Constitutionality conversation.

[spat]

Could you explain that?

Science is all about describing what the universe is and how it works.

Religion is about describing why it is the way it is.

Historically religion tried to do all of it, because science wasn't mature enough (and attempts by religion to explain the what and how are notoriously wrong, they are almost certainly wrong about the why too, but it's all we've got).

Now that science has matured enough religion can be relegated to a role of just discussing the why.

 

[Curmudgeon]

Nevermind

 

[Curmudgeon]

BTW...

This thread is about the constitution and we're all crapping on someone else's thread. I'm out.

 

[spat]

Hold on a second, we already covered that you don't understand what atheism is.

It makes no claims on the creation of the universe.

It also makes no claims of belief. It is a rejection of the claim that a God or Gods exist.

And your last paragraph describes philosophy, not religion.

A rejection of the claim that divinity exists is an implicit faith based belief that it doesn't.

Faith based beliefs are the realm of religion.

It's difficult to say where philosophy stops and religion begins, it's based on how much a line of reasoning requires faith in the unprovable.

Your protestations that Atheists don't profess a position on the existence of a god is betrayed by your constant belittling of people who do.

I don't believe in Lord Vader, Dark Lord of the Sith, but I'm not going to get bent out of shape if some group reenacts his fight with Obi Wan on the steps of City Hall once a year either.

If you truly didn't hold an opinion on the existence of a divine being you wouldn't find it so offensive when someone else does.

 

[Darth]

Science is all about describing what the universe is and how it works.

Religion is about describing why it is the way it is.

Historically religion tried to do all of it, because science wasn't mature enough (and attempts by religion to explain the what and how are notoriously wrong, they are almost certainly wrong about the why too, but it's all we've got).

Now that science has matured enough religion can be relegated to a role of just discussing the why.

Nonsense.

The why goes this deep:

Gays will burn in hell.

Why?

The Bible says so.

Why should I care what the Bible says?

Because the Bible says to.

 

[spat]

BTW...

This thread is about the constitution and we're all crapping on someone else's thread. I'm out.

Good point.

There is some overlap though, the constitution (and declaration of independence) explicitly states that it doesn't grant rights, it recognizes rights granted by a divine creator. So, some discussion of religion is relevant.

Without the divine creator, where do those rights come from ?

Implicit in the constitutions claim to recognizing divine rights is the fact that the creator is the ultimate arbiter of what those rights are.

 

[Darth]

A rejection of the claim that divinity exists is an implicit faith based belief that it doesn't.

Faith based beliefs are the realm of religion.

It's difficult to say where philosophy stops and religion begins, it's based on how much a line of reasoning requires faith in the unprovable.

Your protestations that Atheists don't profess a position on the existence of a god is betrayed by your constant belittling of people who do.

I don't believe in Lord Vader, Dark Lord of the Sith, but I'm not going to get bent out of shape if some group reenacts his fight with Obi Wan on the steps of City Hall once a year either.

If you truly didn't hold an opinion on the existence of a divine being you wouldn't find it so offensive when someone else does.

No sir. The null hypothesis and default position is to not believe something without sufficient evidence to do so.

Do you believe that invisible leprechauns run the universe? Is that a faith based position?

And no again the the oft trotted "if you don't belive, why does it offend you" hogwash. I object to it because some people do believe, and those that do use these myths to retard education, deny rights to others, commit atrocities, and just generally be bad people.

 

[spat]

Nonsense.

The why goes this deep:

Gays will burn in hell.

Why?

The Bible says so.

Why should I care what the Bible says?

Because the Bible says to.

There are innumerable conflicts between the major religions.

That guarantees that almost all of them are wrong.

It doesn't prove anything about any particular one though.

Yes, you have just described the concept of "faith".

How about this one.

"there is no God"

"how do you know ?"

"there is no proof for his existence".

"what proof is there that he doesn't exist ?"

"the fact that there isn't any proof he exists"

Sure sounds like faith to me.

 

[spat]

No sir. The null hypothesis and default position is to not believe something without sufficient evidence to do so.

Do you believe that invisible leprechauns run the universe? Is that a faith based position?

