• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

One Nation, Under God

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
America's success has not been due to any one particular brand of theology, but of ALL faiths, which have been freely practiced for more than 200 years, since our forefathers had the widsom to realize that America is a nation under God, however people of various faiths choose to exercise their freedom to worship God.

America is a nation where, for the first time in world history, many different religions which had warred each other in Europe, resulting in the deaths of millions, lived side by side in peace here in America. Our forefathers recognized that God's grace had a big hand in the founding of our nation, and no matter how God was worshiped, God would be worshipped, and be worshiped according to each denomination's beliefs. The establishment clause of the First Amendment saw to that. America truly became a melting pot. As the author of the article states, America was not many religions under one roof, but one nation under God. It is this theme that has been a core of American thought throughout our history.

Something to think about as you listen to those who shout to the world from their self-erected pedestals how much more godly and moral they are than others. The threat today is the same one that led to the founding of America.

Here is the entire article.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
Which founding father stated our nation was Under God?
Most of them, according to this document:

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; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and, when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them, and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing, with manly firmness, his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining, in the mean time, exposed to all the dangers of invasions from without and convulsions within.
He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.
He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.
He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the military independent of, and superior to, the civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us;
For protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states;
For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world;
For imposing taxes on us without our consent;
For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury;
For transporting us beyond seas, to be tried for pretended offenses;
For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries, so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these colonies;
For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments;
For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow-citizens, taken captive on the high seas, to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.
He has excited domestic insurrection among us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions.
In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have we been wanting in our attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them, from time to time, of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity; and we have conjured them, by the ties of our common kindred, to disavow these usurpations which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too, have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our separation, and hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.
We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,901
Reaction score
6,019
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
Which founding father stated our nation was Under God?
The Declaration of Independence declares that we have rights endowed by our creator.

I would say everyone whom signed it said that we are "under god".
 

Duke

Royal Pain
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
2,595
Reaction score
108
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
"One Nation, Under God"

Not necessarily, if you catch my drift.......

Actually, I will cut with the crap.
As far as any facts show, THERE IS NO GOD.



Duke
 

Alex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,963
Reaction score
855
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
vauge said:
The Declaration of Independence declares that we have rights endowed by our creator.

I would say everyone whom signed it said that we are "under god".
"Creator" is a very broad concept. It can mean a god or a person's mother.

Furthermore, the Declaration of Independence is just that, a declaration. It is not a law. When it came time to right the laws of the nation, the founders made it clear that religion and government were to remain separate as stated in the 1st Amendment.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
alex said:
"Creator" is a very broad concept. It can mean a god or a person's mother.

Furthermore, the Declaration of Independence is just that, a declaration. It is not a law. When it came time to right the laws of the nation, the founders made it clear that religion and government were to remain separate as stated in the 1st Amendment.
First, if you study the history of the early days of America, you will plainly see that they were not referring to mothers, but God. So much for hair splitting based on a lack of knowledge. Now to the meat of my reply.

If you read the First Amendment, is says that there shall be no ESTABLISHMENT of religion. It does not say that people cannot worship however they see fit, whether that be a citizen or a leader.

Now, I agree that religion should not be forced into schools, as that would violate the Amendment. However, those who believe in a creator should have the right to hold their own meetings and other functions in a school, after school, since secular activities after school are also allowed. The left goes too far in restricting the right of people to worhship, and in that respect, I would say the religious right is correct in complaining that Christians are discriminated against to some degree.

Although the First Amendment does have an establishment clause, there is nothing that says the government can restrict the right to worship, only that worship cannot be forced upon citizens who are not religious.

Finally, your argument (actually, you are talking around the Q) does not mitigate in the least the fact that our forefathers were, in general, religious people, who felt that the creation of America was due to divine providence. If you also look at the early history of America, you will find that religious people comprised the vast majority of our leaders. Yes, I would stipulate that the term "under God" was very relevant and, considering the makeup of Amercia today, still is.
 
Last edited:

Technocratic_Utilitarian

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
670
Reaction score
0
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Well, one important concept to note is that the Founding Fathers were overwhelmingly deist and followed a humanistic philosphy espoused during the Enlightenment. The "rights" alluded to by many of the Founding Fathers were determined via reason, at least according to Madison, Thomas Paine, and John Adams.

The Reference to God is merely the God of nature. The God of nature isn't a "God" as we refer to it.

However, it's clearly noted in history that the United States was not founded as a christian nation, and Thomas Jefferson himself stated that the principles and rights of man are not contingent on any religion, rather man's reason (The Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom).
 

