Atheist Plans New Lawsuit Over Phrase 'Under God'
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=5521606
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Undeterred by the U.S. Supreme Court throwing out his legal challenge to the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, atheist Michael Newdow said on Saturday he would file another federal lawsuit to remove the words from the pledge.
No child has to recite the pledge. It is voluntary.
Newdow, of Sacramento, told Reuters in a telephone interview he hopes to represent two families in a renewed challenge to the constitutionality of the religious reference in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Newdow said he would act as their lawyer in a lawsuit against the Elk Grove Unified School District, the same Sacramento-area district he sued in a closely watched case that the U.S. Supreme Court rejected on June 14.
The court ruled that Newdow, a physician with a law degree, lacked standing to sue the school district on behalf of his 10-year-old daughter, because her mother, Sandra Banning, had exclusive legal custody of the girl in a state court order.
Newdow claimed his daughter suffered harm from having to recite the pledge. By contrast, Banning, a born-again Christian, supported her daughter saying the pledge.
The court's 8-0 decision overturned a ruling by a U.S. appeals court in California that reciting the phrase amounted to a violation of church-state separation. However, because the high court rejected the lawsuit on a technicality, it left open the possibility of future challenges.
Newdow said arguments in the new lawsuit will echo those in his recent effort.
"It would be the exact same case," Newdow said of the lawsuit, expected to be filed in federal district court in Sacramento in August. "All the work has been done. Just plug in a different name and do it all over again."
The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling came on the 50th anniversary of the addition of the words "under God" to the pledge, which the U.S. Congress adopted to distinguish America's religious values and heritage from those of communism, which is atheistic.
Millions of U.S. students every day "pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." California requires the pledge to be recited every day at public elementary schools, although no child has to join in.
© Reuters 2004. All Rights Reserved.
No child has to recite the pledge. It is voluntary.
When did this change? It sure didn't seem voluntary when I was in elementary school and punishment did occur for those who didn't stand and recite.
High School and Middle School were different matters, but they couldn't force us to do much of anything by that age.
Just the social control aspect is strong enough. When I was in 3rd grade there was a kid in my class who was a Jenovah's witness. His folks wouldn't let him say the pledge, so he remained seated while the rest of us stood to say the pledge. We all thought he was prettty wierd and he got a lot of teasing about being a "commie," poor kid. I think it should be "One nation, despite God..." myself. ;)
Voluntary means voluntary.
Narrowmindedness and stupidity on the part of your teacher who chose not to take the learning opportunity presented by having a member of a smallish religion in their class is all part of the problem here.
I went (except for one year) to public school. Part of the classwork involved lessons on understanding of different faiths ... including a very cool field trip to a Quaker Meeting House, Catholic Church, and the Frank Lloyd Wright Synagogue (Beth Shalom) in Elkins Park.
My experience was in the same vein as Kit and marichiko's - come middle school, I was just standing with my hands in my pockets in the morning most of the time, and by high school, I wasn't even doing that much. But I still remember the one or two kids I knew that didn't do the Pledge in grade school and got various punishments depending on the level of their disobediance. To be fair, they were almost certainly acting out of a "I hate teacher" attitude than a more nobler motive, but the fact remains.
Given what caused "under God" to be added to the Pledge in the first place, I would prefer it to be removed. I personally prefer to show respect to God in ways not born of geopolitical spite.
And wolf, does that school you attended still do this? I'm just saying, if I ever have kids and the program still exists at that time, that sounds like a really good place in which to enroll them.
I have a friend with kids in my old elementary school, so I can ask.
Wissahickon School District is in the Philadelphia suburbs, but things MIGHT have changed a wee bit in the last um ... 28 or so years...
You know, I find it funny that the Pledge is even said at all. How many kids (I mean REALLY) know what the pledge is even about? Or even care? I know I didn't. I pretty much thought it was just something that you said everyday before school started:
Voice over intercom: "Please stand for the Pledge of Allegance."
*stand up, hand over heart, start reciting* Like a robot, everyday.
*shrugs* I didn't have any gigantic swells of pride for my nation or get misty-eyed with patriotism when saying the Pledge. But I DID get those feelings when singing songs in music class like, "This Land Is Your Land", "God Bless America", etc.
I'm sure that some kids "get it", but has anyone really asked them about it? (I'm guessing they'll parrot the answer that adults say, so would that be a "true" answer?).
Just some thoughts.
How many kids (I mean REALLY) know what the pledge is even about?
I know I didn't know. If I had actually sat down and thought about the words back then, I would have taken it much differently than I did and it might have even have meant something other than just a boring ritual. Even in my recent years, the damn thing is so ingrained into my head that it no longer has any meaning, like a word repeatedly endlessly.
Like a robot, everyday.
In hindsight, this is a really creepy aspect of it. Something you repeat everyday and as a huge weight to it but you don't understand the meaning of as a child... its a bit weird.
I really think it is more for the benefit of the parents than the kids.
i remember as a small kid a WWII vet came into our class, i think all the 2nd graders were together. he talked about his experiences and what the flag and patriotism meant to him.
that combined with the things my grandfather taught me made me appreciate the pledge.
sometimes it is good to create a habit even before the "why" of something is clear.
my 3 year old gets mad about brushing his teeth everyday and always asks why - someday he'll understand why, but for now, just doing it is enough.
As far as I know, schools (public and private) really don't go out of their way to teach the K-4 grade kids the meaning or reason behind the Pledge. As has been stated (and is largely true), kids are just supposed to stand up every morning and say it. At my lower school, there was a flag pole that everyone actually went outside to stand around to say the pledge.
The average 10 year old, on the whole, doesn't know or doesn't care what the Pledge is. There are other pressing concerns at that age (newest toy, so-and-so called me a Dork, Sleep-over this Friday!!) So what I want to know is what "harm" has this guy's 10 year old been subjected to? He's almost treating it as if they forced his kid to say Dirty Words every morning or something like that. I'm willing to put a fiver on the possibility his kid really didn't think about it much until Dad started making a big deal out of it.
Anyway, if the Pledge MUST be recited, why not leave it with Under God included and allow that one portion of the Pledge be entirely optional? That way, every child can make that choice. Also, how's Mom and Dad going to know whether or not the kid really said it? Children need some chances to make important choices in their own lives.
So what I want to know is what "harm" has this guy's 10 year old been subjected to? He's almost treating it as if they forced his kid to say Dirty Words every morning or something like that.
I'm not sure I understand the logic in that. So you'd be fine if we replaced the word "God" with "Jesus"? What about "Allah" or "Moon spirit"? As long as the kids don't understand, it wouldn't matter?
