1939 Newsreel Shows US Pledge of Allegiance Was Once Godless

Post Reply New Topic

Ancalagon, you are stuck in this idea that when someone says something, the words they use convey an idea. You are locked in a cage of words. As I have said before, I am now at a point where I cannot use words to convey what I am trying to tell you. It goes beyond such things. You need to go beyond the words you see in front of you to understand them.

Edit:

He means the plethora of athiests (or, rather, not very good anti-Christians) that are constantly attempting to tell him how horrible Christianity is for beliefs that aren't even held in many Christian religions, and especially not his own.

Last edited by MrLoony on 16 Jul 2009, 8:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

How did you leap to this remarkable conclusion?

ruveyn

God, in the words "under God" is meant to signify belief. Perhaps I should not have said science, but rather science's best explanations to date. In that, they are a belief. Athiesm is a belief, but it is, unfortunately, one that has gained the attraction of those suffering from extreme hubris. The assumption that far too many athiests hold is that they must be right. If we discard that (and we quite clearly must, as athiests describe far too many things as coincidence for it to be absolutely, without a doubt, true), then we are left with this:



So athiesm fits, right? Or can you think of some definition of athiesm that doesn't fit every single definition there? Should we go further and point to science-as-god in all respects?



Do you believe that there should be something else of supreme value to athiests aside from science?

Please keep in mind when trying to counterargue that the Hindu idea of Brahman, the Buddhist belief of Bodhi, and the Taoist belief of the Tao all only fit the third definition, and yet each of those religions will refer to their particular thing of supreme value as "God." The third definition is the only way to define the beliefs of any pantheistic religion, for that matter. In fact, if you consider the definition of pantheistic, science does fit as being pantheistic.

1. We don't have absolute perfect knowledge.
2. Some things are left up to faith, like sensory input. The sun does appear to move around the earth.
3. We strive to find out what's true and false through methodical and organized tests, aka 'science'.
4. ???
5. Atheists believe science is god.

I'm sorry if I couldn't follow the conclusion there.



Oh, look at this, China.

Do you believe this graphical representation of China is actually China?

1. The words "under God" mean believing in belief
2. Atheism is, by definition, a belief (I have already built the logic of this and don't feel like going through this particular section again)
3. The words "under God" apply to atheism.

Please note that at that point, I was only attempting to prove that the word God in the phrase "under God" applies to atheism, and, as atheism is a belief in a scientific definition of the universe, atheism's representation in that phrase is science.

Is this where you try to disprove my argument by using non-sequiturs? Please explain what this has to do, at all, with the conversation that is going on right now.

If you do not believe in science as the supreme value, then what do you believe in?

(Edited for clarity and for the removal of the rather rude introduction. To anyone who read that, I apologize)

Last edited by MrLoony on 16 Jul 2009, 10:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

(I'm just going to ignore #1 and #3 since they make no sense whatsoever.)

Examining the Merriam-Webster quote you provided...



The only one that could possibly fit in with atheism is number three, but that's because it fits in with everything and everyone. Which includes the conviction that the computer screen you're looking at will not turn into a morbid mouth and eat you alive.


Well, science is like the map of China. It describes China, but it sure as hell ain't China.


Things that are beyond reasonable doubt.

Except that:

1. You trust first in science and also in the proof given to you by others. I wonder, have you proven Einstein's paper on photoelectric effect yourself? Or do you just trust that it works?
2. You believe that there is no god. How does this not fit?



Explain to me, then, beyond reasonable doubt, why life is capable of existing in this universe at all. Explain, beyond reasonable doubt, the extraordinary happenings of the Axial Period. These are but two of the problems that science has been unable to come up with a solution for.

And, for the record, science is the supreme value of atheism. An attempt to define the universe in human terms? Science doesn't describe the universe. Science is an attempt to define the universe. If you hold to atheism, you must hold to science as well. Although the belief in science is not unique to atheism, it is the value of science that is most dear to atheism. Science brings "beyond reasonable doubt" into being. You cannot, for example, worship Vidar and throw Odin by the wayside.

Edit: By the way, I would also like to point out the fact that if you bothered to read my post quoting Huston Smith, you might actually understand what I was saying when I said that the words "under God" mean believing in belief.

Science does not concern itself with "why". It examines "how".

I'm unsure where you are going with this...

I'm not the one who carries out the actual research, no. Why should I worry about that? The academic world is a big conspiracy to brainwash me?

(How the hell does one prove a piece of paper?)

No, I've examined the claim that a god exists, and rejected it since there is absolutely nothing supporting it. I don't believe 'no god exists'.


Yet. I'll be interested in any eventual discoveries.


There is no 'supreme value of atheism'. I don't like calling myself an atheist even, since why would anyone be valued for what they don't believe in? It's just a fitting description in debates like these.


As Sand pointed out, science is the 'how' and not the 'why'. It's done a fairly good job so far.

