Is the United States a government for the religious?

For those deep thinkers out there.
TNLawPiper
Needs to smoke more
Needs to smoke more
Posts: 18289
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:00 pm

Re: Is the United States a government for the religious?

Post by TNLawPiper » Sun Nov 18, 2018 1:12 pm

hugodrax wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 9:33 am
TNLawPiper wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 9:17 am
I would agree that the broad definition of terms allows for nearly any conclusion; however, such a practice rarely results in any real statements made.
You have failed to demonstrate this in a quasi-insane manner making reference to your pet ideals. Please rephrase this in a rambling manner making reference to Beyoncé, the Democratic Party, and the genetic superiority of the Eastern Tennessee dirt farmer.

You need to put more effort into this, Tennessee.
I don’t know nothin’ ‘bout them fancy words, but I sure do like to hear the Single Ladies when I’m drivin’ a mule.

User avatar
Nature of a Man
Usher
Usher
Posts: 468
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2017 12:14 am

Re: Is the United States a government for the religious?

Post by Nature of a Man » Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:55 pm

Kerdy wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:10 am
Roadmaster wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 7:09 pm
Atheists are not necessarily immoral thieving rapists. Some of them are the type of person who does the right thing even if nobody is watching.

Our government is set up on Masonic principles more than anything else. God is mentioned but not Christ. The closest mention to Christ is ‘In The Year Of Our Lord’ before the date.
Atheists are just like everyone else. They can be amazing people. It's the anti-theists who seem to want to create trouble. There is a big difference between the two.
I somewhat agree, though my argument is that any atheist who makes appeals to any absolute truth or ideal isn't a true atheist - in practice, they might be closer to a deist; but without either tacitly or implicitly invoking the existence of God or a higher power, they can't argue for any objective or intrinsic truth or ideal.

An atheist attempting to make a case for liberal or Enlightenment values such as "freedom of speech, democracy, women's rights, science, reason, progress" or whatnot can't do so in any inherent sense while still retaining their atheism, since under a consistent atheist worldview, only "might is right", and therefore abandoning democracy, women's rights, science, reason, progress, and whatnot wouldn't be problematic if one felt they served they or their tribe's self interest.

User avatar
hugodrax
UncleHugo the Tobbaconist
UncleHugo the Tobbaconist
Posts: 19283
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Is the United States a government for the religious?

Post by hugodrax » Sun Nov 18, 2018 8:19 pm

UncleBob?
Notre Dame de Paris, priez pour nous y comprise les Jesuites.

User avatar
John-Boy
I'm a lover and I'm a sinner
I'm a lover and I'm a sinner
Posts: 33276
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 6:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Is the United States a government for the religious?

Post by John-Boy » Sun Nov 18, 2018 8:21 pm

Nature of a Man wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:55 pm
Kerdy wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:10 am
Roadmaster wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 7:09 pm
Atheists are not necessarily immoral thieving rapists. Some of them are the type of person who does the right thing even if nobody is watching.

Our government is set up on Masonic principles more than anything else. God is mentioned but not Christ. The closest mention to Christ is ‘In The Year Of Our Lord’ before the date.
Atheists are just like everyone else. They can be amazing people. It's the anti-theists who seem to want to create trouble. There is a big difference between the two.
I somewhat agree, though my argument is that any atheist who makes appeals to any absolute truth or ideal isn't a true atheist - in practice, they might be closer to a deist; but without either tacitly or implicitly invoking the existence of God or a higher power, they can't argue for any objective or intrinsic truth or ideal.

An atheist attempting to make a case for liberal or Enlightenment values such as "freedom of speech, democracy, women's rights, science, reason, progress" or whatnot can't do so in any inherent sense while still retaining their atheism, since under a consistent atheist worldview, only "might is right", and therefore abandoning democracy, women's rights, science, reason, progress, and whatnot wouldn't be problematic if one felt they served they or their tribe's self interest.
Sounds like you’re suggesting that to be an atheist one has to:
a) be consistent in their thinking
b) more specifically consistent with what you think is consistent.

For starters, I think “a” is unreasonable.
Praying - coco
Sometimes memes can be helpful as well as humorous - Jocose
Yer mom is kindhearted and well respected in her community - JMG
And when I am sitting on my new saddle, I will know that my weight is resting upon the collective minds of CPS - GaryinVa

User avatar
Nature of a Man
Usher
Usher
Posts: 468
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2017 12:14 am

Re: Is the United States a government for the religious?

Post by Nature of a Man » Sun Nov 18, 2018 8:42 pm

John-Boy wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 8:21 pm
Nature of a Man wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:55 pm
Kerdy wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:10 am
Roadmaster wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 7:09 pm
Atheists are not necessarily immoral thieving rapists. Some of them are the type of person who does the right thing even if nobody is watching.

Our government is set up on Masonic principles more than anything else. God is mentioned but not Christ. The closest mention to Christ is ‘In The Year Of Our Lord’ before the date.
Atheists are just like everyone else. They can be amazing people. It's the anti-theists who seem to want to create trouble. There is a big difference between the two.
I somewhat agree, though my argument is that any atheist who makes appeals to any absolute truth or ideal isn't a true atheist - in practice, they might be closer to a deist; but without either tacitly or implicitly invoking the existence of God or a higher power, they can't argue for any objective or intrinsic truth or ideal.

An atheist attempting to make a case for liberal or Enlightenment values such as "freedom of speech, democracy, women's rights, science, reason, progress" or whatnot can't do so in any inherent sense while still retaining their atheism, since under a consistent atheist worldview, only "might is right", and therefore abandoning democracy, women's rights, science, reason, progress, and whatnot wouldn't be problematic if one felt they served they or their tribe's self interest.
Sounds like you’re suggesting that to be an atheist one has to:
a) be consistent in their thinking
b) more specifically consistent with what you think is consistent.

For starters, I think “a” is unreasonable.
My argument just is that atheists who make appeals to to intrinsic values which theoretically exist (e.x. human rights), or in which some impetus exists for humanity to institute (e.x. human rights) is more or less acknowledging the existence of God or a higher power, even without realizing it.

I suppose the exception would be if one is a nihilist, or believes that life is meaningless, or that the only "truth" is there is no truth - I would consider this being consistent with atheism (albeit oxymoronic).

I might be making a "no true Scotsman" fallacy, but I guess my argument is that ultimately one is either a nihilist or closet believer in God to some degree or another, and ultimately would have to choose between one or the other.

Post Reply