"What harm does it do?"
I pledge allegiance, to the spreadsheets, of the United Conglomerates of America... and to the Republicans... for which they stand.... one corporation... under the CEO... indivisible... with stock options and dividends for all.
I pledge allegiance, to Hugh Hefner, of the Playboy Corporation of America.... and to the smoking jacket... and the pipe... with which he's dressed... one magazine.... under the mattress... unstapleable..... with chesty women and airbrushing for all.
Even if we stipulate that very young children do not know the meaning of the words of the pledge, they are bound to figure it out one of these days. You can take the position that it's a rote statement, a social custom if you will, and that therefore people who don't agree with some of the statements in it shouldn't get bent out of shape--"What harm does it do?" But if you take that position, then why can't everybody just put in their own words?
It's beyond me why supposedly religious people will buy into this argument about "civic religion." In my view what this means is that the religious ideas have become so trivialized that they're useless. As a Christian, I don't need the gummint to proselytize on my behalf.
Here's an interesting site with the history of the Pledge.
The Pledge of Allegiance:
http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofheroes/1st_floor/flag/1bfc_pledge.html
Important points:
The Pledge (which IMO we should go by):
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.
June 14, 1924".
"The Pledge of Allegiance continued to be recited daily by children in schools across America, and gained heightened popularity among adults during the patriotic fervor created by World War II. It still was an "unofficial" pledge until June 22, 1942 when the United States Congress included the Pledge to the Flag in the United States Flag Code (Title 36). This was the first Official sanction given to the words that had been recited each day by children for almost fifty years. One year after receiving this official sanction, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that school children could not be forced to recite the Pledge as part of their daily routine. "
"The last change in the Pledge of Allegiance occurred on June 14 (Flag Day), 1954 when President Dwight D. Eisenhower approved adding the words "under God". As he authorized this change he said:
"In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."
This was the last change made to the Pledge of Allegiance. The 23 words what had been initially penned for a Columbus Day celebration now comprised a Thirty-one profession of loyalty and devotion to not only a flag, but to a way of life....the American ideal. "
American ideal eh? hmmm....:rolleyes:
I've always found it ironic that they used God to divide "one nation" from "indivisible".
Originally posted by Cyber Wolf
So what I want to know is what "harm" has this guy's 10 year old been subjected to? He's almost treating it as if they forced his kid to say Dirty Words every morning or something like that. I'm willing to put a fiver on the possibility his kid really didn't think about it much until Dad started making a big deal out of it.
the lawyer/pain in the ass is an atheist. his ex-wife, mother of his child is a born again christian... the mother supports the child's participation in religious activities and it pisses the guy off. and since he is in america, he does the only logical thing - he sues the school, government... why doesn't it piss you people off that your tax money is being wasted by a jackoff who is trying to get back at his ex-wife for becoming a christian?
why doesn't it piss you people off that your tax money is being wasted by a jackoff who is trying to get back at his ex-wife for becoming a christian?
From
The Docket (original case)
Petition GRANTED limited to the following Questions: 1. Whether respondent has standing to challenge as unconstitutional a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. Whether a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words "under God," violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as applicable through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Am I upset that my tax money is "being wasted" to review whether a practice spread throughout every public school might be in violation of the constitution of the United States? No.
...as to why it doesn't piss me off, I think this is a really important question that has been brought to the Supreme Court, regardless of the intentions of the person filing the complaint and the decision made by the court, one way or the other, will set many future cases.
Our government is not supposed to advertise or imply any religion through its actions. We need to know what the court's interpretation of this is, because every single student in the public school system is being exposed to it and, in many cases, punished for not participating.
Originally posted by Cyber Wolf
As far as I know, schools (public and private) really don't go out of their way to teach the K-4 grade kids the meaning or reason behind the Pledge. As has been stated (and is largely true), kids are just supposed to stand up every morning and say it. At my lower school, there was a flag pole that everyone actually went outside to stand around to say the pledge.
The average 10 year old, on the whole, doesn't know or doesn't care what the Pledge is. There are other pressing concerns at that age (newest toy, so-and-so called me a Dork, Sleep-over this Friday!!) So what I want to know is what "harm" has this guy's 10 year old been subjected to? He's almost treating it as if they forced his kid to say Dirty Words every morning or something like that. I'm willing to put a fiver on the possibility his kid really didn't think about it much until Dad started making a big deal out of it.
Anyway, if the Pledge MUST be recited, why not leave it with Under God included and allow that one portion of the Pledge be entirely optional? That way, every child can make that choice. Also, how's Mom and Dad going to know whether or not the kid really said it? Children need some chances to make important choices in their own lives.
In the case of Jehovah's Witnesses, the ones I knew, anyhow; you bet your buttons, Mom and Dad made it their business to know. Last fall I made the aquainitance of a JW couple and their incredible 10 year old daughter, "R." R. was one heck of a bright and spunky kid, but she had it drilled into her that she would be committing a horrible sin if she said the pledge. Dad even made surprise visits to the school just to check. R. confided to me that this (along with other JW restrictions - no Halloween or Christmas celebration participation, etc.) made her life on the playground a living hell (my word, not hers). She announced that she was also the best fighter in all the 3rd and 4th grades and could beat up any and all comers, including the boys in her class.
While I certainly have extremely major differences with the JW viewpoint, I also don't see why little kids should, in effect, have to make a loyalty oath every day they attend school. I think a better way of creating loyal US citizens is a good course in Civics and American History, as well as pratical displays of what freedom of religion and freedom of speech is all about. Schools could set one example of this by dispensing with the "optional" pledge.
The pledge was meant to unite, not divide. It would too, if the parents would stay out of it. It's a damn shame, when I think of all the things the parents SHOULD get involved in.
JW's don't get to celebrate birthdays either, but they still have to count them. Talk about unfair. :(
You guys are lucky that you have the pledge. To outsiders it seems like it is the one thing that binds Americans together, so strongly. I normally don't like religion becoming entangled in government, but in this case I don't have any objection. I think the pluses outweigh the negatives.
To outsiders it seems like it is the one thing that binds Americans together, so strongly.
Just think of how many people the pledge would unite if it didn't contain "Under God", a pledge that actually represents what the country is about and could describe every single citizen of the nation. A pledge like that would have no negatives.
