Constitutionality conversation.

[spat]

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.

If you ask those people they *know* it will happen in 19xx/20xx or whatever. They are almost certainly wrong, but to them that knowledge is as certain as anything.

Nobody ever really *knows* anything, they just believe. I believe gravity follows the inverse square law, but do I really *know* it does ?

You provided a definition of religion that isn't useful for the purpose you state.

Should schools stop serving spaghetti for lunch ?
Isn't that illegally promoting pastafarianism in your view ?

If Spaghetti for lunch is OK, how about a school that changes it's menu to accommodate halal diets, can they tell everyone they can't eat pork because a couple students don't like it ?

 

[Darth]

If you ask those people they *know* it will happen in 19xx/20xx or whatever. They are almost certainly wrong, but to them that knowledge is as certain as anything.

Nobody ever really *knows* anything, they just believe. I believe gravity follows the inverse square law, but do I really *know* it does ?

You provided a definition of religion that isn't useful for the purpose you state.

Should schools stop serving spaghetti for lunch ?
Isn't that illegally promoting pastafarianism in your view ?

If Spaghetti for lunch is OK, how about a school that changes it's menu to accommodate halal diets, can they tell everyone they can't eat pork because a couple students don't like it ?

Your first paragraph is exactly correct. They would tell you they know. Even if they are wrong.

They believe in a God, and they know it to be true. Most theists are gnostic.

 

[nortatoga]

Okay let's talk about Article 6.

US Constitution Full Text with Easy Explanations

Full text of the United States Constitution, Bill of Rights, and all Amendments. Simple US Constitution summaries and printable PDF versions.

constitutionus.com

Article VI (Article 6 - Prior Debts, National Supremacy, Oaths of Office)
1: All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

This right here is a interesting point, " which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, " Does not the Bill of Rights restrict the Federal Government from certain Authority? The BOR's was not meant for the States! The 2A did not apply until McDonald v Chicago! Now as for the Supremacy Clause the Federal Government could pass CCW reciprocity but they can not ban it!

You need to look at State Constitutions like what is happening in Virginia before they are having their 2A rights violated they are have their State Constitutional rights violated!

Constitution of Virginia
Table of Contents » Article I. Bill of Rights » Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power

• Section
• Print
• PDF
• email
• Read Full Constitution

Article I. Bill of Rights
Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

The Tenth Amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "

 

[spat]

Your first paragraph is exactly correct. They would tell you they know. Even if they are wrong.

They believe in a God, and they know it to be true. Most theists are gnostic.

What does it mean to believe something but not think you know it ? If you don't think you know, then you don't believe.

If you are as you say "I don't think there is a god, but I'm not sure", then you don't believe. The colloquial usage of believe as in "I assume X but I'm not sure" isn't really a belief, it's a supposition. A belief is something that you think you know.

 

[Darth]

What does it mean to believe something but not think you know it ? If you don't think you know, then you don't believe.

If you are as you say "I don't think there is a god, but I'm not sure", then you don't believe. The colloquial usage of believe as in "I assume X but I'm not sure" isn't really a belief, it's a supposition. A belief is something that you think you know.

No. You are making up your own definitions again. And this is just turning into a complete waste of time.

Theists are gnostic. The believe in a God or Gods and they know it to be true.

Belief has nothing to do with any scale of certainty. That is what gnostiscism deals with.

How many more times does this need said?

 

[spat]

No. You are making up your own definitions again. And this is just turning into a complete waste of time.

Theists are gnostic. The believe in a God or Gods and they know it to be true.

Belief has nothing to do with any scale of certainty. That is what gnostiscism deals with.

How many more times does this need said?

You can say it as many times as you like, it doesn't change the logic of the situation, or the fact that there is an entire branch of philosophy dedicated to it - see epistemology.

You can literally get a PHD in "knowing vs believing".

Knowledge and belief are not the separate concepts you are trying to make them, they are intimately interrelated.

 

[Darth]

You can say it as many times as you like, it doesn't change the logic of the situation, or the fact that there is an entire branch of philosophy dedicated to it - see epistemology.

You can literally get a PHD in "knowing vs believing".

Knowledge and belief are not the separate concepts you are trying to make them, they are intimately interrelated.

So let's get to the meat and potatoes here.

What point ate you getting to make by presenting an incorrect definition of words to use as your own labels for things?

 

[spat]

So let's get to the meat and potatoes here.

What point ate you getting to make by presenting an incorrect definition of words to use as your own labels for things?

That Atheism is as much a religion as Theism. Both make unprovable claims about the nature of the universe.

You can use whatever definitions you like, but people fall into 3 categories (not the 4 that you claim).

Atheists that "know" god doesn't exist.
Agnostics that don't know what to believe.
and theists that "know" that god does exist.