And no again the the oft trotted "if you don't belive, why does it offend you" hogwash. I object to it because some people do believe, and those that do use these myths to retard education, deny rights to others, commit atrocities, and just generally be bad people.

You don't get to claim that your position is the "null hypothesis" and then force your opponent to prove his.

Why isn't the null hypothesis that the universe spontaneously formed from nothing ? Seems as unlikely as the divine creator.

 

[Darth]

You don't get to claim that your position is the "null hypothesis" and then force your opponent to prove his.

Why isn't the null hypothesis that the universe spontaneously formed from nothing ? Seems as unlikely as the divine creator.

Yes, actually you do.

The person making time claim is the one that must present the evidence. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

As atheism makes no claims on the creation of the universe, I'll again keep this on topic.

Your logical fallacy is burden of proof

You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com

 

[spat]

Yes, actually you do.

The person making time claim is the one that must present the evidence. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

As atheism makes no claims on the creation of the universe, I'll again keep this on topic.

Your logical fallacy is burden of proof

You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com

Let me help you understand where you went wrong.

You do not have the default position, you are trying to claim you do to shift the burden of proof, but you don't.

Here is an example.

In a room sits a box. All around the room people are taking guesses about what's in the box. One guy says it's empty, then claims that his position is the default, so everyone should assume he is right until they open it.

Empty is not a more likely position than not empty.

Sure, he's probably more likely to be right than the guy who said it was the video tapes of Epstein's death, but his position isn't "not those tapes" his position is "empty".

If you claimed to be "anti-Christian" and made no claim about any of the other religions, just that the Christians had it wrong, then you could claim the default. But that isn't what you're claiming.

With the real evidence we have the "god" and "no god" position are equally likely. That means that neither can claim to be the default.

 

[Darth]

Let me help you understand where you went wrong.

You do not have the default position, you are trying to claim you do to shift the burden of proof, but you don't.

Here is an example.

In a room sits a box. All around the room people are taking guesses about what's in the box. One guy says it's empty, then claims that his position is the default, so everyone should assume he is right until they open it.

Empty is not a more likely position than not empty.

Sure, he's probably more likely to be right than the guy who said it was the video tapes of Epstein's death, but his position isn't "not those tapes" his position is "empty".

If you claimed to be "anti-Christian" and made no claim about any of the other religions, just that the Christians had it wrong, then you could claim the default. But that isn't what you're claiming.

With the real evidence we have the "god" and "no god" position are equally likely. That means that neither can claim to be the default.

Right, the common misunderstanding I've seen 1000 times.

Atheism is not a claim "there is no God."

Atheism is a rejection of the claim "there is a God."

In the box scenario it would be someone making a claim "there is X in the box." The atheist would state "I reject there is X in the box." NOT "there is Y in the box."

And they are not equally as likely. In your box scenario that would be like stating "the box is empty" is equally as likely as "the box has an $8 bill in it."

 

[Marine Cpl]

This thread has gone to shit.

 

[gun_slinger_boy]

Let me help you understand where you went wrong.

You do not have the default position, you are trying to claim you do to shift the burden of proof, but you don't.

Here is an example.

In a room sits a box. All around the room people are taking guesses about what's in the box. One guy says it's empty, then claims that his position is the default, so everyone should assume he is right until they open it.

Actually the atheist position would be "IDK what's in the box" (default position) until there is strong evidence to take an educated guess as to what's in the box. And that can still be wrong by the way. But IDK is much more honest than saying this is what's definitely in the box having absolutely no evidence to go off of (religious position). Make sense?

Now if you are an atheist asserting that there definitely aren't any gods then at that point they would have to back their claim.

 

[Darth]

Actually the atheist position would be "IDK what's in the box" (default position) until there is strong evidence to take an educated guess as to what's in the box. And that can still be wrong by the way. But IDK is much more honest than saying this is what's definitely in the box having absolutely no evidence to go off of (religious position). Make sense?

Now if you are an atheist asserting that there definitely aren't any gods then at that point they would have to back their claim.

And that's generally called "antithiesm."

 

[Cooolone]

I haven't read through the 4 pages of this thread yet, but wanted to just quickly provide an example to answer your question...

Look at the 2012 NDAA which the Harvard Constitutional Scholar signed into law that he said before hand he wouldn't due to it's "Constitutional" issues.

