Atheists want God stricken from inaugural oath

[Samurai Goomba]

It's a Christian nation, like it or not. It's not like anyone's forcing atheists to become practicing followers. If anything, it's honoring this nation's roots.

I agree. This isn't some sort of indoctrination thing-we're respecting the way in which this nation was founded. Removing any trace of Christianity from our government feels disrespectful to our forefathers. First it was the Pledge, now this.

 

[Mr Scott]

Since the word 'god' means nothing to me but SOMEONE ELSE'S fictional deities (no offense intended), I could care less if the oath ended with 'so help me Satan.'

 

[Codeman90]

I can stand Atheists but when its these "Raging Atheists" that demand every single slightly religious word be purged from everything.

Geez I'm suprised an angry Atheist hasn't demanded a church be destroyed because hes forced to drive by it on his way to work *end sarcasm*

This is a CHRISTIAN nation like it or not. Be glad you live in a country that let's you choose not to follow a relgion at all. Heck we could be like some middle eastern countries and adopt a holy book as the flippin constitution. Just lighten up this kind of thing is the least of your worries.

EDIT: besides as everyone knows science is the new religion. NO ONE questions science it is alway infailable and provides us with all the answers we need. so "in science we trust".

*okay now it really is end sarcasm*

 

[thatotherguy2]

I think that with the more freedoms we get the more people are going to get offended with little things revolving religion. I can see some reasons such as the separation of church and state but lets just leave this alone.

 

[edinflames]

I can stand Atheists but when its these "Raging Atheists" that demand every single slightly religious word be purged from everything.

Geez I'm suprised an angry Atheist hasn't demanded a church be destroyed because hes forced to drive by it on his way to work *end sarcasm*

This is a CHRISTIAN nation like it or not. Be glad you live in a country that let's you choose not to follow a relgion at all. Heck we could be like some middle eastern countries and adopt a holy book as the flippin constitution. Just lighten up this kind of thing is the least of your worries.

EDIT: besides as everyone knows science is the new religion. NO ONE questions science it is alway infailable and provides us with all the answers we need. so "in science we trust".

*okay now it really is end sarcasm*

Very much agree, apart from your appreciation of science. The whole point of science is that it does not hold all the answers, but seeks to accumulate knowledge through empirical study and then hypothesise. Much of Newton's theories have since been proven wrong but his work provided the platform for future generations to build apon - the same could be said of Darwin.

Incidentally has anyone seen the 'atheist buses' in London? "There's probably no god, so stop worrying and enjoy your life" - a sound bite that neatly encapsulates a part of atheism

On topic: Atheists that want to change the inaugral oath seem to me to have slightly missed the point of non-belief.

 

[Alex_P]

EDIT: besides as everyone knows science is the new religion. NO ONE questions science it is alway infailable and provides us with all the answers we need. so "in science we trust".

Scientists question science.

-- Alex

 

[Jaythulhu]

I can understandy why. I'd heard america was a secular nation, not a theocracy, but hey, religious whackos have had so much sway over the last 8 years, I'd not be surprised if the switch was made while you were all at the snack bar.

 

[Buffoon]

You guys are more intelligent (in general) and more eloquent than I could ever hope to be, I'm not really up for the challenge of debating with you. But there are a few points I want to make.

That's what Gorky thought. Hence his persuading Stalin to stamp it out through force. Atheism is not a by-word rational thinking. Only a fundamentalist would think so. Lots of bad things have happened in the name of atheism, and just as you get religious fanatics with blood on their hands you get atheist fanatics who shoot up schools. So if you argue getting rid of one, argue getting rid of them all.

Some people will find an excuse to do bad things whatever their creed, culture, or religion. It is just a part of the human condition.

I totally acknowledge that people will continue to do bad things regardless of creed, culture, or religion. But I never suggested that atheism was a by-word for rational thinking. I never suggested that atheism was the solution to all the world's problems. I never suggested that all atheists are rational. But I do believe that all truly rational people will become atheists if they devote enough mental energy to thinking about it. I accept that you will probably disagree with that, that's fine. And I just said that nobody should be denied their faith, so I find the tenuous association with Stalin a little offensive.

Atheism is about belief. It is the belief that there is no god. There is plenty of reason to believe. It depends entirely on how you look at things. You have looked at them a certain way which has led you to the conclusion there is no god. That's great. If that works for you and if that is something you did on your own that really is good. But others have come to different conclusions, and their reasoning is just as valid as yours. If you think that yours is the *one true way* then, once more, you are a fundamentalist.

Atheism is about belief, sure, if by belief you mean a conclusion based on evidence and rational thought regarding that evidence. But it is not about faith; faith implies belief without evidence. And I don't think their reasoning is as valid as mine. If you choose to call me a fundamentalist because of that, then I guess to you I will be a fundamentalist. I think religious people hold false beliefs, I don't deny that. Obviously any person who believes in God thinks I hold false beliefs. I can handle that.

Richard Dawkins is the atheist equivalent of John Hagee. He is an evangelist, a crackpot. Beloved by his fanclub, hated by his opposition, and considered little more than an opinionated annoyance by reasonable atheists and theists alike. Look dude, you want Christians to question the Bible right? You want Muslims to question the Koran?

