Atheism
- Thread starter xUT
- Start date
DarkSnowyNight
Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 65
- Reaction score
- 59
It may have already been said, but try replacing the word "chaplain" with "abortion" or "gay marriage"(or as I like to refer to it 'non-discriminatory practices regarding marriage) or "new automobile" and see what the response is. Yes, it's a voluntary activity, and they should have to pay for whatever it costs.
Except in the case being discussed. There's no question that this is a clear cut violation of the non-establishment clause. As for how it's handled, see below...
That's kind of how I've always seen it. Twenty years ago, two men or women being legally married was probably unfathomable. But as the religious led movement to continue discriminatory practices loses steam and relevance, we see that fighting "gay marriage" is a losing battle. Like Quadaffi's hold on Tripoli, or the criminalization of marijuana usage, it is only a matter of time before the anti-freedom crowd loses this one. And they know it.
Today's "sacred cows" like Chaplains, the fraudulent claims that "under god has always been in pledge", seeing "in god we trust"(or was it just rust?) on currency, and the non-profit status of churches will be the next to go. The religious crowd can laugh those off too, but history is moving on just the same.
Just looking back the different place this nation was 50 or more years ago, it's not hard to see that what was once commonly acceptable, despite the questionable legalities, is no longer even present, let alone debated, in so many areas, particularly for the religious establishment.
And your post was a rookie misquote. What DarkSnowyNight actually said was that churches, those things that a young anti-roman hippie/terrorist had no idea would spring up to take advantage of his name and stories, demand that 10% out of you. And that is indeed quite correct. Try going to one sometime.
What's made even worse is that our tax dollars pay for those establishments, as of now, to perpetuate this garbage.
Self appointed is the term you're looking for. Your belief is not wrong any more than the color blue is. Right and wrong are concepts so subjective as to be nearly worthless. Going around not hurting other people is about the best we can hope for, and that's not bad. Subjectively speaking, of course. But if you are insinuating that us "non-believers" think you're incorrect in regards to there being a magic anger fairy in control of the Universe, yes I think it's no great leap to think that I know that's erroneous. Thusly, you believing otherwise would be incorrect, yes.
Oh my. 😱
D
Deleted member 17588
Guest
xUT
Veteran
Under the UCMJ, Soldiers have the right to ‘equal’ access of religious freedom. We send them all over the world for our protection and provide for their health and welfare. Atheists are allowed this right as well, all be equal N’Chit. Do you propose that we deny our wounded, dying and dead their right, or pull it from their death benefits if they/and/or their families ask for it?
Actually, history is repeating itself. Or did you think this up all by yourself?
I go to Church all the time and never heard that Jesus demands 10% of my income. But it has never mattered to me as I have usually contributed more than that. If you hear someone say that, then don’t do it.
Free Will N’Chit.
(Young anti-roman hippie/terrorist… LOL, never heard of this one, maybe Juniority has a cartoon)
Our Tax Dollars are ‘tax deductible’ for contributions, you don’t pay taxes for religious entities.
If you want a ‘flat tax’ then I am all in.
Hair splitting, self imposed/self appointed. WTF?
That’s your problem. You is no right and wrong, expand that to no morals and ethics.
Humanity has been here before and the result is not pretty.
You propose Anarchy and that Chit don’t fly either.
Shoot for the gutter? Self defeatist? How about trying to help your fellow human being?
No, I think your whole diatribe is irrational and nonsensical. Obfuscate, your ‘belief’ as much as you like.
B) xUT
Ms Tree
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2010
- Messages
- 9,731
- Reaction score
- 9,009
You are asking him to prove his theory yet you have offered no proof to support your theory. The crux of the issue is that there is no proof that could be offered that a faith based belief would believe just as there is no proof that could be offered that a science based belief would believe.
I think the biggest difference is that the sciences offer proof of their theorems every day. If an aerospace engineer has an idea of a new design, they build it in a computer first and test it in a digital wind tunnel. If it works, they build a model and test it in a real wind tunnel. If it still works they build real model and test it in real life. Same thing goes for nearly any scientific theory. They all get tested and proven or disproven by peers. When was the last time you heard Boeing come out with a new design and say "hey, we have not done any testing on this new design but trust us, it will fly just fine". And yes, mistakes have been made. Lots and lots of mistakes. That is how science learns and advances. One person comes up with an idea and his/her peers try and find a problem with it or break it.
Religion has no such process. claims to be perfect (even though there was a re-write from bible 1.0 to 2.0 to get rid of the stuff people did not like). No one goes around testing the bible or trying to prove it wrong to see if it really is right. It is right because I believe it is right. That postulation caries no more weight than my postulation that it is wrong because I believe it is wrong. There is no way to prove religion is wrong any more than you can prove a widget does not exist.
The bottom line for me is that fact that nearly every human on the face of the planet accepts science on a daily basis. Science created the computer and internet to make this very conversation possible. Science develops the polymers, medicines and technology that makes up nearly every fact of our daily lives. Yet, when the science does not support someones belief which has no out side support, it is not true. Not sure how that works. I guess that's why they call it faith.
