Court rules Pledge of Allegiance 'unconstitutional'

[Zorn Packte]

it's about your reluctance to answer a simple yes-or-no question.

 

No, it's about my refusal to answer a question that doesn't deserve an answer.

 

"Neo-nazi?" Sorry, I have all my hair, no tatoos, and I dated many Jewesses. Even went out with a black girl once in college but her dad told me that if I took her out again, he'd break my neck. It seems he wanted her to date only black guys.

[Zorn Packte]

"Imagine a "science" that explained rainbows as the acts of leprechauns,"

 

Now that's just downright silly, everyone knows that Leprechauns don't make rainbows.

 

 

 

[littlebillie]

Q.E.D.

[Rooster7]

Imagine a "science" that explained rainbows as the acts of leprechauns, and its proponents said you can't examine their theory "objectively" until you recognize the existence of leprechauns.

 

Well, yes - there is some truth to that statement. If scientists disregard the possibly of leprechauns without any analysis, then any theory involving leprechauns will be discarded without thought as well. My point was and is - I'm confident that most proponents of evolution in the scientific community do not give much thought to the existence of God. And many that do, summarily dismiss the possibility of His existence.

 

You're just assuming your conclusions again. You're assuming emotions that aren't the result of a magical spiritual world are meaningless, but you give no indication why, nor do you explain how the existence of a spiritual world makes emotions meaningful. It's just a list of assertions based on what you want reality to be like.

 

As I noted in my first post, emotions are derived from spiritual inspiration (good and bad). Can I prove it? Yes, but not by scientific method. Science deals with the physical world. It's impossible to use its methods to prove truths about the spiritual world. The proof I offer is what God has put in every human heart. Perhaps you have denied it for so long, you no longer recognize simple truths.

 

Now, I realize that you feel no sense of obligation to respond to my assertions, but please try to indulge me. How does an atheist explain emotions? If it is as I have already explained (simple chemical reactions), why not just say so? Perhaps you recognize how silly it is to demean emotions as such, and to reduce the human race to the status of biological machines. Maybe you don't. I don't know. So how does an atheist explain emotions in a godless and spiritually void world?

 

And the very line of your argument indicates that you are making an emotional argument, not a logical argument; you're trying to argue for the existence of a god because you don't like the implications if you're wrong. If an astronomer calculated that an asteroid was about to hit the earth, you can't argue against his conclusions based on the fact that you don't like the consequences.

 

My argument is not emotional. It's spiritual. You say you feel no need to make counterarguments to the "assertions" that I have made. It seems to me that is the mantra of someone who recognizes that his arguments are weak. You assert - that my "philosophy" is without logic and is based on my distaste for a godless universe. Well, I will admit that I have distaste for a godless universe. However, I submit that it is you that won't examine the evidence. Furthermore, it appears to me that - you're trying to argue for the non-existence of a god because you don't like the implications if you're wrong.

[littlebillie]

An atheist - let's say one without a bone to pick - will simply say that emotions have survival value. Love between a man and a woman, of a parent for a child and to a lesser extent the affection of a normal good-natured adult for any child all work to promote survival of the species.

 

Envy can make you work for the acquisition of more whatever - property or territory; anger, in response to someone TAKING your territory, or trying to establish dominance over you, can also be seen as survival beneficial.

 

BUT.

 

I think some people love deeply enough, passionately enough that they find in the joy of their love (for example) ALL the proof they want or need of God - divine lovingkindness being the only source or origin they can imagine for something so wonderful.

 

Most atheists I have known - some have said this, and about others I assume it - would actually prefer to believe that God exists. Agnostics, too. However, for whatever reason of personal history or intellectual baggage, they cannot simply take it on faith (it, the given word) and given ample evidence of human suffering in modern times, and of evil and abuses even among members of the clergy, it is easier for them to believe otherwise.

 

But give them a proof that does not beg faith, something tangible and undeniable, and most atheists I have known would welcome it joyfully.

 

A miracle working Messiah among us TODAY (and hopefully before the mounting of Armageddon) would indeed be a timely kindness...

 

 

[Rooster7]

However, for whatever reason of personal history or intellectual baggage, they cannot simply take it on faith (it, the given word) and given ample evidence of human suffering in modern times, and of evil and abuses even among members of the clergy, it is easier for them to believe otherwise.

 

I'm always amazed when someone cites examples of evil as evidence that God cannot exist. It's these very examples of evil that makes a compelling argument for God's existence. For if we recognize evil, we must recognize good. If good does not exist, then evil cannot exist. They are opposite ends of the same spectrum. What is good and evil? These are not concepts of the physical world. These are spiritual concepts. What is in us that makes us think in these terms? Why do we care about what is good or evil? We care because God is speaking to us.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[littlebillie]

I in turn am always amazed that we don't cite the human sense of aesthetics and beauty more often as a proof of God.

 

A scientist can give reasons for emotions and say evil does not exist as evil per se - it's just the way stuff happens...

 

Then he can walk outside and stare at a glorious sunset, and never wonder... Oh, not even about where the sunset came from, or why it is beautiful - but about why he has a sense of beauty at all, or why he enjoys music, say, or abstract art. Surely there are NO simple survival advantages to this kind of joy in aesthetic appreciation?

 

And yet there are sounds and colors and images that are uplifting and cleansing, even for someone who has never attended a formal, man-made church...

 

but you know, the flip side is that the faithful, who know God has given them so much that is logical and wonderfully, intricately designed, a universe in which everything has a purpose - well, these same people can't see that at least some scientists seek and learn BECAUSE they love God...

 

faith AND knowledge, knowledge AND faith. I have two hands, and one is abler than the other - nevertheless, I need them both...

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Imagine a "science" that explained rainbows as the acts of leprechauns, and its proponents said you can't examine their theory "objectively" until you recognize the existence of leprechauns.

