[orangeatheist]

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

Wow, yer feisty, Cap’n. But I see your knack for taking something and running with it all willy nilly hasn’t diminished since you abandoned our last discussion.

Originally Posted by Capatain_Poncho

Thanks, I guess. And I'm OH so sorry I didn't respond to the last rambling post you directed at me. I'll try to make up for that apparently huge disappointment to you here.

First rule of emotional appeal: Label your opponent’s comments “ramblings.” Try not to poison the well, Cap’n. And I appreciate that you finally took the time to actually venture answers to my questions and points.

Originally Posted by orangeathiest

No, I’m not implying that people today are too smart to believe in a god.

Originally Posted by Capatain_Poncho

Just that you wish they were, and that God has no relevence in society.

When did I say god has no relevance in society? I said (or at least tried to imply that) the mention of a deity in government documents is not relevant to the carrying out of said government documents. Please try to keep up.

Originally Posted by Capatain_Poncho

Which seems to be the foundation for the rest of your post, a foundation that I find vacuous and dangerous.

Well, then, you’ve got your panties in a bunch for no reason since the predication of your assumption was incorrect.

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

While I wish that were true I’m fully aware that a vast majority still believe in some divine power. My question has to do with relevance. Centuries ago, people believed gods and demons caused disease and ordered the course of events. We know now that this isn’t true of necessity. Such beliefs are just that: beliefs. Would you care to deny that?

Originally Posted by Capatain_Poncho

The implication here being that, we can recognize a belief in (or reference to) God to as a soon-to-be-proven-false idea that has no useful purpose, right?

No. You missed it again. As far as I’m concerned, god has already been “proven” false. I realize, however, that to folks like you this is something that may never happen. I’m fine with that. As I spelled out my intention later in my post and you replied to it, I have to assume that you missed it yet again based upon your question above.

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

Since these are merely beliefs (and highly personal ones at that) they really do not affect the course of civic discourse, do they? While the Founding Fathers, and many moderns, may have believed (or still believe) that a divinity controls (or ordained) our government, such a belief has no practical purpose.

Originally Posted by Capatain_Poncho

I heartily disagree.

Of course you would.

Originally Posted by Capatain_Poncho

To realize and recognize that God is in control and that we are not is wise beyond measure.

I do not share your opinion. Why should my government?

Originally Posted by Capatain_Poncho

To live our lives and make our government an extension of that mindset is nothing but good.

Spoken by a true zealot. Let me rephrase your sentiments and see if you’d still agree with them.

“To realize and recognize that Allah is in control and that we are not is wise beyond measure,” said the Palestinian. “To live our lives and make our government an extension of that mindset is nothing but good.”

Oh yeah, I forgot. Cap’n worships the true god, not those terrorist bastards!

Originally Posted by Capatain_Poncho

A nation that gets its direction from God doesn't fall into the human mindset that we ought to look out for number one as the basis for our existence.

For crying out loud will you please stop beating on that poor straw man!

Originally Posted by Capatain_Poncho

A nation that is only interested in making sure we get 1)pleasure 2)convenience and 3)power is a nation without the direction of God.

And what nation would that be, pray tell? The one populated by your straw men?

Originally Posted by Capatain_Poncho

See ancient Rome, Assyria, etc. for a good example of a self-seeking, self-gratifying culture imploding upon itself.

And these nations fell because they stopped acknowledging Yahweh? Huh?

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

Name how it is useful, Cap’n. What practical purpose does it provide other than to placate the believer?

Originally Posted by Capatain_Poncho

See above.

But your “above” didn’t answer word one of my question other than to support your straw man argument.

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

If there are items in these documents that have no practical relevancy, certainly. It is not merely my personal choice to remove the mention of a deity from government proceedings but simply the practical nature of it. What purpose does it serve that supports government? Can you name something other than “majority opinion,” personal bias or nostalgia?

Originally Posted by Capatain_Poncho

I've covered the practical purposes that belief in God serves.

I guess I must’ve missed it. You try to answer it below but all you do is prove my point that the only purpose it serves is to placate a personal religious bias.

Originally Posted by Capatain_Poncho

But here's a few more: Adhering to the teachings of God leads one to: love for love's sake,

No it doesn’t. I love for love’s sake as well and don’t have a god to appeal to. Therefore, no practical purpose. Besides, love for love’s sake, by its very definition, does not require acknowledgement of a god. In fact, love for love’s sake simply requires the acknowledgement of love. Next?

Originally Posted by Capatain_Poncho

…help those less fortunate,

Buddhists and atheists do this too, and without any appeal to a god. Various other religions help those who are less fortunate as well and, guess what? No acknowledgement of Yahweh whom, you admit below, was the deity our Founding Fathers had in mind when they used the generic term, “god” in their writings. Therefore, again, no practical purpose that cannot be served without an appeal to a god, and even more directly, to the Hebrew/Christian deity. Next?