Alex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,963
Reaction score
855
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
danarhea said:
First, if you study the history of the early days of America, you will plainly see that they were not referring to mothers, but God. So much for hair splitting based on a lack of knowledge. Now to the meat of my reply.
If you state it as fact, prove it as fact. If it was meant to be a specific god, why does it not state that?

danarhea said:
If you read the First Amendment, is says that there shall be no ESTABLISHMENT of religion. It does not say that people cannot worship however they see fit, whether that be a citizen or a leader.

Now, I agree that religion should not be forced into schools, as that would violate the Amendment. However, those who believe in a creator should have the right to hold their own meetings and other functions in a school, after school, since secular activities after school are also allowed. The left goes too far in restricting the right of people to worhship, and in that respect, I would say the religious right is correct in complaining that Christians are discriminated against to some degree.

Although the First Amendment does have an establishment clause, there is nothing that says the government can restrict the right to worship, only that worship cannot be forced upon citizens who are not religious.
I never said any of the things that you are debating here. People can believe what they want to, the government cannot endorse it though. Putting words into posts only shows desperation.

As far as your ill-informed reference about after school activities, the Supreme Court has ruled that after school religious activities are Constitutional. (Good News Club v. Milford Central School.) You should probably know what you are talking about before you post.

Source: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3944/is_200107/ai_n8989323

danarhea said:
Finally, your argument (actually, you are talking around the Q) does not mitigate in the least the fact that our forefathers were, in general, religious people, who felt that the creation of America was due to divine providence. If you also look at the early history of America, you will find that religious people comprised the vast majority of our leaders. Yes, I would stipulate that the term "under God" was very relevant and, considering the makeup of Amercia today, still is.
There is no way to prove this. It is impossible for someone living today to know what someone believed in who lived 200 years ago.

Furthermore, the pledge did not exist when the country was founded. There are no historical documents, especially laws, at the time of the founding that state "under god". And still more, "considering the makeup of America today" means that you would have to acknowledge the fact that religion is becoming less and less prominent in this country. Non-religious people have doubled between 1990 and 2001. They are now at 14% (almost 30 million strong). The trend is expected to continue because the percentages of young Americans that are non-religious are even higher. Also, people are practicing religion less and less. So your theory that religion is very relevant in America today isn't so true.

Source:
http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris/key_findings.htm
 

AK_Conservative

Active member
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
499
Reaction score
0
Location
Eagle River, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Duke said:
"One Nation, Under God"

Not necessarily, if you catch my drift.......

Actually, I will cut with the crap.
As far as any facts show, THERE IS NO GOD.



Duke

:roll:

So you say there is fact to disprove God? There is no fact to prove or disprove god. There WILL NEVER be fact. The only possible way to know is at death, and only 2 things can happen... Either u find out there is a god, or simply nothing.

Now i posted before, i am not a religious person. So dont go blabbering off that im a christian imbacil and blah blah blah blah. You show ignorance Duke. You proclaim a belief to be fact, that is pure ignorance. Now when i spoke of a God, i did not necessarily say a christian or muslim or budda or whatever it may be. So far as we know, if there is a god, we might not even found his religion... You just dont know!
 

AK_Conservative

Active member
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
499
Reaction score
0
Location
Eagle River, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Now to the main question...

In the above post, i posted i was not a religious man. We can all agree that History is important. History defines a culture, or atleast what a culture was! I like to look at the quote "One Nation under God" with more of a historical perspective, not religious. Though, this is up to interpretation! Therefore, I personally believe that we should in fact leave "One Nation, Under God" in the U.S. society, if its the pledge, money, or whatever it may be!
 

Duke

Royal Pain
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
2,595
Reaction score
108
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
AK_Conservative said:
:roll:

So you say there is fact to disprove God? There is no fact to prove or disprove god. There WILL NEVER be fact. The only possible way to know is at death, and only 2 things can happen... Either u find out there is a god, or simply nothing.

Now i posted before, i am not a religious person. So dont go blabbering off that im a christian imbacil and blah blah blah blah. You show ignorance Duke. You proclaim a belief to be fact, that is pure ignorance. Now when i spoke of a God, i did not necessarily say a christian or muslim or budda or whatever it may be. So far as we know, if there is a god, we might not even found his religion... You just dont know!
You are roughly as smart as an Oder Eater. I said that there are no facts, NONE WHATSOEVER, that implicate a god or higher power. I never said I
KNEW whether there is a god or not, that is impossible. There is as much evidence that a god exists as there is that invisible termites live in our brains and control our every move.
Read more carefully next time.


Duke
 

Duke

Royal Pain
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
2,595
Reaction score
108
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
AK_Conservative said:
Now to the main question...

