|
Post by slappy on Dec 5, 2013 17:50:50 GMT -5
It was added in the 50s for propagandist reasons. The original pledge makes no reference to God as do none of the versions upto that one which we use today. Considering a democracy & a republic are both derivative of pagan values, we aren't, nor have we ever truly been one nation under whatever bearded man in the sky you assume is God. I never said it did originally contain it. All I'm saying is this country is a very religious nation and for people to act like it isn't is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Dec 5, 2013 17:52:30 GMT -5
I was never taught creationism in public school. In fact, when we got to that part in school the teacher explicitly said it's wrong, that she didn't care if someone believes it is right, it's not. That evolution is the only way.
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Dec 5, 2013 18:01:44 GMT -5
! All of life is that is worth anything is based on evidence that can be known in someway, be it rational or empirical. Considering that I as a philosopher believe that all of life is the eternal pursuit of knowledge, & achieve this by constant changing my THEORIES TO SUIT FACTS AND NEVER FACTS TO SUIT THEORIES, where as religious doctrines are the ultimate example of "answers that must never be questioned" & when you add to that the level of contempt religious practitioners/believers hold towards any questioning of their system's consistency, validity, or purpose. Reason is the enemy of faith after all, just as the undiscovered medicine is the enemy of cancerous cells in our bodies. The shallowness of this dialogue is solely the contribution of religion with it's "I can't explain, therefore God did it" fallacy. Religion attempts to demonize the pursuit of knowledge & is the very antithesis to all medical, scientific, philosophical, & artistic progress. It attempts to provide a purpose that chains humanity to it's moral compass & teaches us to dispose our bodies & our differences. Philosophy lives by the concept that life can truly have meaning so long as we search for meaning. As long as we don't search for religious meaning of course. Sent from my Nexus 10 using proboards The search for meaning encompasses meaning for all things. The very questioning of religious doctrine is the search for religious meaning by definiton. Here's the difference between the religious search & my search. I dissect all systems be them religious, political, philosophical & so on. You cannot say something is right without knowing why all of the other proposed/supposed answersare wrong. You cannot claim Christianity to be superior to Islam, Confucianism to Hinduism, Greek Myths to Egyptian or Norse Gods or sun worshipers or satanists, or wickens & so on without studying the system enough to understand how it conforms to or contradict the facts of existence. There are no legitimate trains of thought without logic. Everything besides it falls into a main category of "Dissillusioned logic" which is filled with an infinite number of sub-categorizations of thought processes. Religions claim that they have all answers & that those answers are to never be questioned. See which one could actually continue in progression? Certainly beats Crucifictions & Thinking he eat his flat &/or resting on the backs of tortoises.
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Dec 5, 2013 18:08:38 GMT -5
It was added in the 50s for propagandist reasons. The original pledge makes no reference to God as do none of the versions upto that one which we use today. Considering a democracy & a republic are both derivative of pagan values, we aren't, nor have we ever truly been one nation under whatever bearded man in the sky you assume is God. I never said it did originally contain it. All I'm saying is this country is a very religious nation and for people to act like it isn't is ridiculous. I apologize for misunderstanding your post. This is a religious nation to many degrees, although it's very unlikely that none of the Presidents were Atheists as they all stated during their lifetimes respectively. My general point was that the addition of that phrase was for generating profits & spreading propaganda as opposed to a belief in the unity of our citizens. It's an attempt to demonize politicians as it spot simply keep things clarified. I admit I made a mistake for it is not our mistakes that define us(To a reasonable degree with the exclusion of rape, murder, genocide etc), but our actions to improve ourselves afterwards.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Dec 5, 2013 19:03:57 GMT -5
As long as we don't search for religious meaning of course. Sent from my Nexus 10 using proboards The search for meaning encompasses meaning for all things. The very questioning of religious doctrine is the search for religious meaning by definiton. Here's the difference between the religious search & my search. I dissect all systems be them religious, political, philosophical & so on. You cannot say something is right without knowing why all of the other proposed/supposed answersare wrong.You cannot claim Christianity to be superior to Islam, Confucianism to Hinduism, Greek Myths to Egyptian or Norse Gods or sun worshipers or satanists, or wickens & so on without studying the system enough to understand how it conforms to or contradict the facts of existence. There are no legitimate trains of thought without logic. Everything besides it falls into a main category of "Dissillusioned logic" which is filled with an infinite number of sub-categorizations of thought processes. Religions claim that they have all answers & that those answers are to never be questioned. See which one could actually continue in progression? Certainly beats Crucifictions & Thinking he eat his flat &/or resting on the backs of tortoises. This is an incorrect statement. Even from a purely empirical standpoint, this is incorrect. Once something has been empirically proven to be correct there is no need to spend time/energy/effort looking at all other explanations. I've not known many religions that claim they "have all the answers". There's certainly adherents to various religions who claim that, but they tend to be in minority even within in their religion. You're stuck in this false dichotomy of either science or religion when the fact is that both can happily co-exist and people can integrate the beliefs of both of them into their life in order to answer the difficult questions of life.
