Do you believe in God?

[Danoff]

That makes no sense. You don't believe in a supernatural being, you can't just flat out say "there is no God". Yes you don't believe in a supernatural being, so therefore you believe their nothing else out there. The converse is true.

Do you believe (100% certainty) that I am holding a purple dinosaur puppet in my hands right now? I'm sure you'll answer no. Now, do you believe (100% certainty) that I am not holding a purple dinosaur puppet in my hands right now? I'm guessing you'll answer no again.

Purple dinosaur puppet = god

Q.E.D.

 

[dennisw]

Purple dinosaur puppet = god

Q.E.D.

You may not express your god tho
Stupid school

 

[Duke]

Right but you still believe there is no supernatural being. There is still some sort of belief there because you cannot know for sure. It makes sense yes.

It makes sense NO.

There are an infinite number of things that I can't prove don't exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Literally everything that has ever been imagined by every semi-sentient being with a rudimentary imagination could exist and there is no way to prove otherwise. It's a logical impossibility to prove something does NOT exist.

You're coming at it from the wrong direction. I don't have faith that there is no god. I think there is no god because I see nothing that requires a supernatural deity as the only plausible explanation.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Only if taxation is based on a religious requirement. Which it's not.

Not necessarily.

Wait... who's claiming to BE a deity now?

See below

I'm aware of titheing. I am, after all, from a country where the practice predates the assembly of the current Bible...

But as TheCracker points out, it's a practice specific to certain sects of Christianity and the links between what's actually said in the Bible about tithes and the practice of followers giving a tithe are... tenuous at best.]

To my knowledge it is commonly taught amoung most if not all Protestant denominations.

Since the "god" on your currency isn't specifically named it would be foolhardy to assume that it is the one of Christianity and your sect in particular - which makes your voluntary practice irrelevant in the discussion of taxation, which is itself irrelevant in the discussion at hand, which is:

Not exactly. My example would have to be pursued on the determination of the Christian Heritage as a basis for the accusation. Duke's earlier references as well as a plethora of others, provide substantial proof, this is the case.

The law passed to place "IN GOD WE TRUST" on US currency is in contravention of the First Amendment, as it is recognition of a deity which implies whichever religion that unnamed deity is associated with.

We have been over this repeatedly. "Deity does not violate". "Implication does not violate". "Recognition does not violate". Even if you knew which "Deity" it is and you admitted you don't, it still doesn't violate. It has to be "an establishment of religion", not a "Deity" or "an establishment of Religions.

The Federal government should not have any opinion on the existence of a god - let alone trust in it.

This is strictly your opinion, which you are entitled to.
However, with reguard to Constitutionality, you will have to present something substantially more to back it up. So far I haven't seen anything.

But that isn't what you said earlier. You said that the word "god" is irrelevant to Duke as he doesn't have a religion and his rights can't be infringed because he has no beliefs. These people have a religion and this makes the word "god" relevant to them as they DO have a religion and their rights CAN be infringed because they have beliefs, by your own argument.]

Lets try to clarify this one once and for all.
They can be infringed,(its possible) but they are not being infringed(currently) with respect to his and your argument about the money and pledge.
I hope that does it this time.

 

[Famine]

It has to be "an establishment of religion", not a "Deity" or "an establishment of Religions.

"Religion" is a group noun, encompassing all religious views. Meaning they can't make any laws regarding any religion or lack thereof. Placing the word "god" into any Federal literature or product in any context is an obvious contradiction of the Amendment.

This is strictly your opinion, which you are entitled to.
However, with reguard to Constitutionality, you will have to present something substantially more to back it up. So far I haven't seen anything.

That's because you apparently don't understand the First Amendment.

It's not the place of the Federal government to say there is - or is not - a god. They should offer no opinion on the matter.

 

[TheCracker]

To my knowledge it is commonly taught amoung most if not all Protestant denominations.

Protestant Christianity is predominant in Northern Europe. Tithe is not a requirement for many Protestant sects (C of E, Methodist etc) with the exception of Baptists, which are a predominantly North American sect, and even then not all Baptists believe in Tithe what i can see.