Originally Posted by Capatain_Poncho

…bring up your kids with discipline, respecting and loving your spouse second only to God, etc.

Well, you sort of have me there. I don’t respect and love my spouse second only to a sky fairy. I respect and love her second to none. But, I suppose, that’s to be expected from an atheist! But, as I’ve stated elsewhere to you, my children are very disciplined and respectful and loving. Once again, this is all done with appeals to a deity. Therefore, again, no practical purpose. Next?
.
.
Oh, there is no “next.”

Originally Posted by Capatain_Poncho

These are the BASIS of society.

Yes, and each of these qualities can be had without reference to a deity. That’s my point!

Originally Posted by Capatain_Poncho

Having the government recognize this is not harmful in any way, shape or form

Recognizing the qualities is of course not harmful. Recognizing one unproven deity over against another unproven deity can be harmful in this pluralistic society. Don’t you see that?

Originally Posted by Capatain_Poncho

…and I'd ask you, ORANGEATHIEST to cite specific examples of how it IS harmful to recognize this basis of society.

It is “harmful” in the same way that it would be “harmful” to you to wake up one day and see your elected officials acknowledging Sharia Islamic Law as the basis of society and telling you to pipe down while they get on their prayer rugs and bow to Mecca. How is erecting a minaret near your high school harmful, Cap’n so as to call all citizens to worship five times a day? How is it harmful to recognize that the 8 Fold Path of Buddhism is the basis of society? Do you see yet how it works when only one deity –or any at all—is singled out for acknowledgement?

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

When have I ever stated that you are not free to worship whatever sky deity you want?

When have I ever accused you of such? I note, with some amusement, that later on in this post, you accuse me of jumping to conclusions. Absolutely classic.

Well, Cap’n, you may be pleased with yourself for thinking you found me in a trip up, but let me take you back to the original conversation. You had stated, “I'll be going through the Contitution and the Bill of rights with my list of things we ought to be rid of and everyone should abide by that.” The clear implication of the statement, “…things we ought to be rid of and everyone should abide by that” was a reflection of your perception that it is my atheistic desire to remove mention of God from US founding documents because I find them displeasing. I, of course, set you straight on that misperception. However, even if this were true (and what prompted my comment above) was that removal of god from the government in no way infringes upon your right to worship him anyway you please. Therefore, even if I did “go through the Contitution [sic] and Bill of rights [sic] with my list of things we ought to be rid of” that does not imply that “everyone should abide by that,” if that list included removal of references of god as a point to stop personal worship. I may desire everyone to abandon god-belief but that doesn’t mean my personal wishes should be taken up by others by enforcement of law.

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

See what I mean? Having a discussion with you is like watching a tennis match: you jump to so many conclusions that my neck hurts just trying to catch up. Why don’t you pocket your religious zealotry long enough to get the point?

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

Howzabout you pocket your religious zealotry for science as god

May I ask, in light of that last comment, if you read Hovind (Dr. Dino)’s work or are associated with anyone who does?

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

and, while you're at it, put down the Hotbutton Words That I Don't Think Apply To Me Ready Reference Guide. I understand you Athiests fluster easily.

You see, this is what you can term “rambling.”
[Quote=orangeatheist
Ah, so you believe these Founding Fathers had Yahweh in mind when they used the generic “god” term? [/quote]

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

Yep.

Thank you for playing.

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

And nice of you to dodge my point and focus only a parenthetical comment I was making. Do you always pick and choose what you respond to in order to save face?

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

Do you always get this angry when trying to discuss the rational nature of your Athiesm?

Not when it’s being discussed with a peer of equal rationality. Just ask Mile High Shack. And, for what it’s worth, I’m not angry. I’m annoyed by self-righteous religious zealots who make posts like buckshot against their opponents and then think they can get away with it by cherry picking what points they feel comfortable answering.

Forgive me if I take the time and effort to post thoughtful and thorough replies and feel it is common curtsey to expect the same in return. I guess your god doesn’t teach you that, eh?

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

I'm so very, very, heart rendingly sorry I didn't answer the query to the full satisfaction of my easily-riled counterpart.

Your feigned sorrow is noted. Sarcasm is so becoming in a man of faith, isn’t it?

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

Why don't you answer my questions when you decide to respond to my posts?

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

I didn't realize you were the arbetur of what, specifically, I had to respond to. Now that I know better, I can make sure I don't disappoint you and make you all flustered again.

Self-righteous sarcasm noted again but you didn’t answer my question. Why did you avoid some of my questions in favor of others?

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

Let me repost what you edited in order to avoid the tough answer. I had asked:Would removing the deity really have any affect on civil proceedings? It's not like Yahweh or Allah or Ahura Mazda (who whomever the Founding Fathers were referencing using the generic term "God") is drawing some paycheck from the taxpayers. Certainly keep such references for historic and nostalgic purposes but why do they have to have any bearing on the course of our proceedings today?