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Dec 5, 2013 19:13:08 GMT -5
The search for meaning encompasses meaning for all things. The very questioning of religious doctrine is the search for religious meaning by definiton. Here's the difference between the religious search & my search. I dissect all systems be them religious, political, philosophical & so on. You cannot say something is right without knowing why all of the other proposed/supposed answersare wrong.You cannot claim Christianity to be superior to Islam, Confucianism to Hinduism, Greek Myths to Egyptian or Norse Gods or sun worshipers or satanists, or wickens & so on without studying the system enough to understand how it conforms to or contradict the facts of existence. There are no legitimate trains of thought without logic. Everything besides it falls into a main category of "Dissillusioned logic" which is filled with an infinite number of sub-categorizations of thought processes. Religions claim that they have all answers & that those answers are to never be questioned. See which one could actually continue in progression? Certainly beats Crucifictions & Thinking he eat his flat &/or resting on the backs of tortoises. This is an incorrect statement. Even from a purely empirical standpoint, this is incorrect. Once something has been empirically proven to be correct there is no need to spend time/energy/effort looking at all other explanations. I've not known many religions that claim they "have all the answers". There's certainly adherents to various religions who claim that, but they tend to be in minority even within in their religion. You're stuck in this false dichotomy of either science or religion when the fact is that both can happily co-exist and people can integrate the beliefs of both of them into their life in order to answer the difficult questions of life. You first have to test the various theories before you can do that. Forensic science is all about deducing the evidence by examining anything & everything in relation to the case. Philosophy & Science as a whole is no different. You're seriously kidding me right'? All three Abrhamic religions claim that you only need their holy text to understand the world. I am the son of a pastor & every major theologian claims their holy book explains the world & how it comes to being & why. There's no point in having free speech if you use to say things that devoid of knowledge or artistic value. The whole reason why people hate religion is because it implies that we should be content with not understanding the world. Jesus' whole damn point was that we need only follow him for he is the way, the truth, & the life. Alah is the one true God & Muhammad is his prophet ring a bell??? Seriously where do you get your information?
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Dec 5, 2013 19:17:37 GMT -5
There's no point in having free speech if you use to say things that devoid of knowledge or artistic value. So you wish free speech wasn't so free? Who is to judge if speech has that kind of value?
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Dec 5, 2013 19:35:24 GMT -5
There's no point in having free speech if you use to say things that devoid of knowledge or artistic value. So you wish free speech wasn't so free? Who is to judge if speech has that kind of value? Apparently he does.