Oh, and to the "insiders", specifically the school children reciting it every single morning, the pledge doesn't mean anything more than the opening bell does. I'm saddened by that, but its the truth.
is it possible that it doesn't mean anything to them because educators are too afraid to teach them in fear that someone will get offended and sue?
and as far as "under god" being devisive? please. true atheists are a small minority in this country, although there are many who reside in the cellar.
i could understand if we were forcing kids to say "under Jesus Christ, my Lord and Saviour", but we aren't. "under god is non-specific enough that it actually does hearken back to the founding of this country. most people do believe in a god. Freedom of religion didn't mean freedom FROM religion. it is the individual's choice, and if the majority have no problem with their kids saying "under god" then the minority still has the right to not say it themselves. but to litigate for removal is just ridiculous.
When I see or think about the word "God," I automatically think of the Judeo-Christian version of a deity. And I suspect that many other people think the same way. And by using the phrases "under God" and "In God We Trust," I believe that this nation is endorsing said Judeo-Christian deity. Minorities (of all varieties) are more vocal now than they were even 20 years ago, and I think we'll continue to see more challenges like "under God."
And that's cool with me. I love people/groups that are willing to take on the status quo like this...even if I don't agree with them. To me, it shows that our government works.
is it possible that it doesn't mean anything to them because educators are too afraid to teach them in fear that someone will get offended and sue?
It is possible. I mean, if you start lecturing children in public schools that when you pledge your allegiance to the United States that this nation, its citizens, and its government are under a God, it could lead to lawsuits from atheists and those that recognize that the word "God" in the pledge specifically refers to a Christian God. Maybe that is why children don't know the meaning of the pledge. Maybe that is part of the problem.
true atheists are a small minority in this country, although there are many who reside in the cellar.
You are correct -- the percentage of people who do not believe in a god is a small one in this country, yet they are still citizens. They still vote, they still pay taxes, they fight in our wars, and they are still part of this country. To require a citizen to believe in God in order to pledge their life to our country is foolish and there should never be any religious requirement, ever. I get the feeling that a lot of people have never stopped to think of the implications -- think about the words for a second. The government is REQUIRING you to believe in God when you state your allegiance to the country. Should that ever be a requirement to be a citizen or to agree to give your life in defense of the country? Why should it? What good does it do to force someone to recognize that?
Freedom of religion didn't mean freedom FROM religion.
Bullshit. The citizens of the United States of America can believe in whatever they want, even if it is nothing at all, a sacred rock, or a god in the sky. To think otherwise is denying freedom.
it is the individual's choice, and if the majority have no problem with their kids saying "under god" then the minority still has the right to not say it themselves.
I agree -- you shouldn't have to say it. But the beliefs of the majority should never alter the fundamental freedoms of the citizens of this country. And, right now, I have to say that I'm sad to see that is exactly what is happening.
Actually, in my case, I did have a teacher who explained the words of the pledge to us. I guess it must have been around 2nd or third grade. I had always been saying "one nation, invisible... and to the public for which it stands." I used to wonder how the US was "invisible" under God! After the teacher went over the words with us and what they meant, I said the pledge very proudly. I don't know about the rest of you, but the schools I went to up through the 6th grade were all ones on military bases and we kids were all children of career military parents. From the moment it was explained to me properly, I said the pledge, not with my hand on my heart, but imitating my Dad's military salute to the flag. Kids aren't as dumb as you think.
I would miss it, only because it's another thing from my childhood that is changing. But, I think it should go -- along with the "In God we trust" on our money.
I'm Christian, as you all probably remember. But I believe in separation of church and state. And I'd like the pledge of allegiance to apply not just to my kids, but to the children of my co-workers who come from India. And the kids of our friends who are atheist - and so on.
Keep the pledge, leave God out of it. There's plenty of churches and private schools if you want your kids to know God.
Originally posted by Kitsune
[[Freedom of religion didn't mean freedom FROM religion.
Bullshit. The citizens of the United States of America can believe in whatever they want, even if it is nothing at all, a sacred rock, or a god in the sky. To think otherwise is denying freedom.
[
freedom of religion means that you have the right to believe in anything you want, if that means you believe in nothing at all. people can make a religion out of anything. in fact, many atheists have turned their belief into a form of religion. they spend vast amounts of time, energy, and money trying to convince people that there is no god, just as fundamental christians do trying to get people to believe there is a god. the only difference between the 2 groups is the idea of god/no god. everything else is the same, it is a belief that they hold so strongly that they feel the need to bring other people to the light.
i support everyone's right to believe what they want. but what i don't like is our gradual move from an insistence upon freedom OF religion, to a movement towards freedom FROM religion. no where in the early documents this nation was founded upon suggested that there was a need to push religious belief out of public view. they simply stated that there could not be a particular faith required to be a citizen. that is what was meant about gov't respecting religion.
i'm willing to bet that there are people reading this that actually believe the phrase "separation of church and state" can be found in the constitution. if you do, you may want to check again.
Freedom FROM religion means free from state mandated/approved/etc religion.
Unfortunately we're stuck with all of the evangapimps on TV, radio and internet.
Originally posted by Troubleshooter
Freedom FROM religion means free from state mandated/approved/etc religion.
Unfortunately we're stuck with all of the evangapimps on TV, radio and internet.
i'm not aware that there is a state mandated religion.
i agree with you about the entertainer/evangelists. they generally cause more problems than they solve; but is there someone that ties you to a chair and forces you to watch it?
saying they don't have the right to be on the air is not different than that genious powell campaigning for a return to decency. if one is 1st amendment - then so is the other. i think howard stern is an overrated pig, but i have the freedom to spin the dial. billy graham may annoy you with his crusades, but you also have the right to swith to any of the other 100+ channels.
Originally posted by lookout123
...but what i don't like is our gradual move from an insistence upon freedom OF religion, to a movement towards freedom FROM religion. no where in the early documents this nation was founded upon suggested that there was a need to push religious belief out of public view.
God was inserted into the motto, money, and pledge during the cold war. Even more than freedom from religion, I want a freedom from cold war jingoism.
Originally posted by lookout123
i'm not aware that there is a state mandated religion.
It's not state mandated, more of a tacit imprimatur I think.
are you denied any services or benefits for not belonging to a faith group? are those of us who do believe in something given special membership or privileges? i don't understand why you think anything is forced upon you.
Originally posted by lookout123
i'm not aware that there is a state mandated religion.
It's all semantics. There is state supported religion. Mandated, supported. What's the difference?
The government has preachers on its payroll. The Congress has at least one to lead prayers during official government ceremonies. The Supreme Court has official prayer as well at times. Public schools are required to recite the "under God" phrase every day, even if individual kids can opt out.