Why don't you question Dawkins? What he actually says, the points he actually makes? We know there aren't little baby archers in the clouds. We know that humans came from apes. Him point out stuff that was first postulated 600 BC (by theists no less) as proof that there is no god is as ridiculous as that creationist museum that is in the USA somewhere. What he is does is say that religion is (basically) retarded because some religious texts are fraught with inaccuracy and paradox.

Well so is mathematics. So is science. So is everything. People who take the Bible and such things literally are insane sure, but so are people who demand that it either be taken literally or not at all.

I do question Richard Dawkins. It seems to me there are a few flaws of logic in The God Delusion. Some of his points are irrelevant or specious. But I think you're slightly misrepresenting his work. He does not claim to have proof of the non-existence of God. He, like most sensible people, acknowledges that such a thing can never be proved. He presents the inaccuracies and paradoxes of religious texts not as proof of the non-existence of God but as evidence of the way that knowledge can become corrupted over time, and hence the futility of relying on it for irrefutable truth.

Yes, science is also fraught with inaccuracies. But the crucial difference is that when a scientist discovers an inaccuracy they acknowledge it, eliminate it and search for greater accuracy.

 

[RobinHood3000]

Actually, I would argue that atheism (at least my brand thereof) requires an element of faith, in that it's impossible to produce evidence of the absence of an omnipotent deity. Hence, no evidence, therefore my belief is based on faith.

As for the original topic, I'd have to go with the less uptight camp and say that if it were required, I would be concerned, but considering it's a Christian president, doesn't seem so weird. I'd rather concern myself with the aforementioned American currency and Pledge of Allegiance.

Last I heard, Americans were more likely to elect a well-qualified homosexual for president than a well-qualified atheist (I think it's something like 48% to 44%, but I don't remember the source). Food for thought - how great of an impact is religion on the ability to lead?

 

[Mathew952]

I would like to say that the nut job atheists who try to have the word god removed from everything, are not representative of most of us, the same that suicide bombers aren't representatives of all Muslims, or that crazy preachers don't represent all Christians.

I personally don't care if god's in there. He believes in god, so It makes sense that he would want god in it. Duh.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

You guys are more intelligent (in general) and more eloquent than I could ever hope to be, I'm not really up for the challenge of debating with you. But there are a few points I want to make.

That's what Gorky thought. Hence his persuading Stalin to stamp it out through force. Atheism is not a by-word rational thinking. Only a fundamentalist would think so. Lots of bad things have happened in the name of atheism, and just as you get religious fanatics with blood on their hands you get atheist fanatics who shoot up schools. So if you argue getting rid of one, argue getting rid of them all.

Some people will find an excuse to do bad things whatever their creed, culture, or religion. It is just a part of the human condition.

I totally acknowledge that people will continue to do bad things regardless of creed, culture, or religion. But I never suggested that atheism was a by-word for rational thinking. I never suggested that atheism was the solution to all the world's problems. I never suggested that all atheists are rational. But I do believe that all truly rational people will become atheists if they devote enough mental energy to thinking about it. I accept that you will probably disagree with that, that's fine. And I just said that nobody should be denied their faith, so I find the tenuous association with Stalin a little offensive.

That association with Stalin you find offensive, just remember it if you ever associate decent Christians with the Inquisition or crusades. Let me make it crystal clear - I don't accuse atheism of actually causing any problems at all. I accuse people who are atheists who just happen to be twat-mongers. The same can be said for Christan twat-mongers, Muslim twat-mongers... anything. A twat-monger is a twat-monger, that is what should be focused on when dealing with issues they create.

Atheism is about belief. It is the belief that there is no god. There is plenty of reason to believe. It depends entirely on how you look at things. You have looked at them a certain way which has led you to the conclusion there is no god. That's great. If that works for you and if that is something you did on your own that really is good. But others have come to different conclusions, and their reasoning is just as valid as yours. If you think that yours is the *one true way* then, once more, you are a fundamentalist.

Atheism is about belief, sure, if by belief you mean a conclusion based on evidence and rational thought regarding that evidence. But it is not about faith; faith implies belief without evidence. And I don't think their reasoning is as valid as mine. If you choose to call me a fundamentalist because of that, then I guess to you I will be a fundamentalist. I think religious people hold false beliefs, I don't deny that. Obviously any person who believes in God thinks I hold false beliefs. I can handle that.

This is the part I really think you are going astray. Your atheism is indeed the result of rational thought. That I don't dispute. But why does that mean that someone elses beliefs can't be the result of rational thought? There is an inherent danger in assuming that rational thought can lead to only one conclusion (inevitably the one the person thinking has already reached). It says that I am right, and everyone else has to be wrong.

The most rational thought in the world that you can have is that every single human alive out there has a different life, and different experiences, and has seen completely different evidence of what might be the truth about the theology. Unless you have had the definitive human life, you can't really say you have all the pieces to the jigsaw of the universe, and thus can't really say whether you are right or wrong.