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Dec 5, 2013 19:45:21 GMT -5
There's no point in having free speech if you use to say things that devoid of knowledge or artistic value. So you wish free speech wasn't so free? Who is to judge if speech has that kind of value? I fight for free speech for having these dialogues. I actually thank you for responding because I believe the unexamined life is not worth living. That is actually such an immaculate question that I'm no longer embarrassed by your prior posts. Informational speech is judged(as it relates to it's value) by it's validity. Even logical fallacies are of immense value for study purposes. Artistic speech is obviously an area of human thought that is dictated by one's perception of their universe. This creates an immense kerfuffle since most artists are generally suffering from mental illness in some way(According to Freud) & their best work is a purge of their anguish. A response or reaction to discomfort or pleasure & so on. We are often defined as "Art Making Animals". It's among the few definitions of ourselves that masters across virtually all forms of human endeavor actually agree upon. But if we must describe ideal conditions, then it is most aptly judged by how well it meets the criteria of conveying thoughtful, & sincere ideas, otherwise it is simply decoration. It should also please the artist themselves above all else, since they hold the true meaning of the work in their souls. There is the exception that the artist was in a state of distorted logic during the creation process, in which case it is up to someone with great understanding of the artist as a person, the style of the medium in which it was created, or both to decipher the reason for it's creation & the meaning it actually conveys.
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Dec 5, 2013 19:48:49 GMT -5
So you wish free speech wasn't so free? Who is to judge if speech has that kind of value? Apparently he does. Yes. I am, & so are you & everyone else. It's simply the issue of what weight your opinion carries if you choose to have an uneducated opinion on the matter. Don't forget. You are NOT your opinions. If they don't define you, then it's easier to deduce all stands one can take on any given issue.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Dec 5, 2013 19:59:50 GMT -5
This is an incorrect statement. Even from a purely empirical standpoint, this is incorrect. Once something has been empirically proven to be correct there is no need to spend time/energy/effort looking at all other explanations. I've not known many religions that claim they "have all the answers". There's certainly adherents to various religions who claim that, but they tend to be in minority even within in their religion. You're stuck in this false dichotomy of either science or religion when the fact is that both can happily co-exist and people can integrate the beliefs of both of them into their life in order to answer the difficult questions of life. You first have to test the various theories before you can do that. Forensic science is all about deducing the evidence by examining anything & everything in relation to the case. Philosophy & Science as a whole is no different. You're seriously kidding me right'? All three Abrhamic religions claim that you only need their holy text to understand the world. I am the son of a pastor & every major theologian claims their holy book explains the world & how it comes to being & why. There's no point in having free speech if you use to say things that devoid of knowledge or artistic value. The whole reason why people hate religion is because it implies that we should be content with not understanding the world. Jesus' whole damn point was that we need only follow him for he is the way, the truth, & the life. Alah is the one true God & Muhammad is his prophet ring a bell??? Seriously where do you get your information? No. You don't. Please check out the scientific method again. That is just an incorrect statement. Once you reach an empirical conclusion, you don't go back and test every single explanation that's out there. You would get nothing at all done that way. Do you think there are scientists who spend their lives testing alternatives to Newton's laws? No. Because Newton's laws have been empirically proven. There's no need to spend time continuing to investigate whether a proven theory is proven. That's dumb. You do realize that the texts of the three Abrahamic religions all overlap right? Your contempt for free speech is beyond belief. Free speech has long been accepted as a basic human right. Now you've just said that if speech is unpopular (with you) it shouldn't be protected. That's beyond ridiculous. People hate religion because people are haters. If religion was gone, they'd find something else to hate and some other reason to hate others. People have always hated other people. It's human nature. They've hated others for reasons far beyond religious ones as well.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Ragnarok on Dec 5, 2013 20:05:31 GMT -5