All of this is complete bullshit. The government has no business pushing religion. Any religion. It should remain silent on the issue. That means it doesn't ban it, or support it. It keeps its mouth shut.
The Puritains and Pilgrims settled this country because they were both religious minorities and they wanted to be able to get away from all the crap that is identical to what is going on in this country today to athiests.
You mentioned earlier that athiests are a small group. That's exactly why we should cut this crap out. It's the small groups that need to be protected. The Pilgrims were a small group in Europe in the 1600s.
Removing "under God" from the pledge hurts nobody. Keeping "under God" in the pledge hurts atheists. The correct path is obvious.
I'm curious - Is there anyone who supports "under God" and "in God we trust", but would not support "under Jesus" and "in Jesus we trust"? Why? Is it because a few more percent of people in the US believe in God than Jesus?
Originally posted by lookout123
are you denied any services or benefits for not belonging to a faith group? are those of us who do believe in something given special membership or privileges? i don't understand why you think anything is forced upon you.
Not me directly but:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/char_choi4.htm
I'm a non-theist myself, but when I have to hear a president say he is told by god that he's here to save the world I have to worry.
the puritans left not because they believed differently. they left because they were persecuted. in many cases they were unable to work, or purchase food for their families because of their beliefs. that is why they came to (what became) america.
don't even pretend that atheists are persecuted in such a manner. atheists lose out on no opportunities due to their belief. they are not forced to recite the words or face consequences.
do the words "under god" cause blood to come streaming from your ears? the mention of something you don't believe in injures you how?
again - i would absolutely agree with you if the words were faith specific. they aren't. to a muslim, god is allah, to a jew, it is jeshuah, to a christian it is god, the father. in those 3 cases they are all referring to the same god. for others god is nature, for some it is self. god in this case is so non-specific that only an atheist, or possibly some eastern philosophies are left out... but here is the thing - i know of NO circumstance where you would be forced to say the word "god" if you chose not too. but you are prepared to take it away from the many who want it there rather than skipping the word.
Originally posted by lookout123
are you denied any services or benefits for not belonging to a faith group? are those of us who do believe in something given special membership or privileges? i don't understand why you think anything is forced upon you.
You can start by reading Section 8 of
Article 6 of the North Carolina Constitution.
Other examples from other states.
you said athiests are religious, and their religion is that they don't believe in God. If the government has "God" in its pledge, and on its money, that is an official condemnation of the athiest "religion."
The government has no right to do that.
Who is hurt if "God" is removed from government?
Answer that. Seriously. Answer it.
Athiests are hurt if "God" is in government.
The correct choice is obvious.
And by the way, this is totaly irrelevant, but I attend church every Sunday.
Originally posted by Troubleshooter
Not me directly but:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/char_choi4.htm
I'm a non-theist myself, but when I have to hear a president say he is told by god that he's here to save the world I have to worry.
does the president not have 1st amendment rights? if he can see his way to speak a complete sentence so the world can understand it and he wants to mention HIS faith, i don't really care. if he starts telling others that they have to belong to his, or any other faith in order to receive benefits, i'll stand alongside you and shout him down.
what i got from that link is that they are concerned that some people may go hungry, lose their electricity, etc... because they are unwilling to accept help from a charitable organization which is affiliated with a faith group. if it is charity, then who cares where it comes from? these programs don't require a belief in any one thing to receive services. i believe part of the initiative was that organizations from ALL faith groups had access to the same support. that doesn't sound too exclusionary to me.
Originally posted by SteveDallas
You can start by reading Section 8 of Article 6 of the North Carolina Constitution.
Other examples from other states.
ok, now you are talking state issues, not federal. i don't believe any of those are inforced, but that is unimportant. i would support you in removal of all of those statements. they are exclusionary, even if they aren't enforced.
Originally posted by glatt
you said athiests are religious, and their religion is that they don't believe in God. If the government has "God" in its pledge, and on its money, that is an official condemnation of the athiest "religion."
The government has no right to do that.
Who is hurt if "God" is removed from government?
Answer that. Seriously. Answer it.
Athiests are hurt if "God" is in government.
The correct choice is obvious.
And by the way, this is totaly irrelevant, but I attend church every Sunday.
this one is just my belief here, but methinks everyone has a god of some form. if you deny any supreme being or natural force, or power greater than yourself, then by definition you are your own god.
what could be more uplifting that listening to everyone in class mention you in the pledge? LOL sorry - just a little really dry humor there.
I'm all for a little humor, but I notice you didn't answer the question.
Who is hurt by removing "God" from the pledge of allegience and from other areas of the government?
Athiests, full citizens of our country, are hurt by keeping "God" in the government.
Originally posted by lookout123
then by definition you are your own god.
I'd taken this a a forgone conclusion really.
Originally posted by glatt
I'm all for a little humor, but I notice you didn't answer the question.
Who is hurt by removing "God" from the pledge of allegience and from other areas of the government?
Athiests, full citizens of our country, are hurt by keeping "God" in the government.
Hurt? no one. no more than anyone is hurt by leaving it in. you never answered earlier when i asked you how atheist are "hurt" by hearing people say those words. i was being absurd with the blodd running from the ears bit; but really how is an atheist hurt by the anothers' utterance of words they choose not to believe in.
///////////and btw - i'm am not trying to prove there is a god or anything like that. anybody who has read my other posts knows that i believe that faith is a personal choice. faith by definition cannot be proven one way or another./////////////
Originally posted by Troubleshooter
I'd taken this a a forgone conclusion really.
so then you actually acknowledge that everyone does have some sort of god.
Originally posted by lookout123
so then you actually acknowledge that everyone does have some sort of god.
More of an acknowledgement of my own superiority actually.
Originally posted by Troubleshooter
More of an acknowledgement of my own superiority actually.
well, what do they say? one man's faith is another's misguided belief.
edit: that is not an insult. it is true, faith is a personal, unproveable belief.
Originally posted by lookout123
ok, now you are talking state issues, not federal. i don't believe any of those are inforced, but that is unimportant. i would support you in removal of all of those statements. they are exclusionary, even if they aren't enforced.
Gee thanks, I'm glad you think so.
I think that simply reversing the situation answers the question.
If a christian were forced to acknowledge that there was no god they would be harmed in something that some people take more seriously than eating.
Look at what happened in russia.
Originally posted by lookout123
god in this case is so non-specific that only an atheist, or possibly some eastern philosophies are left out...
Oh, is that all?
