Prove that God doesn't exist.

[USMC the Almighty]

The day that 'god' becomes relevent is the day that Nasa discovers a teapot orbting Phobos, or the day your need snow shoes in hell.

Absolutely wrong. The idea of God or a "Creator" is what allows for the American model of democracy where the government is subservient to the people. In secular governments like those in Europe, the system is set up so that the government rules the people (i.e. owns their rights) -- an entirely different model.

 

[rejs7]

Absolutely wrong. The idea of God or a "Creator" is what allows for the American model of democracy where the government is subservient to the people. In secular governments like those in Europe, the system is set up so that the government rules the people (i.e. owns their rights) -- an entirely different model.

Actually it is the idea of checks and balances that allows the United States to creak along in its misgovernance. The founding fathers were not Christians on the whole, and any idea of a divine order is utter tosh. The people have very little to say in how the country is run, aside from voting for which of the elite will govern them. True domocracy can be seen in Switzerland or ancient Athens.

The American government is no more subserviant to the people than a master is to his dog - anyone who thinks otherwise is merely fooling themselves into thinking that the vox populi actually matters anymore.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Actually it is the idea of checks and balances that allows the United States to creak along in its misgovernance.

We're talking about two totally different things. I'm referring to citizens and their sovereignty over government and you're talking about government's separation of powers.

My point is that when the Declaration profoundly stated that "all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights..." they weren't making a ceremonial referrence to God.

They were asserting that the Creator gives people their rights (i.e. Jefferson's "Natural Rights of Man") and then the citizens, as the sovereign, loan power to the government in order to provide for the "common defense", "maintain peace and tranquility", etc. This is significant because for the first time in the history of government, they were saying that the government does not own the people, instead, the people own the government and this would not be possible without the presence of the Creator.

True domocracy can be seen in Switzerland or ancient Athens.

First of all -- America was founded to be a republic, not a democracy. Secondly, to call Athens a "true democracy" is quite naieve, when you consider their narrow definition of a citizen (the only ones who could vote) -- it was adult males who had completed military training, i.e. no slaves, children, women, etc.

The people have very little to say in how the country is run, aside from voting for which of the elite will govern them.

The American government is no more subserviant to the people than a master is to his dog - anyone who thinks otherwise is merely fooling themselves into thinking that the vox populi actually matters anymore.

For a time, the government was subservient to the people (in the manner of Locke and then Jefferson's philosophies). This started to change with the "Progressive Era" of TR's "active government", continued by Wilson, and secured by FDR's "welfare state" who's legacy is a perpetual cycle of gov't dependence.

 

[rejs7]

My point is that when the Declaration profoundly stated that "all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights..." they weren't making a ceremonial referrence to God.

First of all -- America was founded to be a republic, not a democracy. Secondly, to call Athens a "true democracy" is quite naieve, when you consider their narrow definition of a citizen (the only ones who could vote) -- it was adult males who had completed military training, i.e. no slaves, children, women, etc.

For a time, the government was subservient to the people (in the manner of Locke and then Jefferson's philosophies). This started to change with the "Progressive Era" of TR's "active government", continued by Wilson, and secured by FDR's "welfare state" who's legacy is a perpetual cycle of gov't dependence.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." What the founding fathers meant, and what the religious bigots who seem to shout the loudest actualy mean are about as close as Mercury is to Pluto. The creator that Jefferon meant is like the great architecht of the Mason's or the 'god' that Hawkins & Einstein refered to - not the mysanthrope that is in the bible.

The fact that the people can cast a ballot once in a blue moon does not mean that actually have a say in the laws that are enacted - the Swiss are a very good example of that ideal. The Greek ideal of democracy was the those who had fought to defend the state had earned the right to have a say in its rule. America could do with that - let the citizen soldiers have the right to be the law makers, and see how fast big business tries to squash that idea.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

That's fine -- I'm not saying that America was necessarily a Christian religion or any theocracy (the 1st Amendment) but it was certainly never intended to be entirely secular. If they really did seek a barrier between church and state, they would have said so.

 

[rejs7]

That's fine -- I'm not saying that America was necessarily a Christian religion or any theocracy (the 1st Amendment) but it was certainly never intended to be entirely secular. If they really did seek a barrier between church and state, they would have said so.

Not true - the whole constitution is a compromise between the conservitives and liberals of the day. If Jefferson had had his way he would have put the 1st ammendment into the original constitution in far sterner words. Just like the senate and the house are a compromise between the big states and the small states, the wording of the original document standings as a testement of the will of the whole, not the wishes of the one.

