Atheism

[Ms Tree]

It would be nice if it went to court. I am pretty sure the city would lose. If you use public funds the public has to be treated equally. Takes a lot of money to pursue a court case so I doubt it will happen. Not like it's a big deal right? It's only the 1st amendment.

 

[delldude]

It would be nice if it went to court. I am pretty sure the city would lose. If you use public funds the public has to be treated equally. Takes a lot of money to pursue a court case so I doubt it will happen. Not like it's a big deal right? It's only the 1st amendment.

Money is an issue? Where ACLU on this egregious violation of the sacred 1st amendment?

You can show me where PA is wrong?

 

[Ms Tree]

Public funds are being used for a religious display and segment of society was denied equal access.

The ACLU does not have the ability to fight every battle. I believe their funds are limited as well.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Money is an issue? Where ACLU on this egregious violation of the sacred 1st amendment?

You can show me where PA is wrong?

Dell,

Here's where I get hung up. In the Declaration of Independence it states:

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

According to the Founding Fathers our rights are conferred by a God Head of some kind, A Creator, Nature's God and the concept of Natural Law. The Uniformity of Nature do not (arbitrarily) change, and they apply throughout the whole cosmos. The laws of nature apply in the future just as they have applied in the past; this is one of the most basic assumptions in all of science. Without this basic assumption, science would be impossible. If the laws of nature suddenly and arbitrarily changed tomorrow, then past experimental results would tell us nothing about the future. Why is it that we can depend on the laws of nature to apply consistently throughout time? The secular scientists cannot justify this important assumption. To me the answer is quite simple, Our Creator has control over all creation and sustains the universe in a consistent and logical way.

If no creator, no natural law, no science, no basis to in fact debate the existence of a Creator can exist. Additionally if a person professes non belief in a Creator, how then do they have any basis upon which to demand "rights"? Since rights are conferred by the Creator?

Without a belief in a Creator we get the likes of Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Kim jong 'Il and a host of genocidal mass murderers not mentioned as yet. These despots were/are atheists and their death and destruction is measured in MILLIONS, both in dollar and people terms. The bigotry of those who believe as they do is clear for all to see. Now we see the end result of their bifotry being exposed for what it is. Being reduced to filing suits over Nativity Scenes on the courthouse lawn,

 

[delldude]

Dell,

Here's where I get hung up. In the Declaration of Independence it states:



According to the Founding Fathers our rights are conferred by a God Head of some kind, A Creator, Nature's God and the concept of Natural Law. The Uniformity of Nature do not (arbitrarily) change, and they apply throughout the whole cosmos. The laws of nature apply in the future just as they have applied in the past; this is one of the most basic assumptions in all of science. Without this basic assumption, science would be impossible. If the laws of nature suddenly and arbitrarily changed tomorrow, then past experimental results would tell us nothing about the future. Why is it that we can depend on the laws of nature to apply consistently throughout time? The secular scientists cannot justify this important assumption. To me the answer is quite simple, Our Creator has control over all creation and sustains the universe in a consistent and logical way.

If no creator, no natural law, no science, no basis to in fact debate the existence of a Creator can exist. Additionally if a person professes non belief in a Creator, how then do they have any basis upon which to demand "rights"? Since rights are conferred by the Creator?

Without a belief in a Creator we get the likes of Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Kim jong 'Il and a host of genocidal mass murderers not mentioned as yet. These despots were/are atheists and their death and destruction is measured in MILLIONS, both in dollar and people terms. The bigotry of those who believe as they do is clear for all to see. Now we see the end result of their bifotry being exposed for what it is. Being reduced to filing suits over Nativity Scenes on the courthouse lawn,

I know.....I agree......whether some like it or not, the belief in divine providence was the motivating factor in the foundation and formation and success of the new country. What some can't grasp is the fact that although GOD was the core, the founders had enough sense to realize not everyone chooses to believe or worship and have that right not to,so now these clowns stick it up everybody's butt everytime they get a chance over a lame tax argument.

 

[Ms Tree]

If no creator, no natural law, no science, no basis to in fact debate the existence of a Creator can exist. Additionally if a person professes non belief in a Creator, how then do they have any basis upon which to demand "rights"? Since rights are conferred by the Creator?

Asked and answered several times before. I believe that rights are conferred upon man by man. Man gives the rights and takes them away.

Assuming for a moment that the lack of religious dogma is what resulted in some of the despots actions, this does not automatically make religion a good thing. Religion has been the cause of quite a bit of evil through out it's history. The fact that the evil has been spread out over time makes it far more difficult to quantify.

Morality is not the sole property of religion. I would argue that the lack of morality is what allowed the despots to rise. What you two are failing to acknowledge is that the despots in question did not rise in a vacuum. The society in which they rose would also be complicit in their crimes. Hitler had popular support. So did the others till the despot turned against the population.

Your argument that 'atheist is evil' does not make 'religion good' true. Religion has it's own evil to contend with.

 

[delldude]

Asked and answered several times before. I believe that rights are conferred upon man by man. Man gives the rights and takes them away.

Assuming for a moment that the lack of religious dogma is what resulted in some of the despots actions, this does not automatically make religion a good thing. Religion has been the cause of quite a bit of evil through out it's history. The fact that the evil has been spread out over time makes it far more difficult to quantify.

Morality is not the sole property of religion. I would argue that the lack of morality is what allowed the despots to rise. What you two are failing to acknowledge is that the despots in question did not rise in a vacuum. The society in which they rose would also be complicit in their crimes. Hitler had popular support. So did the others till the despot turned against the population.

Your argument that 'atheist is evil' does not make 'religion good' true. Religion has it's own evil to contend with.

Who then is this man who granted us plebes our rights?

 

[Ms Tree]

Man was plural not singular in the context of the sentence.

The men who wrote the COTUS are the men who created the basis for the US and the rights that govern our nation.

I believe if you read the COTUS you will even find that Congress is granted the power to make laws. I am pretty sure that the COTUS did not confer that right to god.

 

[delldude]

Man was plural not singular in the context of the sentence.

The men who wrote the COTUS are the men who created the basis for the US and the rights that govern our nation.

I believe if you read the COTUS you will even find that Congress is granted the power to make laws. I am pretty sure that the COTUS did not confer that right to god.

Preamble says creator.....

Man is singular......Men is plural.

 

[Ms Tree]

The COTUS does not contain the word god or creator in it. You are referring to the DI. The DI is not what governs the laws of the US.

The word 'man' can also refer to all of man kind depending on context.

 

[delldude]

The COTUS does not contain the word god or creator in it. You are referring to the DI. The DI is not what governs the laws of the US.

The word 'man' can also refer to all of man kind depending on context.

Mentions the Lord..... 😱

 

[Ms Tree]

Where?

 

[tech2101]

Man is singular......

What?

Man as a verb or a noun?

 

[xUT]

What?

Man as a verb or a noun?

What does the CMM say?

 

[delldude]