Some
statistics:
(I'm not vouching for the site, but it's illustrative enough)
Christian: 76.5%
Jewish: 1.3%
Muslim: 0.5%
Random 'other' which might be considered to have a 'God': 3.7%
Buddhist: 0.5%
Atheist/Agnostic: 0.9%
No religion/none specified: 13.2
So, let's be very generous, and give the whole 3.7% to 'God', and none of the 13.2% to 'no God'. For simplicity, I'll put Buddhist in 'no God', though it's not quite that simple in reality.
So:
76.5% recognise Jesus as divine.
Using God instead (generously) adds 5.5%.
Removing any religious message includes at least an additional 1.4%.
Can you support "under God" over "under Jesus" in order to include 5.5% more people, but 1.4% more aren't worth it?
You can't please all the people all the time".
Some people will sue over anything. I think they're just attention whores.
I'm ignoring this jerk.
interesting that they have atheist and agnost in the same category. 2 completely different ideas.
i would expect the muslim, jewish numbers are higher in reality.
but in the end i still look at it from this angle. to remove it is to take something away from the vast majority who place some value in it.
no atheist is forced to say those words, so therefore, how are they injured? i mean tangible injury - not a frustration over "they get to say something i don't believe".
if we were adding the phrase in today i would step back and say it probably wasn't worth it. but it is there, a couple of generations have been raised saying it. the majority value it.
i wouldn't support removing it anymore than i support draining lake powell. sure, maybe it wasn't the best idea to put it there in the first place. but the intention was good, and removing it now only satisfies a small majority who aren't being injured by the current situation.
Having "under God" in the pledge is as bad for the athiests as "not under God" would be for everyone else. Having no mention of God leaves it equal for everyone.
Can you imagine having your child attend school where everyone recites "one nation, not under God, indivisible..."
That's what it's like for the athiests.
Originally posted by lookout123
interesting that they have atheist and agnost in the same category. 2 completely different ideas.
I put them together for the purpose of my post. They are separate on the page.
Originally posted by Undertoad
This page suggests that your statistics are good, HM
Whoa. I was being very generous. From my link, I thought the 13.2% was people who didn't answer. Undertoad's link lists them as Nonreligious/Secular, which is probably what I'd check.
So how about this?
76.5% recognise Jesus as divine.
Using God instead (generously) adds 5.5%.
Removing any religious message includes at least an additional 14.6%.
Can you support "under God" over "under Jesus" in order to include 5.5% more people, but 14.6% more aren't worth it?
(chances are, it's between 1.4% and 14.6%)
Remember that if you're ever in the minority.
i've been in the minority.
1)in college i was one of the few who didnt qualify for financial aid because i didn't belong to a minority group and i worked so i made more than $6000 - no help for you.
2) i was a white guy who made more than $30K in a year so i had the honor of finding a way to pay out more than $45k cash for my son's birth. my wife's company changed ins. plans and neither company would cover the pregnancy. "impossible" pregnancy 2 surgeries( one to sew up her cervix to hold him in) , 5 months of absolute bedrest, invasive ultrasound every 14 days, weekly visits to the ER to stop contractions, shots, meds... i picked it up. and as the financial aid rep at the hospital said "too bad you are a white mutt - we just flew in a whole family from mexico city for the same condition." the hospital ( tax payers) picked up the tab as a good will charity case.
i survived then, i'm sure i can do it again.
edit: i know that is not the type of minority you were referring to, but just thought i'd let you know i've been on the outside looking in before.
I'm going to play devil's advocate here and ask you all this: Never mind the phrase "under God," why should little kids in effect be programmed with a loyalty oath everyday before school? Doesn't that seem a little Orwellian? And why do we have to pledge allegiance to "the flag" - a bit of colored cloth - and only as an after thought "to the Republic for which it stands"?
If we are going to put "The Pledge" under a microscope this way, these issues seem greater to me than the "under God" one. And, by the way, as a Buddhist, I protest being lumped in with those who do not believe in God. My God just doesn't go by the name of "Jesus."
and mari - i stated earlier that everyone of has a god of some sort. if you are saying "under god" why do you assume we all have to be talking about the same one.
one person may be saying "under Allah"
another "under jeshua"
another "under Jesus"
another "under troubleshooter"
Never mind the phrase "under God," why should little kids in effect be programmed with a loyalty oath everyday before school? Doesn't that seem a little Orwellian?
A lot of people who enter this country from elsewhere in the world find this aspect of American life to be one of the strangest. I've had more than one visitor from Europe and South America note that they found it creepy that children recite the pledge almost robotically every single morning. "Why do you need to pledge your allegiance every day? Don't they believe you the first time?" When viewed from an outside perspective, I suppose it does seem really odd, but I can't remember a school day going by without it, ever, so I don't know anything else.
In thinking of it this way, I became really curious as to the origins and reasoning behind the pledge.
Pledge Origins
Back in November of 2001, in reaction to the September 11th terrorist attacks, Wisconsin passed a law requiring all schools to offer the Pledge or anthem daily in grades one to twelve.
This is really weird even to me -- an American who attended school and heard it everyday. Why must a law be passed in order for students to reaffirm their patriotism? Shouldn't that sense of pride in your country come about on its own?
From this day forward the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty. ...Over the globe millions have been deadened in mind and soul by a materialistic philosophy of life. ...In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever shall be our country's most powerful resource in peace or in war. Originally posted by Kitsune
[ I've had more than one visitor from Europe and South America note that they found it creepy that children recite the pledge almost robotically every single morning. "Why do you need to pledge your allegiance every day? Don't they believe you the first time?" When viewed from an outside perspective, I suppose it does seem really odd, but I can't remember a school day going by without it, ever, so I don't know anything else. [/B]
i also read about a lady in NY who was extremely pissed about the flag-waving, and all the pro-America rhetoric at a public event. of course she was only quoted in the newspaper because she was one of the first group of to gain citizenship after 9/11.
Why must a law be passed in order for students to reaffirm their patriotism? Shouldn't that sense of pride in your country come about on its own?
why does FL have a law making it illegal to screw an alligator? because politicians like to get face time by introducing useless legislation.
Originally posted by lookout123
why does FL have a law making it illegal to screw an alligator? because politicians like to get face time by introducing useless legislation.
Hey! Wanna know what Colorado's new state rock is? Oh, never mind.;)
why does FL have a law making it illegal to screw an alligator? because politicians like to get face time by introducing useless legislation.
Huh. Wouldn't it be weird if that is what this whole "Pledge" this was to begin with? Oh, wait...
Originally posted by marichiko
I'm going to play devil's advocate here and ask you all this: Never mind the phrase "under God," why should little kids in effect be programmed with a loyalty oath everyday before school?