The search for meaning encompasses meaning for all things. The very questioning of religious doctrine is the search for religious meaning by definiton. Here's the difference between the religious search & my search. I dissect all systems be them religious, political, philosophical & so on. You cannot say something is right without knowing why all of the other proposed/supposed answersare wrong.You cannot claim Christianity to be superior to Islam, Confucianism to Hinduism, Greek Myths to Egyptian or Norse Gods or sun worshipers or satanists, or wickens & so on without studying the system enough to understand how it conforms to or contradict the facts of existence. There are no legitimate trains of thought without logic. Everything besides it falls into a main category of "Dissillusioned logic" which is filled with an infinite number of sub-categorizations of thought processes. Religions claim that they have all answers & that those answers are to never be questioned. See which one could actually continue in progression? Certainly beats Crucifictions & Thinking he eat his flat &/or resting on the backs of tortoises. This is an incorrect statement. Even from a purely empirical standpoint, this is incorrect. Once something has been empirically proven to be correct there is no need to spend time/energy/effort looking at all other explanations. I've not known many religions that claim they "have all the answers". There's certainly adherents to various religions who claim that, but they tend to be in minority even within in their religion. You're stuck in this false dichotomy of either science or religion when the fact is that both can happily co-exist and people can integrate the beliefs of both of them into their life in order to answer the difficult questions of life. False! Most logical and rational adults have absolutely no use for religious mumbo jumbo, nor do they need an invisible sky daddy to help them answer life's difficult questions. Religion does not answer any of the difficult questions in life, it just adds confusion. Saying that science and religion can co-exist is such a ridiculous statement. Ask Stephen Hawking if he thinks religion and science can co-exist. Ask Charles Darwin. Ask Galileo. Ask Carl Sagan. Ask Peter Higgs. Ask Richard Dawkins. I guarantee you that if you were to propose the idea, to any of these men, that science and religion can co-exist they would laugh right in your face. These man are of sound and rational minds and proposing the idea that those who believe in talking snakes and resurrections and cockatrices and other children's fairy tales can co-exist with those who believe in science and logic and rational thinking is really laughable. If I were to go around and claim that Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy were real, people would think I belong in a mental institution and most likely would not want to associate with me. So why then do those that believe in talking snakes, burning bushes, cockatrices, resurrections, giants ect... be exempt from the same scrutiny? It's such a ridiculous notion to imply that grown adults could and should associate themselves with other grown adults that still believe in fairy tales.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Dec 5, 2013 20:14:53 GMT -5
So you wish free speech wasn't so free? Who is to judge if speech has that kind of value? I fight for free speech for having these dialogues. I actually thank you for responding because I believe the unexamined life is not worth living. That is actually such an immaculate question that I'm no longer embarrassed by your prior posts. Informational speech is judged(as it relates to it's value) by it's validity. Even logical fallacies are of immense value for study purposes. Artistic speech is obviously an area of human thought that is dictated by one's perception of their universe. This creates an immense kerfuffle since most artists are generally suffering from mental illness in some way(According to Freud) & their best work is a purge of their anguish. A response or reaction to discomfort or pleasure & so on. We are often defined as "Art Making Animals". It's among the few definitions of ourselves that masters across virtually all forms of human endeavor actually agree upon. But if we must describe ideal conditions, then it is most aptly judged by how well it meets the criteria of conveying thoughtful, & sincere ideas, otherwise it is simply decoration. It should also please the artist themselves above all else, since they hold the true meaning of the work in their souls. There is the exception that the artist was in a state of distorted logic during the creation process, in which case it is up to someone with great understanding of the artist as a person, the style of the medium in which it was created, or both to decipher the reason for it's creation & the meaning it actually conveys. Are there police going around to make sure no one is violating your speech rules? Do we lock up those violators? Do we allow people the ability to freely talk about what they want in their own homes?
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Dec 5, 2013 20:15:58 GMT -5
If I were to go around and claim that Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy were real, people would think I belong in a mental institution and most likely would not want to associate with me. So why then do those that believe in talking snakes, burning bushes, cockatrices, resurrections, giants ect... be exempt from the same scrutiny? It's such a ridiculous notion to imply that grown adults could and should associate themselves with other grown adults that still believe in fairy tales. Are you saying every religious person should be put in a mental institution?