Do you, then, believe that the speed of light is a constant? This was once accepted as fact... until it wasn't. Do you believe that holding a crying child is a terrible thing to do and it holds that child back? Again, once accepted by science as fact... until Harry Harlow proved otherwise. Interestingly enough, there seem to be people who have decided that there's no reason to believe Harry Harlow, but that's another matter entirely. Science is not infallible. Your belief that it is shows your ignorance towards science.



You have said that you do not believe that there is a god. Hence you believe that there is not a god. Your attempt to argue against this simple fact doesn't prove that you don't have a belief.



I'd like to point out that you clearly don't know what the Axial Period is, or you wouldn't claim that scientists will eventually come up with an explanation (assuming, of course, it has nothing to do with time travel or aliens). You also don't seem to know that scientists were the ones who pointed out the fact that there was a one in a hundred trillion (or so) chance that the universe would be in such a way as to be capable of supporting life. Despite this, you seem to have quite a bit of faith in science for someone who claims to have faith in nothing that is beyond reasonable doubt. Explain to me how you believe, beyond reasonable doubt, that scientists will be able to explain the Axial Period.



I did not say that science attempted to explain the why of things. I did use the word "why" at one point, but it was actually the word "how" in disguise. Which is, of course, an error on my part, but is quite clear. It should also be noted that Buddha and Lao Tzu both refused to answer any questions on "why."

Science also done a pretty crappy job of explaining the how. There are numerous things that science has not explained (and other things that science cannot explain). Other things in science are constantly being proven wrong. Even worse is when a theory is discarded because the scientific community doesn't like it (the original reaction to the Theory of Relativity, for example). And let's not forget the fact that there are a number of different scientific theories that contradict each other.

Here's another interesting thing to ponder: Physics cannot be universally proven, so why do you believe in physics (or, if you prefer, quantum theory)? Because scientists say so? Einstein and Newton were both very devout in their religious faith. Einstein was Jewish, Newton a Unitarian.

One more thing I'd like to introduce to this debate: I recalled Stephen Hawking using the word God a number of times in "A Brief History of Time," and I thought I'd look up why that was (he always seemed to me to be an atheist). What I found is a rather interesting quote in which he seems to concur with the point I am trying to make. He used God as a metaphor for the laws of science. Then again, he does admit the possibility of God, so it would actually likely be more accurate to describe him as agnostic.

It is one of the outstanding and most useful and intelligent qualities of science that it recognizes its mistakes and goes about correcting them. Religion does not approach that at all.

Ah, you mean like when Einstein submitted his paper on Relativity? Are we talking about the single Western doctor that published a paper on the various studies showing the health effects of Tai Chi Chuan, and after mentioning the many benefits given, discouraged doctors from recommending it to their patients?

Or do you mean when many Christian churches changed their views on evolution to incorporate it into their beliefs? Or are we talking about the ancient Taoists, who used the scientific method (unknown to the West at the time, and, in some cases, even now... see above) to develop practices that promote health? Are you thinking, then, of all the major religions that, when encountering other religions, changed their beliefs because the merging made more sense? And yes, this means all of them (except, perhaps, Islam and Christianity, but their roots are in Judaism, which did).

Einstein's concepts overturned much of basic physics successfully and immense rewards resulted in the whole realm of physics. That the Pope does or does not accept evolution has no effect whatsoever on whether the belief in God is held tentatively or whether Christ performed miracles or whether there really is a heaven or a hell. A recently constructed museum in the USA supposedly showing humans co-existing with dinosaurs is an amusing piece of religious fantasy but merely demonstrates the inability of religion to accommodate itself to established fact. The same naive idiocy persists and cannot be rooted out. When the Pope declares himself an atheist I will reconsider.

Wrong.

A nihilist is an atheist that holds no faith in science. Or anything.

C'mon. You can do a lot better than that.

You are showing the stereotypical Christian lack of awareness of alternate philosophies. You are certainly intelligent enough; so go out and explore the vastness of human philosophy. Turning those dusty pages will only teach you so much. Go meet interesting people. Visit interesting cultures.

Did your Christ sit in temple and read the Torah, or did he go out and meet people? If you are a Christian, be like your Christ. Go meet the multitude of humanity.

Wow, that was hilarious to read. I assume, of course, that you're talking to me and not someone else? If not, then it's not quite as hilarious, I guess.

(Edit: Please read the argument from its beginning before you make assumptions)



Eventually. When Relativity was first introduced, it was rejected, and Einstein figured that getting his doctorate didn't really matter all that much. Nevertheless, he wrote his paper on photoelectric effect and submitted it. Only then was Relativity accepted.



Ah. So it's not so much that they hold a certain belief, but rather that they hold a belief that differs from yours. Fantastic. Also, that museum is not representative of Christianity. There are as many views on Christianity as there are Christians, and sometimes more; most of them are horrible misrepresentations of the teaching of Jesus.

Absolutely right. Since there is no sane way to decide which Christian variation should be accepted as the right one it is perhaps wise to be cautious about which criticism are appropriate. It's obvious that their beliefs differ from mine but to indicate that is the only basis for criticism is to place the arguments on an emotional level not worthy of consideration.