 

[Duke]

Lets try to clarify this one once and for all.
They can be infringed,(its possible) but they are not being infringed(currently) with respect to his and your argument about the money and pledge.
I hope that does it this time.

That clarifies nothing. You keep repeating the same point over and over ad naseum and it keeps failing to be true every time you say it.

I'm done. This is less than pointless.

 

[Touring Mars]

Although I am inclined to agree more with the position shared by yourself, Famine and Danoff, I do think SCJ has some kind of a point, and isn't just being bloody-minded. The fact that "God" still appears on US currency, and in various other places in public/government institutions suggests that there may be a reason why it isn't considered so unconstitutional that it must be rectified immediately - otherwise it presumably would have happened already. Either way, although I disagree with him myself, I think SCJ has made his point quite well...

 

[Famine]

We still have some absolutely retarded laws that have never been specifically repealed yet are not only illegal but gross human rights violations...

Just because a law still exists doesn't mean it's not contradictory.

 

[Duke]

On the contrary, I don't think he's made his point at all. He has taken a flawed premise and simply repeated it.

Using his logic:

It can be illegal for people whose last initial is W to own a motorcycle. I don't own a motorcycle, so that law doesn't apply to me, so I shouldn't care. That doesn't make it right or constitutional.

By the same token, from the other side of the coin - homosexual marriage should be legal. I'm not homosexual, so I shouldn't care, right? Too bad I never hear (m)any members of the Religious Right arguing that point. Quite the opposite in fact, even though they are not gay, and therefore "don't have a dog in this fight", as he says.

Somehow that logic doesn't seem to get through. This is why I speak of the "institutional arrogance" of his position. MY interpretation allows religious freedom to everybody, as intended by the Founding Fathers.

His does not.

 

[mindwise]

(Famine, how do you make the != properly?)

the simplest example i've seen is =/=

HTML / unicode here:

or just copy&paste this one ≠

 

[Keef]

That makes no sense. You don't believe in a supernatural being, you can't just flat out say "there is no God". Yes you don't believe in a supernatural being, so therefore you believe their nothing else out there. The converse is true.

It makes perfect sense. I don't believe there is a god. But I do not believe there is no god at all, because that would just be arrogant. Believing there is no god is entirely different from my way of simply not believing, or not having faith in a god.

 

[Pako]

Prove to me there is no God. You can't. Therefore you believe there isn't a supernatural being watching over you. Just as if I ask someone who's Christian to prove to me there is a God. They can't either. They just believe there is something watching over us. Without proof one way or another you are merely looking at a belief.

Not to mention Atheism provides a philosophical answer to why humans are here and what our purpose is. It also has a method of explaining the unexplainable to a degree. That right there makes it a religion, it's a religion without a deity, prophets, etc. but you still have to subscribe to the groups beliefs if you wish to be apart of it.

Honestly I see very few differences between the fundamentals of Atheism and the fundamentals of Christianity. Both believe in something without proof, both have there own ideas about the universe, and both have followers that subscribe to their ideas. Would you rather me call Atheist a cult?

I would agree with that statement IF,

...an atheist uses evolution to "fill in the blanks" to answer those philosophical questions. If they don't try to answer those age long philosophical questions and strictly adhere to scientific fact, I would have to disagree with your statement as many atheist have stated they "believe" in nothing, nor do they have faith in their evolutionary theories to answers those questions as those answers are "yet to be determined".

 

[Danoff]

I would agree with that statement IF,

...an atheist uses evolution to "fill in the blanks" to answer those philosophical questions.

You mean like answering the question "How do you think we got here?" by saying "we evolved."?

I do not believe (strictly speaking) the sun will exist tomorrow morning. Nor do I believe (strictly speaking) in evolution. Nor do I believe (strictly speaking) that God does not exist, or that you do exist. But I do think these are correct to similar degrees of certainty.

 

[Joey D]

Without actually know full stop you are believing somewhat, that's my point in all of this.

 

[Danoff]

Without actually know full stop you are believing somewhat, that's my point in all of this.