I think the biggest difference is that the sciences offer proof of their theorems every day. If an aerospace engineer has an idea of a new design, they build it in a computer first and test it in a digital wind tunnel. If it works, they build a model and test it in a real wind tunnel. If it still works they build real model and test it in real life. Same thing goes for nearly any scientific theory. They all get tested and proven or disproven by peers. When was the last time you heard Boeing come out with a new design and say "hey, we have not done any testing on this new design but trust us, it will fly just fine". And yes, mistakes have been made. Lots and lots of mistakes. That is how science learns and advances. One person comes up with an idea and his/her peers try and find a problem with it or break it.
Religion has no such process. claims to be perfect (even though there was a re-write from bible 1.0 to 2.0 to get rid of the stuff people did not like). No one goes around testing the bible or trying to prove it wrong to see if it really is right. It is right because I believe it is right. That postulation caries no more weight than my postulation that it is wrong because I believe it is wrong. There is no way to prove religion is wrong any more than you can prove a widget does not exist.
The bottom line for me is that fact that nearly every human on the face of the planet accepts science on a daily basis. Science created the computer and internet to make this very conversation possible. Science develops the polymers, medicines and technology that makes up nearly every fact of our daily lives. Yet, when the science does not support someones belief which has no out side support, it is not true. Not sure how that works. I guess that's why they call it faith.
DarkSnowyNight
Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 65
- Reaction score
- 59
What's there to prove? I'm not the one trying to sell a nation on a fantasy it no longer wants. You can't just say (putting this in the basist possible terms here) that there's a god, complete with all manner magical powers and personality disorders, and then demand that people 'prove' otherwise. And anyway, if you took your argument seriously (as I get the impression that you don't by the way...) you would have answered my question about five posts back. To save you the effort, I asked why, if your god is all powerful and fearfully angry and so forth, does he allow the steady and inexorable ruin of his relevance, especially as Man made technology eclipses all of his 'accomplishments.' From the religious imperialism crowd, I got crickets on that one.
Rational Reasoning = +1
god = oh crap, there's yet another thing I can't outsmart!
The UCMJ is, at best, a parallel legal system, to a Strict Constructionist like your's truly, means absolutely nothing. Why it is a bad example here is b/c it was designed specifically to circumvent constitutional "issues" for the purpose of maintaining military order during times of war. Like all beaurocracies eventuallly do, it has swelled to proportions it was never meant to. What it does with members of the military is technically none of my concern (as I have no interest in things who's relevance is debatable), but when my Tax Dollars are used to provide for things our Constitution clearly says are out of bounds, yes I have a problem with that.
I could no more support the UCMJ authorizing this than I could watch it make some excuse for slavery.
It doesn't matter what I think here. How can you say history is repeating itself? Unless you are implying that we will somehow shortly find ourselves in a Dark Age. Is that what you're going for? Because otherwise, no, the world is indeed waking up and shaking off this religious hangover era.
I'm obviously in no danger of voluntarily contributing anything to any religious affiliation. Now to just get the things my tax dollars pay for free of such non-sense...
I have mixed feelings about flat taxes... Perhaps another day.
But no, WRT religious institutions, they exist as non-profit entities, despite the obvious for profit nature of their existences. By necessity, this shifts a tax burden to all other businesses and citizens that would NOT otherwise exist. This is the case, yet it represents a clear violation of the non-establishment clause. It's time for churches to get off the dole and pay their own way, just like any other business has to.
Nope.
Self appointed = I know I'm not a genius per se, but smart enough to see through the BS here, and smart enough to recognize that there IS in fact a problem in regards to the legality of quite a few issues surrounding religion in this country.
Self Imposed = The manner in which religious interest seek to have their view points unmuted at public expense, regardless of the wrongess of it.
To me there is no right and wrong? That's probably because there is no such thing as right and wrong, full stop. That would be why I do not perceive it. Soooooooo, where's the problem?
And no, Humanity hasn't been there before. It never left. I'm not going to get into what I know about good and evil and all the other artificial constructs we use to help more efficiently build a productive society. But I'll tell you this much, since we're now interested in things like right vs. wrong..
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion"
That's a quote from a real genius,complete with patents and such...
You take religion out of the equation, and we're at least 30% better off, if that is, you're still interested in morality. god obviously wouldn't want you looking behind that particular curtain.
I also do not propose Anarchy. I don't have a problem with Anarchy per se, but I've never seen a case where something great came as a result.
What gutter? If we achieved that, we'd be better off as a species then we ever have been. Or did you miss out on the whole god-sponsored dark ages?
You'd have to. Thinking that of the Scientific Method, progress, any form of rational thought, etc, is a must if you want to believe in a god. You really can't let facts and reason get in the way.
Seatacus
Veteran
Will this work for the Theory of Evolution. Has it been tested in a lab? Have they been able to recreate evolution in real life?
dapoes
Veteran
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 3,543
- Reaction score
- 2,716
Apparently so, a lame flea bag liberal cartoon cat evolved into a rotted tree stump.
Ms Tree
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2010
- Messages
- 9,731
- Reaction score
- 9,009
Nope, it cannot be reproduced and there is no need to. They have been able to observe it in real life (bacteria) as well as in fossil records.
Seatacus
Veteran
So much for the scientific method. BTW a fossil is just a snapshot of the life of that species.