They shouldn't.
And, by the way, as a Buddhist, I protest being lumped in with those who do not believe in God. My God just doesn't go by the name of "Jesus."
Like I said, it's more complicated than that. Some Buddhists believe in God, some don't. I used it to meet lookout123's "some eastern philosophies" quote. The difference is probably countered by some of the "Random other" which I gave to the "God" side, but in the end it doesn't affect the argument much.
Originally posted by lookout123
another "under jeshua"
another "under Jesus"
another "under troubleshooter"
another undertoad?
Originally posted by Undertoad
another undertoad?
whatever floats your boat. i just think that if you are your own god it would be a real kick to hear every one say "under _____" every morning, and secretly know they are talking about me.
Naw, I's just playing the play on words. I think it would be too much responsibility to hear all these people making requests of me and such. Although it would be good to have my name called out every time somebody orgasms.
I still haven't read/heard any reason why an atheist would be 'hurt' by saying or hearing the world God.
Ok, so this guy goes off to sue to have Under God removed because its presence is harmful to his daughter. That being the case, why stop there? If it hurts and offends him so much, he should push to ban words and phrases, like Oh my God! or God-given, in the same way people push to have books banned. He should give Webster a call and demand to have those words and phrases removed from dictionaries and thesauruses and like books because his daughter just might read them. NBC should get an earful anytime one of the Friends says "Oh my God!" Let's go, buddy boy, your Crusade has only just begun! (oh wait...can I even call it a crusade?)
Why just single out the government when his daughter is more likely to hear and repeat the term God from so many other places than in the Pledge? Maybe its because the government is capable of the biggest pay out, just in case he wins?
Originally posted by Cyber Wolf
Why just single out the government when his daughter is more likely to hear and repeat the term God from so many other places than in the Pledge?
The issue is...by having the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, is the government endorsing religion?
Why just single out the government when his daughter is more likely to hear and repeat the term God from so many other places than in the Pledge? Maybe its because the government is capable of the biggest pay out, just in case he wins?
I think these are the issues most people have with it:
The public school system is/was forcing children to say the pledge under threat of punishment.
The pledge contains the words "under god".
This version of the pledge, unlike the original, gives the impression that pledging your allegiance to the United States of America requires that you recognize that it is "under God".
"Under God" is understood, by most, to specifically refer to the Christian version recognized by the majority.
The words "under god" are thought, by most, to suggest that our government is endorsing this Christian god. Many people find this unconstitutional.
This doesn't have to do with the word "god" causing aethist's ears to burn and heads to explode as much as it does that there is the suggestion that people of other religions or no religions are not able to pledge their allegiance to the country and are excluded from this activity that takes place in every classroom in every public school in the nation.
GHWB (41) in 1988:
Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are Atheists?
Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the Atheist community. Faith in god is important to me.
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are Atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
There you go CW: an American Vice-President, at a press conference where he is running for President, using the pledge to state that Atheists are not citizens or patriots. And the result? He was elected.
Nice goin'
Is that a real quote? That's amazing to me that Bush would say that. I think I hate the guy as much as I can, and then you show me reasons to hate him even more.
Edited to say I just saw the part that it was his Dad that said it. Nevermind.
Originally posted by Cyber Wolf
[quote]I still haven't read/heard any reason why an atheist would be 'hurt' by saying or hearing the world God.
OK, now we're in "sticks and stones will break by bones but words will never hurt me" category. If it doesn't "hurt" atheists to acknowledge God, surely it won't "hurt" Christians to be coerced into publicly deny the divinity of Jesus. It's just words, right? Why stop at the Pledge of Allegiance? We could mandate the recitation of the Apostle's Creed! Hell, it's just words, right?
You just can't say "it won't hurt the damned athiests because it's just a formality and nobody takes it seriously anyway" because then you've trivialized it, and it doesn't mean anything to the believers anyway, does it?
But enough of this. I agree with marichiko. All this religious talk distracts from the issue of Stepford-like indoctrination directed at the flag!! Not the country... not the constitution... not even our beloved government officials... but the flag... a fetishization which, in my book, borders on idolatry (for those of you who've read the First Commandment).
Originally posted by glatt
borders [on idolatry]? It is idolatry.
You guys are
really getting off track. Idolatry is the worship of an idol representing a diety. Since Christians worship Jesus and God, and since they are baying the loudest over keeping God in the pledge then it stands to reason that they are not worshipping the flag. They are pledging their allegience - loyalty- to the United States as represented in the classroom by the flag. All "allegience" means is that you will not put another country ahead of the United States - what's so bad about that? If you can't or don't want to then don't become a citizen (or renounce your citizenship and all the bennies that come with it).
I don't know what the big deal is about the pledge. If athiests don't want to say "under god" then no one should make them. They should be permitted to recite the old "pre-god" version. People who are religiously opposed to the pledge should not be forced to recite it at all - they can lip synch a prayer orremain seated. The very idea that we need to cancel the pledge because someone who sits it out "might" get some derision is so beyond asinine that I don't have any words for it. Sitting out the pledge on some valid principle is the most American thing I can think of and the courage of any student who did so in the face of derision is a model American for the other students to observe and learn from. Its a teacher's job to point that out.
All this fuss for such a small deal.
A president put "under god" in the pledge and, since he was president and all, he gets to do stuff like that. Some other president is free to take it out. Maybe the Kerry supporters could encourage Kerry to make that part of his platform.
Glatt, in fact, W has the opposite opinion of his pop, mentioning lack of faith as something that has to be accepted in the same way as other faiths.
a belief in no god is no different than a belief in god. it is accepted on faith. so therefore atheism is a faith in it's own right.
Umm. That makes no sense.
Athiesm is based on an absence of faith not on faith.
atheisim is a belief that there is no god. it cannot be proven that there is no god so atheism has to be accepted on faith.
I can see we are going around in circles on this one. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
i agree. buuut. think it through. a belief in something that cannot be proven is a belief based on faith. a belief that there is no god cannot be proven, so it must be based on faith.
i'm not trying to say that you belong to a religion, merely that atheism is not a lack of faith.
Originally posted by lookout123
a belief in something that cannot be proven is a belief based on faith.
Nyet.
A mouse that lives in my garage and I were talking last week and he told me that there is a planetoid exactly on the other side of the moon such that we can never see it. That is where his family lives. He seems credible and has good stash so I take what he says on faith.