Faith is required to know something beyond a degree of certainty that the evidence available supports. The evidence strongly suggests that the sun will come up tomorrow. It also strongly suggests that the bible is mythology. It requires zero faith to be atheist.

 

[Joey D]

I still disagree, you still have to believe there isn't a supernatural being since there isn't any evidence out there that suggests the existence or nonresistance of that entity.

Once again prove to me there is no supernatural being, or at least show me some very strong evidence that puts the non-belief of God on the same level as the sun coming up tomorrow. The same can be said to any religious person out there, just prove to me that your God exists.

 

[Famine]

I still disagree, you still have to believe there isn't a supernatural being since there isn't any evidence out there that suggests the existence or nonresistance of that entity.

Believing something doesn't exist is NOT the same as not believing that something does exist.

 

[Joey D]

Believing something doesn't exist is NOT the same as not believing that something does exist.

You are still believing in something (or lack of something) one way or another, to be an atheist takes the same amount of faith as it does to be a theist. You are just going about it in a different way.

 

[Famine]

You are still believing in something (or lack of something) one way or another, to be an atheist takes the same amount of faith as it does to be a theist. You are just going about it in a different way.

No... because believing that something doesn't exist is not the same as not believing something does exist...

The former requires belief (that something doesn't exist). The latter require no belief (that something does exist).

 

[Danoff]

Once again prove to me there is no supernatural being, or at least show me some very strong evidence that puts the non-belief of God on the same level as the sun coming up tomorrow.

I refer you to the entire body of human reason (known mostly as science) as evidence that god does not exist. I do not need to prove it to put it on the same level as the sun coming up tomorrow - because I cannot prove that the sun will come up tomorrow either. The evidence supports both, but neither is proven.

 

[Joey D]

No... because believing that something doesn't exist is not the same as not believing something does exist...

The former requires belief (that something doesn't exist). The latter require no belief (that something does exist).

It still requires faith. To sit here and say "I don't believe in God" takes a huge amount of faith on anyone's part because you are essentially looking at an issue and making a decision based on zero information. Say it however you want you are still putting your faith into the idea that "God does not exist".

I refer you to the entire body of human reason (known as science) as evidence that god does not exist. I do not need to prove it to put it on the same level as the sun coming up tomorrow - because I cannot prove that the sun will come up tomorrow either. The evidence supports both, but neither is proven.

Yes you do need to prove it, and I really doubt that you'll be able to. We know the sun will come up tomorrow because it's been documented and observed throughout human history. It happens 365 (or 366) days a year. I'd say that's pretty concrete evidence it's going to happen tomorrow, sure there is a slim chance the sun could explode and we all are vaporized, however that is extremely unlikely.

Just saying something does not make it true.

And as I've said the same thing goes for a religious person to, you have to prove what you are touting. You can't though, obviously.

 

[Danoff]

Yes you do need to prove it, and I really doubt that you'll be able to.

I know that I will not be able to. Neither will I be able to prove that God does exist (which would be required for me not to say "I don't believe in God").

We know the sun will come up tomorrow because it's been documented and observed throughout human history.

Likewise the lack of existence of God has been carefully observed and documented throughout the history of human reason.

It happens 365 (or 366) days a year. I'd say that's pretty concrete evidence it's going to happen tomorrow, sure there is a slim chance the sun could explode and we all are vaporized, however that is extremely unlikely.

The evidence to support that lack of God is similarly concrete.

 

[Famine]

It still requires faith. To sit here and say "I don't believe in God" takes a huge amount of faith on anyone's part because you are essentially looking at an issue and making a decision based on zero information. Say it however you want you are still putting your faith into the idea that "God does not exist".

It doesn't require belief not to believe in something. It's pretty much the definition of it.

Saying "I believe that God doesn't exist" is a statement of belief. It requires belief, faith and all those other words. Saying "I don't believe that God exists" is not a statement of belief. It requires no belief, faith or all those other words.

They are two different things.

Yes you do need to prove it, and I really doubt that you'll be able to. We know the sun will come up tomorrow because it's been documented and observed throughout human history. It happens 365 (or 366) days a year. I'd say that's pretty concrete evidence it's going to happen tomorrow, sure there is a slim chance the sun could explode and we all are vaporized, however that is extremely unlikely.