Care to take a stab at answering that now, Cap'n?

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

That self-righteous "care to take a stab" bit is so cute. Anyhow...

“Self-righteous?” More like “annoyed response”.

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

The purpose, as I outlined in my first response, is that keeping the references in serves to remind us that we are not in control of everything,

Humans are not in control of our government? That is the point of this discussion, isn’t it? You’re trying to move the goalposts and now make this reference to god as all-encompassing. We, of course, are not in control of everything. The folks in Florida bracing for a hurricane impact surely know that by now if they didn’t already. But the fact that humans cannot control everything does not, by default, require us to acknowledge a god. And even if it did, which god out of thousands should we choose, according to government? What would you advocate in your zealous appeals?

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

…and that we owe our very existence as people and as a nation to God.

I owe your god no such thing. And neither do the Buddhists or Hindus or Muslims or Zorastrians or any other religion that does not acknowledge your Yahweh. I again appeal to your good senses: What practical purpose does any of this serve? You haven’t answered the question without emotional and circular appeals.

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

It also serves notice that we recognize that there is justice higher than what people can dole out,

Is that right? And if I were to ask you to empirically demonstrate that there is a “justice higher than what people can dole out,” would you be able to oblige?

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

…and that it's in our best interest as individuals and as a nation to recognize that.

It certainly isn’t in my best interest. And wasn’t it you who didn’t want other ideas forced upon you? Why, yes it was! Sarcastically, you had stated, “ I'll be going through the Contitution and the Bill of rights with my list of things we ought to be rid of and everyone should abide by that.” Meaning, of course, quite the opposite. Does your hypocrisy keep you up at night?

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

The fact that you don't recognize that doesn't make you right, nor the lone voice of reason. But it does put you in a very tiny minority.

And, of course, we now that the majority is always right, don’t we? At one time, Christians were the “very tiny minority” and I can imagine a Roman senator saying, “The purpose, as I outlined in my first response, is that keeping the references to the Roman gods serves to remind us that we are not in control of everything, and that we owe our very existence as people and as a nation to the gods. It also serves notice that we recognize that there is justice higher than what people can dole out, and that it's in our best interest as individuals and as a nation to recognize that. The fact that you don't recognize that and choose to acknowledge a dead savior doesn't make you right, nor the lone voice of reason. But it does put you in a very tiny minority.” See it yet?

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

And here’s my point, Cap’n. Let’s see if you can keep up this time: What, for practical purposes, changes if I were say “All men are equal” and drop the “created” part?

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

It helps remove the recognition of God as soverign over us, as the creator of mankind, thus making us more self-focussed and less outwardly focussed. Which is the first step in a nation's self-destruction.

Emotional appeal again. I do not acknowledge a creator and I am not nearly as self-focused as some other Christians who do acknowledge a creator are. You are generalizing again and drawing conclusions from a false stereotype. I asked you for practical reasons and you give me religion. You are doing nothing more than proving my point.

[Quote=orangeatheist]
Hopefully you can answer this SIMPLE question and not distort it into another straw man or avoid it altogether. [/qoute]

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

Hopefully, you can refrain from future inflammatory pronouncements like the above and stick to your actual points. Because when you rant like that it just makes you look snippy.

Thanks for the pointers. I will try to keep them in mind while you dodge more of my questions in your zealotry to appeal to emotions.

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

Glad you agree. But seriously, I have no problem with keeping such statements in the original documents. What I have a problem with is people acting on these words. For example, because these founding documents mention a widely held belief by the Founding Fathers that human beings were "created" by a god, some zealous Christian fundamentalists assert that public schools in America should teach Creation Science or some other such nonsense.

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

Yes. People acting out their faith are prone to bad, right? How presumptuous.

WTF? Can you please try to retain focus on the actual subject we are discussing? This isn’t about general “acting out” of faith, but the acting out of faith as a function of government. You will try to pay attention, won’t you?

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

As for Creation science, I'd urge you to look into the idea of Intelligent Design,

What makes you think I haven’t looked into it? Let me ask you a question regarding ID: Let’s for a moment assume that the Universe really was designed by an intelligent superbeing. Would you assume that this superbeing was Yahweh?

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

..and irreducible complexity.

Debunked nonsense. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html for starters.

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

I'd also like to point out for you that, as an athiest, you shouldn't have to lean on faith in any respect. To believe in the theory of evolution

You’ve really sunk your teeth into some old canards, haven’t you? I ask again, are you friends with Kent Hovind? Evolution is a theory and a fact. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html When you familiarize yourself with the proper terminology we can discuss this subject in a different thread. Deal?

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

as being the answer as to how and why we're all here requires a great deal of faith. Sound the alarm!

*sigh*

Edit: I'm too tired to go through and edit my spelling and formatting errors. You'll just have to find it in your generous hearts to forgive me....