Now before you read (past tense) this post, you did not (I hope :-) believe there was a planetoid of intelligent mice on the other side of the moon. Hopefully you still don't. So, I can say with reasonable certainty that your belief system hasn't changed in spite of my tale. So, at what point did it become an act of faith on your part that you didn't/don't believe in a 2nd moon?
But the atheists HAVE considered whether there is a god (planetoid) before. If the atheists had never heard of god, your analogy would work.
And then they'd merely be Heathens :p
Bald is also a hair color, and not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Originally posted by Clodfobble
But the atheists HAVE considered whether there is a god (planetoid) before. If the atheists had never heard of god, your analogy would work.
I still think my analogy works (can't help it - I'm stubborn :-).
My point is this. Atheists never believed in God. When someone else introduced them to the idea, they still didn't. It didn't spontaneously become an act of faith at the instant they became exposed to the idea even if they briefly considered it.
Belief in the absence of evidence is faith.
Disbelief in the presence of evidence is faith.
Disbelief in the absence of evidence is not faith (imho).
Note to self: add atheists to the list of "i before e" exceptions :)
Originally posted by Beestie
Now before you read (past tense) this post, you did not (I hope :-) believe there was a planetoid of intelligent mice on the other side of the moon. Hopefully you still don't. So, I can say with reasonable certainty that your belief system hasn't changed in spite of my tale. So, at what point did it become an act of faith on your part that you didn't/don't believe in a 2nd moon?
ok now you have screwed up my day - i'm giong to be stressed out about an invasion of talking mice from outer space.
here's the thing - unless i can PROVE that there is not a planet filled with talking mice, then my belief that there isn't is a matter of faith.
belief without proof is faith. period. if you can point out to me why this is inaccurate i will alter my view. but you can't. if it was proveable it would be a fact, then you can choose to accept or ignore it. if it is unproveable then is a choice to believe or not believe - no matter which side you land on you are relying on faith.
So for you, faith is almost meaningless? I guess I thought the word had a stronger, more active implication. I've got faith in things like friends and family, not in the lack of faeries.
Originally posted by Happy Monkey
I've got faith in things like friends and family, not in the lack of faeries.
Ah, but you
do have
evidence -- previous exerience -- on the reliability of your friends and family. Not on the almighty.
I am a life-long atheist; I really wanted to pick a fight about the damn pledge back when I was in school. But all my teachers said was "Fine, sit down." None of the other kids even mentioned it to me. Total non-issue. And here I was, spoiling for a good fight. :rar:
- Pie
Originally posted by Happy Monkey
So for you, faith is almost meaningless? I guess I thought the word had a stronger, more active implication. I've got faith in things like friends and family, not in the lack of faeries.
no, it is not meaningless. it is very important and powerful, faith is what allows you to believe the unproveable.
i refuse to get into a discussion trying to prove the existance of god, but here is the scenario - You believe there is no god. you are placing faith in the fact that revelation is just a man-created book, that no second coming will occur and therefore no consequence to your choice not to believe in god.
but you have not ALWAYS been an atheist. at some point in your life you there was a moment that you stopped and said "is there a god?" for whatever reason, you decided that there is no god so you don't feel the need to participate in someone's ridiculous rituals. you made a choice not to believe and participate based on your faith in the
absence of god. it cannot be proven so it is an action or decision based on faith.
Originally posted by lookout123
You believe there is no god. you are placing faith in the fact that revelation is just a man-created book, that no second coming will occur and therefore no consequence to your choice not to believe in god.
I've got no faith in that. That's just the default position if I've got no faith that it's true.
OK, look. I presume we all agree that the universe, including the earth and the surrounding galaxy exists, right? Well, why SHOULD it exist? How come there's not just nothing? Wouldn't "nothing" be simpler, all around? Give me scientific proof of the reason for existence of energy and matter. If you can give me that scientific proof, then I'll allow that atheism isn't as much a "faith" as anything else. Atheists believe with absolutely no proof that no higher power exists. God can be neither proven nor disproven. A firm belief either way is an act of faith. The man who lacks faith is the agnostic, not the atheist.
mari, you and i rarely land on the same side of an issue... *sniff, wipe tear from eye* i just don't know what to say. i'm going to call it a night.
Originally posted by lookout123
mari, you and i rarely land on the same side of an issue... *sniff, wipe tear from eye* i just don't know what to say. i'm going to call it a night.
I love you, man! (staggers off in disbelief into the Colorado night).
I guess what we have here is a failure to communicate. I don't have any religious faith, so what I know of it is how other people describe it. From those descriptions, I assumed that it was more powerful and meaningful than my disbelief in, say, unicorns. But if you are telling me differently, I'll take your word for it. My disbelief in the various gods is equivalent to each other and to all other mythological creatures. If you consider that to be on the same level as your religious faith, so be it.
way to twist it HM. what i said is that anything that any belief that cannot be proven must be based on faith. you are reading way too much into it. don't get pissed just because you suddenly realize you have faith of a sort.
i believe you are talking about the strength of faith. that is an individual issue. how much do you actually care about the belief?
1) suddenly god appears before you with a newsreel from the beginning of time. he has proven his existence - that would probably shake you up pretty deeply, right?
2) peter jennings reports on the news that they found an island of unicorns. you shrug your shoulders and keep eating your pot pie. big deal.
the existence of unicorns doesn't consume much thought for the average person. at some point in life, most people spend some time contemplating the existence of god. both views have to be based on faith because they are not proveable. if one day both issues can be settled by hard proof, which issue will have a greater effect on you?
faith is the starting point, the basis for acceptance of an idea. disbelief in god and disbelief in unicorns are not equal.
Sure, HM, the thought of god leaves you indifferent, but what if you imagined yourself trying to believe in some sort of God? Do you feel a strong sense of rejection of the very thought? As a scientist, I can state that my disbelief in unicorns is based on sound factual evidence. No reliable source has ever reported sighting one, and there is no evidence that unicorns ever existed in the fossil record. That is not faith. No one has yet to prove to me that a disbelief in God can be shown to have a basis via scientific evidence. Science can come up with the big bang theory, but it has yet to come up with a theory for the existence of matter. So matter just exists with no reason? There's no logic to that.
As I said, if that's all it takes to have what you consider faith, then I'll concede it.
In terms of levels of faith, I have the same faith in the nonexistence of gods and unicorns. Debating God is more interesting because there are people who do believe in Him.
As for the relative importance of me being proven wrong, it wouldn't shake me up much at all if God showed up. I'd be more surprised by that than unicorns (God has more fantastic powers), but you can't really organize your life around the nonexistence of God, so I wouldn't have much in my life to rearrange.