America was founding upon the sands of persecution, and unfortunately has never really tried to ground itself on the rock of reason - Lincoln and Jefferson tried, but ultimately the religious majority have railroaded their version through.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Not true - the whole constitution is a compromise between the conservitives and liberals of the day. If Jefferson had had his way he would have put the 1st ammendment into the original constitution in far sterner words. Just like the senate and the house are a compromise between the big states and the small states, the wording of the original document standings as a testement of the will of the whole, not the wishes of the one.

The Framers were very straightforward about everything in the Constitution because they wanted it to be clear for the rest of the country's existence. Read the other 9 Amendments of the Bill of Rights -- all short, concise, and clear with no room for interpretation. Why do you believe the 1st is any different?

America was founding upon the sands of persecution, and unfortunately has never really tried to ground itself on the rock of reason - Lincoln and Jefferson tried, but ultimately the religious majority have railroaded their version through.

Jefferson and Lincoln?

Jefferson: "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

Have you ever read Lincoln's Second Inagural? 702 words -- it referrences God 19 times and cites the Bible twice. Only 702 words.

 

[rejs7]

Jefferson and Lincoln?

Jefferson: "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

Have you ever read Lincoln's Second Inagural? 702 words -- it referrences God 19 times and cites the Bible twice. Only 702 words.

Both men rose above religion to acheive things that transcended mere pulpit sermons. Lincoln brought the nation back from the brink, and Jefferson forge a new nation in the fire of the war of independance. Just as FDR guided the nation in a very dark hour, these men refused to be cowed by any petty foggers, and neither pandered to the whims of a religious clique. They both rose above it all, and led the United States into eras of change and ultimately stability.

Which brings me back to the idea that without the religious cliques the GOP would be in a far stonger moral and ethical position.

 

[vyo476]

The Framers were very straightforward about everything in the Constitution because they wanted it to be clear for the rest of the country's existence. Read the other 9 Amendments of the Bill of Rights -- all short, concise, and clear with no room for interpretation. Why do you believe the 1st is any different?

Well, actually, the 9th Amendment is rather horribly interpretative. That's how we wound up with Roe vs. Wade, remember?

Jefferson and Lincoln?

Jefferson: "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

Have you ever read Lincoln's Second Inagural? 702 words -- it referrences God 19 times and cites the Bible twice. Only 702 words.

And, ironically, it was Jefferson who coined the term "Separation of Church and State" (although the word "wall" was in there somewhere).

One of the most famous speeches in this country's history is the Gettysburg Address - which, if you look closely, references God. Lincoln used the name of God as freely as any politician today does.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

First of all -- America was founded to be a republic, not a democracy. Secondly, to call Athens a "true democracy" is quite naieve, when you consider their narrow definition of a citizen (the only ones who could vote) -- it was adult males who had completed military training, i.e. no slaves, children, women, etc.

When the US was founded only white male land-owners could vote--not all that different from Athens. Look how long it took for ALL men (black, American Indian, Chinese, etc.) to get the right to vote. Women, children, and slaves were denied the vote as well.

The Founding Fathers were mostly Deists who acknowledged a Creator but were not Christians. I think your comparison to "European" countries (without naming specific ones) is fallacious, none of the people I know from Europe feel that their governments are "owning" them in any way that the US government is NOT "owning" us. Australia and New Zealand are not all that different from us either.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

When the US was founded only white male land-owners could vote--not all that different from Athens. Look how long it took for ALL men (black, American Indian, Chinese, etc.) to get the right to vote. Women, children, and slaves were denied the vote as well.

What does this have to do with anything?

The Founding Fathers were mostly Deists who acknowledged a Creator but were not Christians. I think your comparison to "European" countries (without naming specific ones) is fallacious, none of the people I know from Europe feel that their governments are "owning" them in any way that the US government is NOT "owning" us.

I'll name a few for you. Hitler in Germany, Mussolini in Italy, and Stalin in USSR.

You could even make an argument that in Britain today, the government owns the rights of the people. Show me where in British government documents it says that the citizens own their rights.

Australia and New Zealand are not all that different from us either.

Okay.

 

[TruthAboveAll]

Ok, for all you Atheists out there: Let's hear your argument against the existence of God. For those of you believers: why should/shouldn't God/religion play a part in politics???

Kelly, you started a circular debate with your initial challenge. To the atheists, non-believers, whatever you prefer to be called: I don't need any more of the definitions of "belief" or qualifications on which God, where God came from, etc. ad nauseum. You believe that you know your logic is superior, fine. That's your business. Because in fact, you cannot prove that your logic is superior, so that's where the rubber meets the road: It is your belief, and the same definitions and qualifications apply to it as it does to my belief that God (defined as the one God, Jehovah, Yahweh, Heavenly Father, etc) does exist.