In the above post, i posted i was not a religious man. We can all agree that History is important. History defines a culture, or atleast what a culture was! I like to look at the quote "One Nation under God" with more of a historical perspective, not religious. Though, this is up to interpretation! Therefore, I personally believe that we should in fact leave "One Nation, Under God" in the U.S. society, if its the pledge, money, or whatever it may be!

In US history, religion is important. However, although the pledge of allegiance may carry historical value, it is, above all, a pledge of allegiance. Hence, for the very obvious reasons, there should be no mention of God in the current pledge of allegiance. History, as is its nature, will be history.


Duke
 

AK_Conservative

Active member
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
499
Reaction score
0
Location
Eagle River, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Duke said:
You are roughly as smart as an Oder Eater. I said that there are no facts, NONE WHATSOEVER, that implicate a god or higher power. I never said I
KNEW whether there is a god or not, that is impossible. There is as much evidence that a god exists as there is that invisible termites live in our brains and control our every move.
Read more carefully next time.


Duke
To say there is no evidence to support that God exist, does not prove he doesnt. That is an invalid arguement! You specifically stated "As far as any facts show, THERE IS NO GOD." This is saying there is no God, plain and simple. If you did not mean this, dont be so vague in your argument, it wont get you anywhere! Youre about as smart as Canuck! AHAHAHA Got you there now didnt I! :rofl
 

Duke

Royal Pain
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
2,595
Reaction score
108
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
AK_Conservative said:
To say there is no evidence to support that God exist, does not prove he doesnt. That is an invalid arguement! You specifically stated "As far as any facts show, THERE IS NO GOD." This is saying there is no God, plain and simple. If you did not mean this, dont be so vague in your argument, it wont get you anywhere! Youre about as smart as Canuck! AHAHAHA Got you there now didnt I! :rofl

Did you read my disclaimer, as far as any facts show? Not so plain and simple, eh? Do you even know what that means?
At least Canuck is smarter than you, so hey...


Duke
 

AK_Conservative

Active member
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
499
Reaction score
0
Location
Eagle River, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Duke said:
Did you read my disclaimer, as far as any facts show? Not so plain and simple, eh? Do you even know what that means?
At least Canuck is smarter than you, so hey...


Duke

AHAHAHAHA... I got to say.. that is a good one!

Explain these "facts"?
 

Duke

Royal Pain
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
2,595
Reaction score
108
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
AK_Conservative said:
AHAHAHAHA... I got to say.. that is a good one!

Explain these "facts"?

I thought that you wouldn't understand.
Facts, or lack of thereof.
Ok, no facts support the theory of a god, or higher power, or whatever you want to call it, (this one goes out to Busta!!!!!!!) "creator force"
Hence, from the facts concerning the existence of a god, (as in, "none") we can come to the logical conclusion that there is no god, for there are no facts to support it.
For example, let's say there is a murder. Suspect #1 was seen on the crime scene, owned the murder weapon, his/her fingerprints and DNA were found on the victim, and 10 witnesses say that they saw him/her commit the crime. He/she declines to plead innocent of guilty. Can we really know whether Suspect #1 commited the crime? No. But, realistically, how do you think it is?
Get it?
I hope. :roll:


Duke
 

AK_Conservative

Active member
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
499
Reaction score
0
Location
Eagle River, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Duke said:
I thought that you wouldn't understand.
Facts, or lack of thereof.
Ok, no facts support the theory of a god, or higher power, or whatever you want to call it, (this one goes out to Busta!!!!!!!) "creator force"
Hence, from the facts concerning the existence of a god, (as in, "none") we can come to the logical conclusion that there is no god, for there are no facts to support it.
For example, let's say there is a murder. Suspect #1 was seen on the crime scene, owned the murder weapon, his/her fingerprints and DNA were found on the victim, and 10 witnesses say that they saw him/her commit the crime. He/she declines to plead innocent of guilty. Can we really know whether Suspect #1 commited the crime? No. But, realistically, how do you think it is?
Get it?
I hope. :roll:


Duke

I understand what you said from the very beggining, but what is wrong is that you have no knowledge of logic. Here is why:

To say something that there is no proof it exists, therefor it does not exist is invalid! That is like saying, No one has seen Jane smoke, therefore she does not smoke. Jane can still be a smoker, just becuase no one seen her, does not disprove the argument! Your analogy of law is not a viable example. In our legal system, we believe your not guilty untill proven. Just believe you were not proved guilty, DOES NOT MEAN you didnt do the crime!

Another Argument pwned!
 