Your attempt to create 2 categories of agnostic based on whether they lean more towards god or no god is just silly.

Agnosticism is the closest thing we have to "not a religion".

My main point here was that barring all other religion from government activity is unconstitutionally establishing Atheism as the state religion.

 

[gun_slinger_boy]

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

Nailed it!

 

[Robin]

"of" "from", define them as you like for the situation.
Robin

 

[Darth]

That Atheism is as much a religion as Theism. Both make unprovable claims about the nature of the universe.

You can use whatever definitions you like, but people fall into 3 categories (not the 4 that you claim).

Atheists that "know" god doesn't exist.
Agnostics that don't know what to believe.
and theists that "know" that god does exist.

Your attempt to create 2 categories of agnostic based on whether they lean more towards god or no god is just silly.

Agnosticism is the closest thing we have to "not a religion".

My main point here was that barring all other religion from government activity is unconstitutionally establishing Atheism as the state religion.

What claims does atheism make?

Atheism is a religion in the same way "not collecting stamps" is a hobby.

And it's nothing I've attempted to create. It's standard English language.

 

[BDinPutnam]

Who decides if a mathematical equation is correct ?

The answer to that question is nobody, it is either correct or it isn't. It doesn't matter if *everybody in the world* says that 2+2=5, it still doesn't.

Except mathematics as we know it is a human construct and if we learned anything from Kurt Goedel it is incomplete at best and fatally flawed at worst.

 

[spat]

Except mathematics as we know it is a human construct and if we learned anything from Kurt Goedel it is incomplete at best and fatally flawed at worst.

Mathematics is not a human construct.

The human construct is the formalism used to discuss it. The underlying concepts are possibly more universal than the laws of physics.

Sure, the formalism isn't universal, 2+2=11 in a base 3 number system for instance, but the underlying concept that 2 groups of 2 things each is a group of 4 things is as universal as you can get.

Godel proved that our formalisms can't ever be complete in one sense, not that mathematics itself is flawed.

 

[spat]

What claims does atheism make?

Atheism is a religion in the same way "not collecting stamps" is a hobby.

And it's nothing I've attempted to create. It's standard English language.

You keep claiming that Atheism is agnostic, yet you frequently make statements that assume the theists are wrong.

You need to pick a position. Do you believe the theists are wrong ? Or do you accept the possibility that maybe they are right ?

 

[Toecutter]

Mathematics is not a human construct.

The human construct is the formalism used to discuss it. The underlying concepts are possibly more universal than the laws of physics.

Sure, the formalism isn't universal, 2+2=11 in a base 3 number system for instance, but the underlying concept that 2 groups of 2 things each is a group of 4 things is as universal as you can get.

Godel proved that our formalisms can't ever be complete in one sense, not that mathematics itself is flawed.

Some may say math is the language of our creator.

 

[Darth]

You keep claiming that Atheism is agnostic, yet you frequently make statements that assume the theists are wrong.

You need to pick a position. Do you believe the theists are wrong ? Or do you accept the possibility that maybe they are right ?

Can you quote even one time where I said atheism is agnostic? I said, quite clearly and multiple times now, that theism and gnosticism are 2 separate issues. He'll, I even laid out the 4 possibilities that you can be

 

[BDinPutnam]

Mathematics is not a human construct.

The human construct is the formalism used to discuss it. The underlying concepts are possibly more universal than the laws of physics.

Sure, the formalism isn't universal, 2+2=11 in a base 3 number system for instance, but the underlying concept that 2 groups of 2 things each is a group of 4 things is as universal as you can get.

Godel proved that our formalisms can't ever be complete in one sense, not that mathematics itself is flawed.

That was my point perhaps made more clearly by you.

 

[spat]

Can you quote even one time where I said atheism is agnostic? I said, quite clearly and multiple times now, that theism and gnosticism are 2 separate issues. He'll, I even laid out the 4 possibilities that you can be

You laid out 4. 2 of them are the same thing. That is why all of your logic is flawed.

Agnostic theism and agnostic atheism are the same thing. That is why we just shorten things and call it agnosticism.

There are only Theists who are 100% positive that god exists.

Agnostics who are anywhere from 99.999% sure god exists to 99.999% sure he doesn't.

And Atheists who are 100% certain that god doesn't exist.

Your insistence on dividing the agnostics up into a spectrum like a leftist gender theory is just silly.

 

[Darth]

You laid out 4. 2 of them are the same thing. That is why all of your logic is flawed.

Agnostic theism and agnostic atheism are the same thing. That is why we just shorten things and call it agnosticism.

There are only Theists who are 100% positive that god exists.