---------------

But I'll quickly answer the OP, by saying that the Constitution was written, knowingly leaving many things unsaid. Some with purpose, as in the Bill of Rights, some without purpose.

But the Constitution is written, for all to see, read absorb. The word "Interpret" comes into play when parties wish to bend it to an agenda. Congress shall make no law... Means nothing when every single politician proclaims to have the secret to creating a new/better world, if you'd just follow them and give them the power to do so. See "Cuomo - NY Safe Act".

Our Constitution was written to limit just that, to limit government intrusion into our daily lives. To allow citizens to live freely, unburdened, unmolested by thousands of pages of laws, codes and edicts... It really is simple if you take it all in its proper context. "Live Free or Die"... Death by a Thousand Cuts... A seemingly slow death, the feeling of being smothered under the weight of increasing Gov't regulatory burdens, taxation and bureaucracy which never ends and only increases by the day.

What is the Constitution? That is the question... And the answer will then provide what "Law" is not in compliance with it. Root Cause analysis...



Regards

 

[spat]

Right, the common misunderstanding I've seen 1000 times.

Atheism is not a claim "there is no God."

Atheism is a rejection of the claim "there is a God."

In the box scenario it would be someone making a claim "there is X in the box." The atheist would state "I reject there is X in the box." NOT "there is Y in the box."

And they are not equally as likely. In your box scenario that would be like stating "the box is empty" is equally as likely as "the box has an $8 bill in it."

You guys keep saying that you are what I would call agnostics "don't know either way" and then acting like what I would call atheists "there is no god".

Ridiculing the faithful for their faith does not comport with "I don't know".

If you acknowledge the possibility that they might be right, what are you ridiculing them for ?

 

[Robin]

Well, they most certainly all agreed a person's religious beliefs were nobody else's business. Deism, of the time, was most certainly not religion. They actually rejected the idea of a supernatural being. That being said...

Jefferson - "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man." Letter to Peter Carr

Franklin - "Lighthouses are more useful than churches."

Paine - objected to organized religion, criticized Christianity and advocated for reason and free thought. Age of Reason 1793.

You can cherrypick quotes to satisfy yourself and I can put up quotes to counter them, all for no purpose that I can see. They all believed in a creator.
Robin

 

[Darth]

You guys keep saying that you are what I would call agnostics "don't know either way" and then acting like what I would call atheists "there is no god".

Ridiculing the faithful for their faith does not comport with "I don't know".

If you acknowledge the possibility that they might be right, what are you ridiculing them for ?

And again, no.

I'm not being smart, but honestly, have you spent any time actually looking at the definitions of which you speak?

Theism deals with belief. Gnostisism deals with knowledge.

You can be a Gnostic or Agnostic theist and you can be a gnostic and agnostic atheist.

This is apologetics 101.

 

[Darth]

You can cherrypick quotes to satisfy yourself and I can put up quotes to counter them, all for no purpose that I can see. They all believed in a creator.
Robin

If that were true, which obviously is not, it's irrelevant. You can be the pope and belive that a government sponsored religion is immoral.

 

[spat]

And again, no.

I'm not being smart, but honestly, have you spent any time actually looking at the definitions of which you speak?

Theism deals with belief. Gnostisism deals with knowledge.

You can be a Gnostic or Agnostic theist and you can be a gnostic and agnostic atheist.

This is apologetics 101.

Apparently more time than you have. The following are from dictionary.com


a·the·ist
/ˈāTHēəst/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

ag·nos·tic
/aɡˈnästik/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: agnostic; plural noun: agnostics

1. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Your definitions are incoherent. Knowledge and belief are not the separate concepts you suggest. Belief is just what you think you know.

Are you seriously claiming that you can know something without believing it, or believe something without at least thinking you know it in this context ?

"I know there is a god, but I don't believe in him" is a nonsensical statement.


And which of your categories do you claim to fall into ?

 

[nortatoga]

The 14th Amendment and the Bill of Rights | Tenth Amendment Center

Did Congress or the ratifying States intend to incorporate, in whole or in part, the Bill of Rights

tenthamendmentcenter.com

The wisdom exercised by Chief Justice Marshall in Barron v. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (1833) should be followed here. In writing about the applicability of the Bill of Rights to the states, Marshall clearly explains why such was not the case:

Had the framers of these amendments intended them to be limitations on the powers of the state governments, they would have imitated the framers of the original constitution, and have expressed that intention. Had congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the constitutions of the several states, by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments, in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.