So, exactly as Dan said, that's not 100% proof that the Sun will come up tomorrow then?

 

[Joey D]

I know that I will not be able to. Neither will I be able to prove that God does exist (which would be required for me not to say "I don't believe in God").

What is the bases for you to say that you don't believe in God though? Are you just pulling it out of the air? I typically need some pretty convincing evidence before I start putting my faith into something.

Likewise the lack of existence of God has been carefully observed and documented throughout the history of human reason.

Going by numerous ancient texts and personal observation the same thing could be said about the existence of God.

The evidence to support that lack of God is similarly concrete.

Not really, if it was concrete then there wouldn't be any debate over the existence of a supernatural being. You'd simply be able to show people that beyond a shadow of a doubt there is no supernatural being. Since you can't there will always be theist and atheist.

So, exactly as Dan said, that's not 100% proof that the Sun will come up tomorrow then?

I'm not disagreeing with that, but you can't put the evidence for the existence/nonexistence of God on the same page since it's not equal.

 

[Danoff]

What is the bases for you to say that you don't believe in God though? Are you just pulling it out of the air? I typically need some pretty convincing evidence before I start putting my faith into something.

Which is why I don't believe in God. Because I need proof that doesn't exist. Similarly, it's why I don't believe God doesn't exist - because I need proof to believe something doesn't exist.

The basis for my lack of belief in God is the lack of proof that God exists. Even a good Christian would agree that there is no proof that God exists. So unless I choose to have faith (which I do not), I must say that I do not believe in God.

Going by numerous ancient texts and personal observation the same thing could be said about the existence of God.

I used the word "reason" for a... well... reason.

Not really, if it was concrete then there wouldn't be any debate over the existence of a supernatural being.

You'd think there wouldn't be.

 

[Joey D]

Which is why I don't believe in God. Because I need proof that doesn't exist. Similarly, it's why I don't believe God doesn't exist - because I need proof to believe something doesn't exist.

The basis for my lack of belief in God is the lack of proof that God exists. Even a good Christian would agree that there is no proof that God exists. So unless I choose to have faith (which I do not), I must say that I do not believe in God.

So you need proof that God doesn't exist but you are happy to not believe in God based off of no proof at all? Or just simply state there is no God for that matter?

You'd think there wouldn't be.

Prove to me right now (or link me to) that God doesn't exist. If you can then I will agree with you, if you can't then I can wholeheartedly see why this debate keeps going on.

 

[Danoff]

So you need proof that God doesn't exist

Yes.

but you are happy to not believe in God based off of no proof at all?

Yes. Or more appropriately - the lack of proof.

I need proof that God doesn't exist to say that I believe God doesn't exist. Lacking that proof, I must say I do not believe that God doesn't exist.

I also need proof that God does exist to say that I believe God exists. Lacking that proof, I must say that I do not believe that God exists.

These are not inconsistent positions.

Or just simply state there is no God for that matter?

Let's tackle that part after the above is resolved.

Prove to me right now (or link me to) that God doesn't exist. If you can then I will agree with you, if you can't then I can wholeheartedly see why this debate keeps going on.

I know that I will not be able to. Neither will I be able to prove that God does exist (which would be required for me not to say "I don't believe in God").

 

[Bram Turismo]

We know the sun will come up tomorrow because it's been documented and observed throughout human history. It happens 365 (or 366) days a year. I'd say that's pretty concrete evidence it's going to happen tomorrow, sure there is a slim chance the sun could explode and we all are vaporized, however that is extremely unlikely.

I wouldn't say this is something we know for certain, but something we think or assume will happen. There is no way we can prove that the Sun will rise tomorrow morning, but since it has in many, many years, we can assume that the sun will also rise tomorrow morning.

 

[Joey D]

You are still pulling your judgment from nothing, which I'm really failing to understand. I agree there is a significant lack of proof in the existence of God, there is also a significant lack of proof in the nonexistence of God. Without any proof one way or another how can anyone say anything other than "I don't know if there is a supernatural being or not"?