Richard Dawkins is the atheist equivalent of John Hagee. He is an evangelist, a crackpot. Beloved by his fanclub, hated by his opposition, and considered little more than an opinionated annoyance by reasonable atheists and theists alike. Look dude, you want Christians to question the Bible right? You want Muslims to question the Koran?

Why don't you question Dawkins? What he actually says, the points he actually makes? We know there aren't little baby archers in the clouds. We know that humans came from apes. Him point out stuff that was first postulated 600 BC (by theists no less) as proof that there is no god is as ridiculous as that creationist museum that is in the USA somewhere. What he is does is say that religion is (basically) retarded because some religious texts are fraught with inaccuracy and paradox.

Well so is mathematics. So is science. So is everything. People who take the Bible and such things literally are insane sure, but so are people who demand that it either be taken literally or not at all.

I do question Richard Dawkins. It seems to me there are a few flaws of logic in The God Delusion. Some of his points are irrelevant or specious. But I think you're slightly misrepresenting his work. He does not claim to have proof of the non-existence of God. He, like most sensible people, acknowledges that such a thing can never be proved. He presents the inaccuracies and paradoxes of religious texts not as proof of the non-existence of God but as evidence of the way that knowledge can become corrupted over time, and hence the futility of relying on it for irrefutable truth.

Yes, science is also fraught with inaccuracies. But the crucial difference is that when a scientist discovers an inaccuracy they acknowledge it, eliminate it and search for greater accuracy.

What Dawkins does is distort his opponents position and then attacks that. He then makes unfounded accusations against religion without acknowledging the exact same thing could be said for atheism. In fact when it is put to him that atheists have had some terrible monsters among their numbers he refuses to even believe they are atheists. Those are not the actions of a scientist, they are the actions of a fundamentalist who can never-the-less dress in a suit and speak in a coherent manner. To cap it all off, he then claims that everyone is really just an atheist, just some people are atheist in a different way.

It is also a generalization to say that scientists ackowledge innaccuracies. You only have to look at some of the outrageous crap that goes around in the name of science. We have these people [http://www.thincs.org/], we have this [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15399222/], we have that [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/710158/posts], we have the other [http://www.conceptlab.com/roachbot/].

Also remember that it is a complete fallacy that scientists are atheists. Read [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article673663.ece]. I am not asking atheists to believe in anything, I am merely asking for tolerance and to respect the point of view of other people. If they ask you about atheism, by all means share your thoughts. But trying to shove atheism down peoples throats is as offensive as when theists try to force their beliefs on you.

 

[DarkRyter]

I hope people will one day not give a crap about the God references in speeches, the pledge of allegience, etc.

I doubt even God himself, if he exists, cares.

 

[vamp rocks]

although i personally believe that it should be removed seeing as it is a seperation of church and state (supposedly) i know it will never happen

 

[Alex_P]

The very nature of science is to question everything about itself.

We've also got the philosophy of science helping out.

-- Alex

 

[ZacQuickSilver]

Hmm. Didn't know that one.

However, it doesn't say anything about religion, which is what this is about.

No, it's about the First Amendment. That law has to do with the First Amendment.

Additionally, it applies to Government Employees, not Political Candidates or Elected Officials.


So while it could be extended to this conversation, there would have to be at least two changes to it.

No, it applies to this conversation because you said that everyone is "allowed to express your opinions, your wishes for yourself or others." It doesn't directly make my case for me, but it does mean that we do put restrictions on the First Amendment rights of people expressing "opinions and wishes" who are in the Federal government which you said we do not, which gets us back to whether requiring the Oath of Office of the President of the U.S. to remain neutral on the subject of religion is too much of a restriction/a necessary restriction of his First Amendment rights.

I'm going to have to think about this for a while. You have a strong point here, and my faith in my own beliefs is weakening.

However, I still question whether this is a legit argument. While I can see keeping people placed in (rather than elected to) power from expressing their political views may be necessary (especially police and other law-enforcement officials), I'm not sure that saying the same about their religious views is necessary, or Constitutional.

It's a Christian nation, like it or not. It's not like anyone's forcing atheists to become practicing followers. If anything, it's honoring this nation's roots.

I agree. This isn't some sort of indoctrination thing-we're respecting the way in which this nation was founded. Removing any trace of Christianity from our government feels disrespectful to our forefathers. First it was the Pledge, now this.

The people of the 1950s--when the phrase "under God" was inserted into the Pledge, which itself is from the 1890s--I don't think really count as our "forefathers."

Not knowing the history of your own country seems like a slightly bigger insult to our forefathers, but hey--maybe that's just me.

And this I have to echo. Having God in the Pledge is just Unconstitutional. I haven't had to say it (my parents could afford to avoid public schools at the age when you're reciting that), but if I am ever required to, by God I'm going to insert something else in there.

 

[gremily]

The United States was founded by white European Christians...

That's all I have to say.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Having God in the Pledge is just Unconstitutional. I haven't had to say it (my parents could afford to avoid public schools at the age when you're reciting that), but if I am ever required to, by God I'm going to insert something else in there.

Irony warning.