 

[Marine Cpl]

The 14th Amendment and the Bill of Rights | Tenth Amendment Center

Did Congress or the ratifying States intend to incorporate, in whole or in part, the Bill of Rights

tenthamendmentcenter.com

The wisdom exercised by Chief Justice Marshall in Barron v. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (1833) should be followed here. In writing about the applicability of the Bill of Rights to the states, Marshall clearly explains why such was not the case:

Except they did. Article 6. Stop ignoring article 6. But regardless, they legally changed it as per the methods given to them by the founders.

So what is your beef and why do you always argue it? You want it where it doesn’t apply to the states? So that a politician who cannot ban guns on a federal level can so do by paying off the states to do it just like Michael Bloomberg is doing? So that you’re only allowed a jury of your peers only for federal crimes and not state crimes?

 

[Robin]

If that were true, which obviously is not, it's irrelevant. You can be the pope and belive that a government sponsored religion is immoral.

Who said anything about state sponsored religion, WTF!
Robin

 

[Darth]

Apparently more time than you have. The following are from dictionary.com


a·the·ist
/ˈāTHēəst/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

ag·nos·tic
/aɡˈnästik/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: agnostic; plural noun: agnostics

1. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Your definitions are incoherent. Knowledge and belief are not the separate concepts you suggest. Belief is just what you think you know.

Are you seriously claiming that you can know something without believing it, or believe something without at least thinking you know it in this context ?

"I know there is a god, but I don't believe in him" is a nonsensical statement.


And which of your categories do you claim to fall into ?

OK, did I not just say that, nearly word for word?

Once again, Theism deals with belief, Gnosticism deals with knowledge.

And yes, they are entirely exclusive.

I am an agnostic atheist.

Your inability to understand the concept does nothing for it's validity.

 

[Darth]

Who said anything about state sponsored religion, WTF!
Robin

People that don't understand that the 1A, by its nature, must be freedom from religion in the sense of government.

 

[spat]

OK, did I not just say that, nearly word for word?

Once again, Theism deals with belief, Gnosticism deals with knowledge.

And yes, they are entirely exclusive.

I am an agnostic atheist.

Your inability to understand the concept does nothing for it's validity.

So, what's the difference between an agnostic atheist and an agnostic theist ?

What do you know that you don't believe ?

And as an agnostic atheist, that means that you acknowledge that some theist might be right, but you don't know ?

If they might be right, why all the distain ? If they're wrong, that nativity on the lawn outside city hall hurts nobody, but if they're right....

 

[Darth]

So, what's the difference between an agnostic atheist and an agnostic theist ?

What do you know that you don't believe ?

And as an agnostic atheist, that means that you acknowledge that some theist might be right, but you don't know ?

If they might be right, why all the distain ? If they're wrong, that nativity on the lawn outside city hall hurts nobody, but if they're right....

Agnostic atheist--Does not belive in God, does not know for sure.

Agnostic theist- Believes in God, does not know for sure.

I've already explained my reasons for disliking religion and why it has no place in government.

 

[spat]

Agnostic atheist--Does not belive in God, does not know for sure.

Agnostic theist- Believes in God, does not know for sure.

I've already explained my reasons for disliking religion and why it has no place in government.

Does not know for sure is incompatible with the religious concept of belief. "I think probably" is not belief. "more likely than not" isn't belief.

You either believe one or the other or you're not sure. "leaning" one way or the other doesn't count.

You also haven't adequately described how you determine what is and isn't religious activity.

 

[Darth]

Does not know for sure is incompatible with the religious concept of belief. "I think probably" is not belief. "more likely than not" isn't belief.

You either believe one or the other or you're not sure. "leaning" one way or the other doesn't count.

You also haven't adequately described how you determine what is and isn't religious activity.

If that's your definition, that's fine. I'm just going with the standard English definition.

Can't tell you how many people "belive the resurrection will happen in 19XX/20XX."

And I actually defined religious for you.