Agnostics who are anywhere from 99.999% sure god exists to 99.999% sure he doesn't.

And Atheists who are 100% certain that god doesn't exist.

Your insistence on dividing the agnostics up into a spectrum like a leftist gender theory is just silly.

Maybe a picture will break out down?

Atheism vs Theism vs Agnosticism vs Gnosticism. A simple guide to know what the hell you are. - Stanley Colors

Atheism vs Theism vs Agnosticism vs Gnosticism. A simple guide to know what the hell you are.

www.stanleycolors.com

If you still can't grasp it, you are being intellectually dishonest, and this conversation is of no interest to me.

 

[spat]

Maybe a picture will break out down?

View attachment 62855

Atheism vs Theism vs Agnosticism vs Gnosticism. A simple guide to know what the hell you are. - Stanley Colors

Atheism vs Theism vs Agnosticism vs Gnosticism. A simple guide to know what the hell you are.

www.stanleycolors.com

If you still can't grasp it, you are being intellectually dishonest, and this conversation is of no interest to me.

I completely understand the concept you are trying to convey. I just think it's overcomplicated.

You are conflating the common use of the word believe (which conveys knowledge with uncertainty) and the religious use (which implies a faith based assertion).

In the religious sense you *can't* believe something you don't think you know. Faith implies certainty.

If you're agnostic it doesn't really matter which way you lean, you don't have the faith based certainty.

Really, the only difference between what you are claiming and me is that I see no distinction between your 2 categories of "agnostic". For all intents and purposes they are the same.

So, that reduces your 4 categories to 3.

Your Gnostic Theist
Gnostic Atheist
and the Agnostocs.

There is no reason to divide the agnostics further, and even if there were, why only 2 groups.

So, with that division, the "gnostic" label becomes redundant.

And you are reduced to the usage I prefer.

For more information about the difference in usage for the word "belief" I'll refer you to this:

Atheism and Agnosticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Marine Cpl]

@GOPerfect . Can you change the title of this thread to the Religion thread? Because these 2 guys have totally ruined it.

 

[96coal449]

So many of these threads should just be called, ''The bickering thread."
Maybe they should all just be merged under this title.

 

[Robin]

Now that my driveway is snow free, after dinner I will take my evening constitutional.
Robin

 

[Shadow2]

The people are to decide for themselves. THE PEOPLE not representatives or appointees.

Who decides if it goes against it?

 

[nortatoga]

@GOPerfect . Can you change the title of this thread to the Religion thread? Because these 2 guys have totally ruined it.

You should read post #5!!

 

[GOPerfect]

The people are to decide for themselves. THE PEOPLE not representatives or appointees.

Um, not really. Which people? You want anti's of the 2A deciding?

 

[Darth]

I completely understand the concept you are trying to convey. I just think it's overcomplicated.

You are conflating the common use of the word believe (which conveys knowledge with uncertainty) and the religious use (which implies a faith based assertion).

In the religious sense you *can't* believe something you don't think you know. Faith implies certainty.

If you're agnostic it doesn't really matter which way you lean, you don't have the faith based certainty.

Really, the only difference between what you are claiming and me is that I see no distinction between your 2 categories of "agnostic". For all intents and purposes they are the same.

So, that reduces your 4 categories to 3.

Your Gnostic Theist
Gnostic Atheist
and the Agnostocs.

There is no reason to divide the agnostics further, and even if there were, why only 2 groups.

So, with that division, the "gnostic" label becomes redundant.

And you are reduced to the usage I prefer.

For more information about the difference in usage for the word "belief" I'll refer you to this:

Atheism and Agnosticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

But here is the thing. You keep saying "my view" and "I am trying to show"...but I didn't make up any of the link articles. Those are the definitions that exist and I am going with them.

Why this whole marathon anyway?

 

[Shadow2]

Um yea really!

The people choose! individually, nobody else is suppose to decide your rights. I don't decide yours, you don't decide mine. Your rights end where mine begin and visa versa.

Um, not really. Which people? You want anti's of the 2A deciding?

 

[Marine Cpl]

The people are to decide for themselves. THE PEOPLE not representatives or appointees.

Um, not really. Which people? You want anti's of the 2A deciding?

The actual text contained in the document is what decides. It’s pretty damned simple. You don’t need the people or a judge to decide it.

 

[Shadow2]

EXACTLY. The constitution was written so the average citizen could understand it. Going to law school was to learn the formalities of due process not to rewrite the meaning of plan English. Yes words we use today have changed meaning but i'm with Scalia on the originalist and textualist point of view. How the hell can you interpret a word to have a meaning that didn't even exist 200 years ago. Its absurd.

The actual text contained in the document is what decides. It’s pretty damned simple. You don’t need the people or a judge to decide it.