes unconditionally. In a perfect world, anyway.

Beliefs and faiths drive a lot of the political views we have to listen to and vote for.

That doesn't mean they should be.

Nobody is being persecuted by this day of prayer. If they were, then everyone would be arrested or put to death for believing in something different or not believing at all. It is your belief or opinion that says this is wrong.

I don't believe in persecution of anyone, even if it is with something I disagree with.

Great. Except that persecution isn't the problem here. It's the government endorsing religion via endorsing prayer, something which IS religious.

Also I have yet to see an army come out to my town to demand that anyone follow a particular religion. I also haven't heard of this made up law saying that we have to follow the religion of the president. Last I remember we have a lot of different religious views in the American government.

Strawman. Nothing to do with the subject at hand.

We may see a great thing come November inthe US, having our first Black President or having our first Woman Vice President, and surprise both of them are very religious!

But I haven't heard anything about the citizens of the US being forced to believe in either of their religious beliefs.

Strawman. Nothing to do with forcing a specific religion. Atheists don't vote solely based on their religion, just as you don't vote based entirely on their family life.

[remix17]

oooooh I just checked the website "Atheists and Anger" in your sig; that explains a hell lot about u.

no wonder u r as close minded as any nut case extreme religious person out there. I don't have a problem with atheists, yet you have a problem with anyone who believes in God/have a religion. no wonder u r attacking (not debating).

'nough said

How exactly am I close-minded? I wasn't born an atheist, you know. I was a Christian for most of my life. And yes I do have a problem with religion. I'm curious though. Did you even read that blog in my sig?

[Kirkburn]

oooooh I just checked the website "Atheists and Anger" in your sig; that explains a hell lot about u.

no wonder u r as close minded as any nut case extreme religious person out there. I don't have a problem with atheists, yet you have a problem with anyone who believes in God/have a religion. no wonder u r attacking (not debating).

'nough said

I rather doubt he has a problem with people personally (and privately) choosing to be religious. Neither do I. However, there's a big difference between that, and pushing it on other people.

Not only that, but he has every right to wonder why people are religious, and be critical of religion. If (a) religion can't stand up to scrutiny, it deserves no respect. And that goes for the beliefs people hold. Your religion might say homosexual relationships are wrong - I do not in any way, shape, or form, have to respect that.

A debate involves attacks and defences. It's not much of a debate otherwise. Ad hominems are out though, unless it has a very good basis, and everyone would agree with it. Unsurprisingly, I find your comment somewhat close to being an ad hominem.

I'm noticing people trying to twist the meaning of "belief", and I've been caught up.

Religion is about faith, a specific type of belief - belief without proof. Belief in general is fine, and completely normal - if it's actually based on something. Strong belief is pretty much called knowledge.

I believe this table is real, I don't have faith that it's real. In fact, I believe it so strongly, and have such overwhelming evidence for it, I would say I KNOW it's real.

Edited October 7, 2008 by Kirkburn

[Kirkburn]

How exactly am I close-minded? I wasn't born an atheist, you know. I was a Christian for most of my life. And yes I do have a problem with religion. I'm curious though. Did you even read that blog in my sig?

Actually, I'm going to be annoying and say - we are all born atheists. It's exposure to our relatives and peers that indoctrinates us into a religion, at a point in life where we have no choice or strong independent thought.

Then we grew up, and found out we did actually have a choice. And took it. And won't subject our children to it.

Note: not indoctrinating children into a religion =/= indoctrinating them into atheism. It's about giving them a choice at an age when they will understand the choice.

[abulfares]

I rather doubt he has a problem with people personally (and privately) choosing to be religious. Neither do I. However, there's a big difference between that, and pushing it on other people.

Not only that, but he has every right to wonder why people are religious, and be critical of religion. If (a) religion can't stand up to scrutiny, it deserves no respect. And that goes for the beliefs people hold. Your religion might say homosexual relationships are wrong - I do not in any way, shape, or form, have to respect that.

A debate involves attacks and defences. It's not much of a debate otherwise. Ad hominems are out though, unless it has a very good basis, and everyone would agree with it. Unsurprisingly, I find your comment somewhat close to being an ad hominem.

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.

[Kirkburn]

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.

"no wonder u r as close minded as any nut case extreme religious person out there.", and saying that a website explains a lot about him. The comment where he said (several pages back) "And having those beliefs shows how ignorant and clueless u r about reality." was a reworded version of an attack on him. I followed that by recommending against it, because I knew someone would do this.

This is not about us, not about who is making the cases. Remember that.

Not attacks only? Are we reading the same thread? Both sides are making their cases and defending them. Seems fine to me.

Note I also qualified my sentence: "I rather doubt he has a problem with people personally (and privately) choosing to be religious." I still reserve the right to get ****ed off at people who try and push religion on to me. However, I pity those who are privately religious.