AK_Conservative

Active member
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
499
Reaction score
0
Location
Eagle River, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
galenrox said:
Dude, I like you, so don't say crap like this.
What facts show that there is no God? Please, tell me even one fact that shows that there is no God, cause I am almost 100% sure that no such fact exists.

there is none, i already asked the question and he gave a half-assed answer. He said the fact was that there is no fact to prove gods existance and therefore that fact alone proves fact there is no god.. Kinda confusing but u get it?
 

AK_Conservative

Active member
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
499
Reaction score
0
Location
Eagle River, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
galenrox said:
I get the idea, but it's extremely flawed. The absense of fact proves nothing. Like, for example, when it comes to abortion, since there's no standardized definition of what actually is human life, although I am pro-choice, I completely understand the pro-life position, since without a standard definition of life, there's no way to know what criteria needs to be met to define life. In cases like that, what's assumed? Some believe one way, some believe another, but claiming that the absense of fact implies that one side is right is just ridiculous.

At one point as far as science knew there were no facts saying that things could roll. But yeah, I do get that point, it's just not a good one.

exactly, if Duke would have taken a logic class in his life, he would understand that! I posted above a similar scenario and disproved his legal argument.. Look at it if you didnt already!
 

Duke

Royal Pain
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
2,595
Reaction score
108
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
AK_Conservative said:
I understand what you said from the very beggining, but what is wrong is that you have no knowledge of logic. Here is why:

To say something that there is no proof it exists, therefor it does not exist is invalid! That is like saying, No one has seen Jane smoke, therefore she does not smoke. Jane can still be a smoker, just becuase no one seen her, does not disprove the argument! Your analogy of law is not a viable example. In our legal system, we believe your not guilty untill proven. Just believe you were not proved guilty, DOES NOT MEAN you didnt do the crime!

Another Argument pwned!
Not so much. The person proven guilty still goes to jail. I am not saying that god does not exist, per se, I am saying that as far as any facts have anything to do with it, there is no truth, from facts leading to the belief that a god exists. Of course, it is impossible to disprove it, along those lines, nothing can be proven or disproven, though.
Do you get it yet?


Duke
 

AK_Conservative

Active member
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
499
Reaction score
0
Location
Eagle River, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Duke said:
Not so much. The person proven guilty still goes to jail. I am not saying that god does not exist, per se, I am saying that as far as any facts have anything to do with it, there is no truth, from facts leading to the belief that a god exists. Of course, it is impossible to disprove it, along those lines, nothing can be proven or disproven, though.
Do you get it yet?


Duke

Everytime you post, you are changing what you say to make up for what you lack... LOGIC! You know, i stated the same thing as above you in my first post disagreeing with you, now you say this and agree with me on what you called me an Oder eater or some **** for! Stick to your argument and have some backbone man! But do flat out say God does not exist, like you so blatenly did, is illogical! Dont deny you didnt, becuase you did!
 

Duke

Royal Pain
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
2,595
Reaction score
108
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
galenrox said:
I get the idea, but it's extremely flawed. The absense of fact proves nothing. Like, for example, when it comes to abortion, since there's no standardized definition of what actually is human life, although I am pro-choice, I completely understand the pro-life position, since without a standard definition of life, there's no way to know what criteria needs to be met to define life. In cases like that, what's assumed? Some believe one way, some believe another, but claiming that the absense of fact implies that one side is right is just ridiculous.

At one point as far as science knew there were no facts saying that things could roll. But yeah, I do get that point, it's just not a good one.

I know that absense of fact is nothing more than absense of fact, but a belief based on no facts is equally ridiculous. Read my above post to answer some of your questions.

Duke
 

AK_Conservative

Active member
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
499
Reaction score
0
Location
Eagle River, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Duke said:
I know that absense of fact is nothing more than absense of fact, but a belief based on no facts is equally ridiculous. Read my above post to answer some of your questions.

Duke

No, a BELIEF on no fact is not ridiculous. A belief is not a fact! Its a choice of faith (in this particular suject)! Now to say it is fact, then maybe so, but not a belief. That is why it is called a BELIEF! Durrr? You are combining two totally diferent words and giving them the same meaning!
 

Duke

Royal Pain
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
2,595
Reaction score
108
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
AK_Conservative said:
Everytime you post, you are changing what you say to make up for what you lack... LOGIC! You know, i stated the same thing as above you in my first post disagreeing with you, now you say this and agree with me on what you called me an Oder eater or some **** for! Stick to your argument and have some backbone man! But do flat out say God does not exist, like you so blatenly did, is illogical! Dont deny you didnt, becuase you did!

I did not flat-out say god does not exist, I added my disclaimer. I am not changing what I said, I am elaborating. I am sticking to my argument, and if you read the whole thing, you will know where I am coming from, and my logic.


Duke
 
Top Bottom