You sound like more of an agnostic than an atheist to me, HM.:confused:
Originally posted by marichiko
No reliable source has ever reported sighting one, and there is no evidence that unicorns ever existed in the fossil record. That is not faith.
No reliable source has ever reported the existance of god; and there is no evidence to support the "supernatural".
No one has yet to prove to me that a disbelief in God can be shown to have a basis via scientific evidence.
No, it goes the other way. Existance needs to be proved, not non-existance. I can postulate the existance of a creature called the undingquat and provide you with its vital statistics; that doesn't mean that it does exist.
Hard evidence is necessary.
Science can come up with the big bang theory, but it has yet to come up with a theory for the existence of matter. So matter just exists with no reason? There's no logic to that.
Heard of the Higgs boson? It's the current frontrunner for the role of creating mass. But, you see, scientists won't state that conclusively till there is
hard evidence... :)
- Pie
i once heard that scientifically that it is impossible to prove anything - it is only possible to disprove alternatives.
but anyway - pie, Can you conclusively prove there is no God?
Originally posted by marichiko
Sure, HM, the thought of god leaves you indifferent, but what if you imagined yourself trying to believe in some sort of God? Do you feel a strong sense of rejection of the very thought?
No. I just consider it silly, the same as the power of crystals, homeopathy, astrology, and -of course - unicorns.
As a scientist, I can state that my disbelief in unicorns is based on sound factual evidence. No reliable source has ever reported sighting one, and there is no evidence that unicorns ever existed in the fossil record. That is not faith. No one has yet to prove to me that a disbelief in God can be shown to have a basis via scientific evidence.
Well, you're disagreeing with lookout123 there. He's saying that both are faith. Regardless, no one will ever prove to you that disbelief in God can be shown to have a basis via scientific evidence - because it can't. No matter what science discovers, one could always say that God made it happen. Random particular details in interpretations of scripture can be disproven, but then the scripture can be reinterpreted. Don't wait for science to disprove God.
Science can come up with the big bang theory, but it has yet to come up with a theory for the existence of matter. So matter just exists with no reason? There's no logic to that.
First, I don't feel the need to fill holes in science with magic. I just consider them unknown information. Second, there's no theory for the creation of God, either. He is just assumed to have always existed, or to have spontaneously generated. That's no more logical than the universe having always existed or spontaneously generating.
You sound like more of an agnostic than an atheist to me, HM.
Perhaps. The details of the differences between them fluctuate based on who's doing the defining. I'm on the border between them. I feel there's no way to tell for certain, but my opinion is on the atheist side. Some call that a weak atheist, some say it's a weak agnostic.
atheist = there was and is not supreme being, creator, etc.
agnost = there was a creator who has left us on our own with no further input.
Originally posted by lookout123
but anyway - pie, Can you conclusively prove there is no God?
Irrelevant. Can you conclusively prove there is one?
I won't live my life as a slave to someone else's delusions... Prove they're not delusions, and I'll consider it on its merits. Otherwise, it's a load of hooey.
- Pie
Originally posted by lookout123
i once heard that scientifically that it is impossible to prove anything - it is only possible to disprove alternatives.
That's true, but only for alternatives that are defined in a disprovable way. It is not possible to disprove God, because no matter what is discovered, you can always say, "God is omnipotent - He made it that way." Therefore, it is not a question that science can address.
Originally posted by Pie
Irrelevant. Can you conclusively prove there is one?
I won't live my life as a slave to someone else's delusions... Prove they're not delusions, and I'll consider it on its merits. Otherwise, it's a load of hooey.
- Pie
whether there is or is not a god, is not the issue. can you PROVE either idea? if not, then your belief must rest on faith.
Originally posted by Happy Monkey
That's true, but only for alternatives that are defined in a disprovable way. It is not possible to disprove God, because no matter what is discovered, you can always say, "God is omnipotent - He made it that way." Therefore, it is not a question that science can address.
i know that - that has actually been my idea in this whole thread. i was just asking in general. i think i was referring to one of Pie's posts but i don't remember.
Originally posted by lookout123
atheist = there was and is not supreme being, creator, etc.
agnost = there was a creator who has left us on our own with no further input.
Like I said, the definitions are not always agreed upon.
A quick trip to Google found
this:
It is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and weak atheist positions. "Weak atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. "Strong atheism" is an explicitly held belief that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists". There is a qualitative difference in the "strong" and "weak" positions; it's not just a matter of degree.
...
The term 'agnosticism' was coined by Professor T.H. Huxley at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1876. He defined an agnostic as someone who disclaimed both ("strong") atheism and theism, and who believed that the question of whether a higher power existed was unsolved and insoluble. Another way of putting it is that an agnostic is someone who believes that we do not know for sure whether God exists. Some agnostics believe that we can never know.
In recent years, however, the term agnostic has also been used to describe those who simply believe that the evidence for or against God is inconclusive, and therefore are undecided about the issue.
To reduce the amount of confusion over the use of term agnosticism, it is recommended that usage based on a belief that we cannot know whether God exists be qualified as "strict agnosticism" and usage based on the belief that we merely do not know yet be qualified as "empirical agnosticism".
By those metrics, I am an "empirical agnostic" and a "weak atheist".
Originally posted by lookout123
atheist = there was and is not supreme being, creator, etc.
agnost = there was a creator who has left us on our own with no further input.
Actually, an agnostic is someone who says God may or may not exist. Period. Someone who believed in a creator who left us to our own devices would still be a believer in God.
And I didn't mean to imply that I think there's any scientific proof regarding God one way or the other. As far as I'm concerned, science can neither prove nor disprove the existance of God. Either way its a matter of faith.
Originally posted by marichiko
As far as I'm concerned, science can neither prove nor disprove the existance of God. Either way its a matter of faith.
Do you believe or "have faith" in
all things unprovable? If not, why did you pick this one?
By your argument, I also "have faith" that undingquat don't exist.
It's an irrational argument.
- Pie
[SIZE=4]B]BRICK WALL[/B] [/SIZE]
*SMACK*
i think we've hit the wall folks
The problem is that people keep comparing apples and oranges. Faith is not the pervue of science. An imaginary colony of mice on the other side of the moon or a unicorn is hardly in the same category as God. In the former cases we are speaking of things that if they existed would give solid physical proof of doing so. By definition "God" is not a physical entity. I have chosen to believe that a higher power exists because I find it psychologically and morally appealing to believe that there is an Intelligence which animates the universe. I cannot prove this, but no one can disprove this either. I have no problem with someone who chooses to believe there is no God, but its still just a belief either way.