Why should/shouldn't God/religion play a part in politics? Again, what the intention of the Founders was can be argued interminably from both directions. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are often cited in these arguments. But rarely, if ever, is the Declaration of Independence cited. The simple phrase "endowed by their Creator" near the beginning sums their corporate attitude. Applying the societal structure of their day, and many of them, or their parents, having recently escaped a tyrannical oppression of Protestantism (as opposed to Catholicism) they were listing their grievances specifically against the King. And in closing the it states "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."

While not replete with references to God, the terminology is clear that Thomas Jefferson, penning the Declaration, indicated a strong reliance on a fundamental, foundational belief structure underlying the formation of this new country and it's government. The 56 signatories obviously agreed, as any one of them was truly risking life, limb and property by putting their names on it.

So yes, I do think that religion does and should play a part in politics. The point of our government is not to proselytize or work for conversion of non-believers. It is there simply to guarantee the intrinsic value of every human being, and guarantee the rights originally recognized in the foundational documents of this country.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

What does this have to do with anything?

What it has to do with is your statement (see below) in which you denigrated the Athenian democracy for restricting voting rights, specifically not allowing women, children, and slaves to vote.

Originally Posted by USMC the Almighty
First of all -- America was founded to be a republic, not a democracy. Secondly, to call Athens a "true democracy" is quite naieve, when you consider their narrow definition of a citizen (the only ones who could vote) -- it was adult males who had completed military training, i.e. no slaves, children, women, etc.

My quote (see below) notes that American democracy started out exactly the same way.

When the US was founded only white male land-owners could vote--not all that different from Athens. Look how long it took for ALL men (black, American Indian, Chinese, etc.) to get the right to vote. Women, children, and slaves were denied the vote as well.

I'll name a few for you. Hitler in Germany, Mussolini in Italy, and Stalin in USSR.

Silly me, I thought we were discussing democracy not fascism. Not much interface between the two nor many comparisons to be drawn either I suspect. Using two fascist countries to broad-brush all European countries as having inferior democratic governments seems inaccurate.

You could even make an argument that in Britain today, the government owns the rights of the people. Show me where in British government documents it says that the citizens own their rights.

Horsefeathers, the abuses of the British government are no more egregious than those of our government and the semantics be damned, if George wants you in one of the secret prisons or wants your son to spend another tour in Irag, then he'll do it despite any fanciful wording about "God-given" rights that you see in government documents.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

What it has to do with is your statement (see below) in which you denigrated the Athenian democracy for restricting voting rights, specifically not allowing women, children, and slaves to vote.

Call me thick, but I still don't see what it has to do with anything. She said ancient Athens was an example of true democracy. I said it wasn't because of it's severely limited definition of a citizen. Then she comes back and says well America at one time had restricted voting rights as well. I never said America was a "true democracy" as she had said about Athens so I don't see how this was relevant at all.

Silly me, I thought we were discussing democracy not fascism. Not much interface between the two nor many comparisons to be drawn either I suspect. Using two fascist countries to broad-brush all European countries as having inferior democratic governments seems inaccurate.

We were talking about American government vs. European government. I pointed to Germany as an example of a country that at one time was a constitutional republic (Weimar) but had degenerated because of the government's ownership of their rights. When the government, in your country's system, gives you your rights, then by definition they can also take them away. That's what happened with Hitler. One by one he began to remove people's rights (beginning with none other than the right to bear arms).

Horsefeathers, the abuses of the British government are no more egregious than those of our government and the semantics be damned, if George wants you in one of the secret prisons or wants your son to spend another tour in Irag, then he'll do it despite any fanciful wording about "God-given" rights that you see in government documents.

You're correct -- today, this relationship has been blurred for two reasons: (1) schools don't teach about the significance of "The Creator" because the vast majority don't want to acknowledge God's significance to this country or they are simply too stupid to see the importance themselves.
(2) The government itself has began to violate this relationship more and more to the point where people don't even recognize it, beginning with Wilson through FDR.

 

[9sublime]

I don't agree that the government loans us our rights. Just because we don't have a first ammdenment doesn't give the government the right to give or take rights as they please, everyones government tries it on, but the UK isn't that bad.

Britain chooses in general to obey the UN, Geneva convention and Human Rights Act, unlike America who refuse to obey a lot of international conventions and treaties, if they even sign them in the first place. I think thats fine, but don't tell the rest of the world what to do if thats the case.