 

Well, yes - there is some truth to that statement. If scientists disregard the possibly of leprechauns without any analysis, then any theory involving leprechauns will be discarded without thought as well.

 

You don't even understand the analogy; I didn't say the scientists disregarded the possibility, I said the leprechaun advocate insisted that the scientists first had to actually believe in leprechauns before being able to examine the theory "objectively". You seem to be assuming that anything short of genuine belief constitutes "disregarding without thought", which is simply wrong. That's just what you're insisting regarding gods.

 

As I noted in my first post, emotions are derived from spiritual inspiration (good and bad). Can I prove it? Yes, but not by scientific method.

 

Like I said, you aren't dealing with science.

 

Now, I realize that you feel no sense of obligation to respond to my assertions, but please try to indulge me.

 

You didn't understand my earlier remark. ScoutParent seemed to think I should be able to offer an explanation of reality because I criticized yours; I was just pointing out that pointing out flaws in someone else's argument doesn't obligate the critic to put forward a replacement argument.

 

How does an atheist explain emotions?

 

Given that there are millions of atheists, it doesn't make much sense to ask how "an atheist" explains it, unless you've taken a poll or something.

 

If it is as I have already explained (simple chemical reactions), why not just say so?

 

Why not? It's true enough; and music is just simple sound waves.

 

Perhaps you recognize how silly it is to demean emotions as such, and to reduce the human race to the status of biological machines.

 

I don't think it's demeaning; I think it's silly to tack on an invisible spiritual world that somehow, magically gives emotions "meaning". Since music can give people emotional experiences, is there some spiritual component to sound waves that gives music its emotional force?

[Zorn Packte]

Q.E.D.

 

What have you proven? That I'm not a white supremacist? Not hardly, I just said that I'm not a neo-Nazi. Neo-Nazis shouldn't even use the term "Nazi" to describe themselves. Among all the bad, the Nazis were builders, engineers and lovers of art. The neo-Nazis only destroy.

[OldGreyEagle]

Yeah, gotta take your hat off to those wacky Nazi guys, they built Tremblinka, Dachau, etc and engineered those ovens and gas powered showers while truly appreciating the plundered art of the Jewish families they destroyed and the European villages they conquered.(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[ScoutParent]

Merlyn,

 

I'm sorry if you thought I was implying you were obligated to share your viewpoint of reality with us. I certainly didn't intend for you to think that! I was just inviting you to give an alternate view point so we as rational adult human beings could view two sides to the ideas presented. So let me ask it a different way, Merlyn, what do you think emotions are? Do you have any thoughts on this subject? The other thing that I was hoping you would answer for us is what part of the theory of evolution did you find compelling? Which particular idea caused you to know it was true? One more quick question; have you ever studied the Bible (as an adult)?

[littlebillie]

Q.E.D.?

 

"What have you proven? That I'm not a white supremacist? Not hardly, I just said that I'm not a neo-Nazi"

 

Let's see - so I can't prove that you're NOT a white supremacist? well, someone with as many degrees as yourself knows that REALLY narrows down the field of possible conclusions, esp. with that elegant "not hardly" tacked on.

 

see, it's like what started off this whole sorry exchange between us. I had said that you were coming across white-supremacistic, apologized if I misunderstood and asked for clarification so I would know with what and whom I was dealing. I also made clear my stand on white supremacism.

 

NOW you've really garbled it all up, and seem to be telling me it's impossible to prove that you're NOT such a thing.

 

if you can't answer these questions directly, how is it possible to have a candid, honest discussion with ANYone?

 

 

Um - btw, the QED was intended as levity for the Leprechaun thing. I won't confuse you with someone with a sense of humor again either...

[littlebillie]

...and FYI - for various and sundry - 'Jewess' and 'Negress' are both considered offensive...

 

did anyone NOT know that?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I'm sorry if you thought I was implying you were obligated to share your viewpoint of reality with us. I certainly didn't intend for you to think that! I was just inviting you to give an alternate view point so we as rational adult human beings could view two sides to the ideas presented.

 

I don't mind the question, I was only stating that pointing out flaws in someone's argument stands on its own, it doesn't depend on having an alternate explanation.

 

So let me ask it a different way, Merlyn, what do you think emotions are? Do you have any thoughts on this subject?

 

They're a cmonbination of brain states and your endocrine system.

 

Now, for those who argue that emotions have some spiritual connection, why can brain injuries affect a person's emotional personality? Why do manic-depressives change their emotional state after taking lithium? Why do other drugs or hormonal changes affect emotions?

 

It's like saying the brain doesn't really think; if thinking isn't the result of brain states, what is all that brain activity doing? Why does poking an electride into certain parts trigger memories?

 

What's left for the spiritual side to DO? It's like saying angels move planets around, but when Newton's laws are shown to move them, what's left for the angels to do?

 

The other thing that I was hoping you would answer for us is what part of the theory of evolution did you find compelling? Which particular idea caused you to know it was true?

 

It explains what's observed, and it's useful in developing modern biology and medicine. What new discoveries have creationists come up with? What medicines are developed using the creation model?

 

One more quick question; have you ever studied the Bible (as an adult)?

 

Not really, no. It's got talking animals in it.

[ScoutParent]

Merlyn,

 

Since you're a reasonable intelligent person why don't you take a chance and read the Bible through once? What could it hurt? At least you would see the perspective that you are arguing against.

 

Now I'm kind of curious what you have observed evolve? Could you site specific examples of plants, animals or humans that you have personally observed evolving? Also, I posed a question for you on human evolution the other day: Which human race is genetically superior to the others?

 

Merlyn, I don't find any substantiation for the flat earth theory in the Bible--do you have a book, chapter and verse for me to refer to?