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Dec 5, 2013 20:21:21 GMT -5
You first have to test the various theories before you can do that. Forensic science is all about deducing the evidence by examining anything & everything in relation to the case. Philosophy & Science as a whole is no different. You're seriously kidding me right'? All three Abrhamic religions claim that you only need their holy text to understand the world. I am the son of a pastor & every major theologian claims their holy book explains the world & how it comes to being & why. There's no point in having free speech if you use to say things that devoid of knowledge or artistic value. The whole reason why people hate religion is because it implies that we should be content with not understanding the world. Jesus' whole damn point was that we need only follow him for he is the way, the truth, & the life. Alah is the one true God & Muhammad is his prophet ring a bell??? Seriously where do you get your information? No. You don't. Please check out the scientific method again. That is just an incorrect statement. Once you reach an empirical conclusion, you don't go back and test every single explanation that's out there. You would get nothing at all done that way. Do you think there are scientists who spend their lives testing alternatives to Newton's laws? No. Because Newton's laws have been empirically proven. There's no need to spend time continuing to investigate whether a proven theory is proven. That's dumb. You do realize that the texts of the three Abrahamic religions all overlap right? Your contempt for free speech is beyond belief. Free speech has long been accepted as a basic human right. Now you've just said that if speech is unpopular (with you) it shouldn't be protected. That's beyond ridiculous. People hate religion because people are haters. If religion was gone, they'd find something else to hate and some other reason to hate others. People have always hated other people. It's human nature. They've hated others for reasons far beyond religious ones as well. There was a point that scientists did that, yes. You don't have to spend your life disproving most theories since most of them die off after the second contemplation. Yes they do overlap, because they were all created from e same foundation of religious, man-made ideas. Secondly, you're not one to be advocating empirical proof when you're playing for the team that shouts "Faith is all you need" louder than any team in the league. I don't have contempt for free speech you ice-nippled Piss-frog. Hahaha! I simply detest people who deliberately ignore factual information. If you really think that Cristopher Hitchens wasn't genuinely infurietated by the atrocities that religion justified, then you have robbed yourself of so much of the remaining validity you had (besides your crutch ala red ing herring in regards to claiming that I "hate free speech") that I can't take anymore away from you. I will defend your right to free speech the same as I would anyone else, but I will question you into a puddle of goop about your uneducated opinions. I won't take away your headlock if you understand that I will always grind your head back by the nose, hook a head scissors & drive my knuckle into your throat because this is catch-as-catch-can, also known as "life" where the strongest burns out, the fastest slips under the force of his own momentum & only the most intelligent remains in the realm of philosophical symposia.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Ragnarok on Dec 5, 2013 20:27:36 GMT -5
If I were to go around and claim that Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy were real, people would think I belong in a mental institution and most likely would not want to associate with me. So why then do those that believe in talking snakes, burning bushes, cockatrices, resurrections, giants ect... be exempt from the same scrutiny? It's such a ridiculous notion to imply that grown adults could and should associate themselves with other grown adults that still believe in fairy tales. Are you saying every religious person should be put in a mental institution? Anyone that believes in talking snakes, burning bushes, cockatrices, resurrections, giants, angels, demons, leviathans, miracles, invisible sky daddies, ect... should definitely be required to take a mental evaluation.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Dec 5, 2013 20:30:47 GMT -5
Are you saying every religious person should be put in a mental institution? Anyone that believes in talking snakes, burning bushes, cockatrices, resurrections, giants, angels, demons, leviathans, miracles, invisible sky daddies, ect... should definitely be required to take a mental evaluation. So where/how do we lock up 90+% of the country?
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Dec 5, 2013 20:46:06 GMT -5
Anyone that believes in talking snakes, burning bushes, cockatrices, resurrections, giants, angels, demons, leviathans, miracles, invisible sky daddies, ect... should definitely be required to take a mental evaluation. So where/how do we lock up 90+% of the country? He said they should take an evaluation, not lock them in concentrations camps. You should at least half to present a valid reason to believe it.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Dec 5, 2013 20:55:00 GMT -5
So where/how do we lock up 90+% of the country? He said they should take an evaluation, not lock them in concentrations camps. You should at least half to present a valid reason to believe it. Do you believe there is any valid reason to be religious? What happens if whoever is given the authority to oversee the evaluations decides they all need to be locked up? How do we do that?
|
|
|
Post by Lord Ragnarok on Dec 5, 2013 20:55:02 GMT -5
Anyone that believes in talking snakes, burning bushes, cockatrices, resurrections, giants, angels, demons, leviathans, miracles, invisible sky daddies, ect... should definitely be required to take a mental evaluation. So where/how do we lock up 90+% of the country? Where did I say to lock them up?
|
|