# Is Atheism protected by the Establishment Clause? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 13, 2005, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868 "2005-11-13T18:24:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/161 "2005-11-22T04:01:40Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > It would be simple if everyone made the same assumptions you do. I’m not making assumptions. I’m just telling you what the law is. I’m givin you facts, not opinions. > [@](#): > > As I pointed out in another thread, one could argue (me, for example) that taking a position that there is a Creator is NOT taking a religious position. That would be a false and disingenuous postition to take, as I’ve already pointed out. > [@](#): > > It is taking a _philosophical_ one, which answers the philosophical question: “How did we get here?”. That’s not a philosphical question, it’s a scientific one, and conjuring magical “creators” is neither supported by evidence nor (as of yet) required by anything observable in the universe. Suppositions of magical deities are, by definition, religious. Getting back to the point in this thread, the government is not permitted to state _as a fact_ that a magical “creator” exists. As soon as it does that, it is taking a position that **all other beliefs are false**. What part of that do you not understand? > [@](#): > > And I can prove I am right. How? Here I am. I practice no religion, take the word of no book. I simply believe that at some point someone or some “thing” set the whole thing in motion. Then you have a religious opinion. You have an opinion that some religious beliefs are false. The government has no right to say that (unless it has scientific proof) any religious belief is false. > [@](#): > > Therefore, one CAN answer “yes” to “Is there a Creator?” and not follow ANY religion or be religious in any way (except being sure to Tivo Curb Your Enthusiasm.). So it is very possible, and correct, to say that the U.S. can acknowledge a Creator and NOT be endorsing any religion in particular OR religion in general. Baloney. I’ll say it one more time. It is not possible to take a position on the existence of a “creator” without taking a _de facto_ position that any other position is false. Please reach out with both hands and try to grasp that. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/162 "2005-11-22T04:39:27Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > And since you haven’t yet: retracted your statement, apologized, or complied with my polite request to keep away from where you are not wanted, you will heretofore be Ignored. If you’re talking about what I’m think about ( _from another thread_ ! :rolleyes: ), I replied twice. If you don’t like the answer, that’s not my problem. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/163 "2005-11-22T05:37:31Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I’m not making assumptions. I’m just telling you what the law is. I’m givin you facts, not opinions. No. This is not a fact, it is an interpretation of a the First Amendment: > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > …That means the government is not allowed to take a stance on whether gods do or do not exist. And this is an assumption, based on your interpretation: > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Removing statements like “under God” and “In God we Trust” from the public lexicon do not equate to statements that God does not exist. Those are NOT facts. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > That would be a false and disingenuous postition to take, as I’ve already pointed out. Yes. And I replied to your statement with a logical arguement. Your refering back to your original statement, the logic of which I have refuted, does not add to support for your position. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > That’s not a philosphical question, it’s a scientific one, and conjuring magical “creators” is neither supported by evidence nor (as of yet) required by anything observable in the universe. Okay. You just said that it is a scientific question, which makes it NOT a religious one. Good. We’re making headway. For the sake of argument, assuming that you are correct and it is a scientific question, then the theories that attempt to answer that question will fall into two categories: those that we may be able to prove scientifically, and those that we cannot. And while the scientific litmus test may keep some theories out of the _science classroom_, it has no role in deciding what the state may or should acknowledge. After all, it acknowledges that religion exists, doesn’t it? > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Following your logic Suppositions of magical deities are, by definition, religious. This does not follow my logic. You may choose to use loaded words, but I have shown you how belief in a Creator needn’t have a religious component. Prove me wrong. Not just “state” that I am wrong. Show me were my logic fails. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Getting back to the point in this thread, the government is not permitted to state _as a fact_ that a magical “creator” exists. Maybe. But it does permit, and even promote, that an ordinary Creator exists, which is evidenced by the language of the DofI, “In God we trust”, and the the bible in our court rooms, to name just a few. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > As soon as it does that, it is taking a position that **all other beliefs are false**. What part of that do you not understand? I understand your words, I simply disagree that you are correct, for the reasons I’ve stated. The Establishment Clause states simply: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” I maintain that this clause merley prevents the establishment of _religion_. Acknowledging that we were created (and therefore had a Creator) is a philosphical position. I know you disagree, but I have shown how your position is wrong and you have not shown how my argument is flawed. You simply insist that it is and that all words mean what you would like them to. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Then you have a religious opinion. You have an opinion that some religious beliefs are false. No, I have a philosophical opinion (which does not require a scientific proof): that we were intentionally created. I do not know what/do did the creating, or why. And even if I had an opinion that some, or all, religious beliefs were false, that isn’t necessarily a religious position. For example, you seem to think that at least some religious positions are false: that doesn’t mean you hold a religious opinion. Wouldn’t you say that is possile for someone to be an agnostic or atheist and be so on philosophical grounds? > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The government has no right to say that (unless it has scientific proof) any religious belief is false. No. But it can stake a chance on philosophical stances, and already has. First in the DofI. And currently on our currency and in our courtrooms. The scientific proof you want to be required applies to the issue of science in the classroom. I think you are confusing issues. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Baloney. I’ll say it one more time. It is not possible to take a position on the existence of a “creator” without taking a _de facto_ position that any other position is false. There you go again. Stating something—even stating it is “de facto” so—doesn’t actually make it so. As I think part of the difficulty we are having can be attributed to lack of agreement of what the word religion means, maybe the idefinition of “religion” will help the discussion. Her is one provided by the American Heritage Dictionary as found on [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) 1.a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. 1.b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. 2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. 3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. 4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. Note that only definition that comes even close to what you would like the word to mean is 1.a., but even that requires a “belief in” AND “reverence for” a creator". Here are some others: Cambridge [http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=religion\*1+0&dict=A](http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=religion*1+0&dict=A) Merriam-Webster > **[Definition of RELIGION](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion)** > > the state of a religious; the service and worship of God or the supernatural; commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance… See the full definition Oxford > **[Oxford Languages | The Home of Language Data](https://languages.oup.com)** > > Explore Oxford Languages, the home of world-renowned language data. Another American Heritage definition [http://www.bartleby.com/61/6/R0140600.html](http://www.bartleby.com/61/6/R0140600.html) And a longer entry from the Columbia Encylopedia [http://www.bartleby.com/65/re/religion.html](http://www.bartleby.com/65/re/religion.html) ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/164 "2005-11-22T05:57:51Z")
This is just silly. Of course the “God” mentioned in the pledge and on the money is a religious concept. If it’s merely some sort of abstract philosophical musing about the existence of a creator, the phrase “In God We Trust” is meaningless, as is the phrase “one nation, under God”. Both clearly refer to an entity with an ongoing involvement in the material world, an entity that we can trust in and that holds dominion over us. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/165 "2005-11-22T07:12:18Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > No. This is not a fact, it is an interpretation of a the First Amendment: It’s a straight reading of the 1st Amendment. > [@](#): > > And this is an assumption, based on your interpretation: It’s not an interpretation, it’s a straight reading. > [@](#): > > Those are NOT facts. Yes, they are the facts. How asinine can you be? Are you actually going to assert that remaining silent on the question of God is the same as claiming God doesn’t exist? You’re wrong. You’re so patently and self-evidently wrong that it’s not even possible to refute you any further. You might as well assert that remaining silent on one’s favorite kind of music is equivalent to a statement that one prefers death metal. It’s nonsensical. It’s gibberish. Explain yourself. > [@](#): > > Yes. And I replied to your statement with a logical arguement. Your refering back to your original statement, the logic of which I have refuted, does not add to support for your position.p You responded to it with the same hollow assertions that you started with and have completely ignored the inescapable point that endorsing one view amounts to a statement that other views are false. > [@](#): > > Okay. You just said that it is a scientific question, which makes it NOT a religious one. Good. We’re making headway. I don’t think we are. The _question_ is scientific but your _answer_ is not. > [@](#): > > For the sake of argument, assuming that you are correct and it is a scientific question There’s no “assuming” about it. Merely asking the question of how the universe came to be is a factual question with a factual (albeit unknown) answer. That makes it purely scientific. The question of _why_ the universe exists is philosophical/religious. The “how” is scientific. > [@](#): > > then the theories that attempt to answer that question will fall into two categories: those that we may be able to prove scientifically, and those that we cannot. If you can’t prove it scientifically, it’s not a theory. There is no scientific theory of a divine “creator” for the universe. That hypothesis is a logical and scientific _non-sequitur_ in relationship to the question. It is a religious, unscientific- indeed _anti_-scientific answer to the question. > [@](#): > > And while the scientific litmus test may keep some theories out of the _science classroom_, it has no role in deciding what the state may or should acknowledge. Incorrect. The state has no right to endorse unsupported religious answers to scientific questions. You are dead wrong and you don’t seem to understand anything about either science or SOCAS. > [@](#): > > After all, it acknowledges that religion exists, doesn’t it? Huh? 😕 Simply acknowledging that religious beliefs _exist_ is not the same as endorsing any of them as true or false. Surely even you can understand that. > [@](#): > > This does not follow my logic. I never said anything “followed your logic.” You misquoted me. You attributed words to me in a quote box that I did not say. That is against the rules. Please do not repeat it. > [@](#): > > You may choose to use loaded words, but I have shown you how belief in a Creator needn’t have a religious component. Prove me wrong. Not just “state” that I am wrong. Show me were my logic fails. Belief in a “creator” is the very _definition_ of a religious belief. Denying that is just disingenuous to the point of childishness. You also keep sidestepping the issue that it constitutes a position on the truth or falsity of _other_ specific religious beliefs. Something the government is forbidden to do. > [@](#): > > Maybe. But it does permit, and even promote, that an ordinary Creator exists, which is evidenced by the language of the DofI, “In God we trust”, and the the bible in our court rooms, to name just a few. What the hell is an “ordinary creator?” The Declaration of Independence has no legal relevance or authority. All that matters is what the Constitution says. “In God We Trust” is most defintely a violation of Establishment but SCOTUS simply hasn’t had the balls to say so and have hidden behind the activist invention of a non-Constitutional device called “Ceremonial Deism” to avoid having to call it what it is. The Bible in Courtrooms is optional. It is not required by law. > [@](#): > > I understand your words, I simply disagree that you are correct, for the reasons I’ve stated. The Establishment Clause states simply: > > “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” > > I maintain that this clause merley prevents the establishment of _religion_. Acknowledging that we were created (and therefore had a Creator) is a philosphical position. When you say “acknowledging that we were created,” you are making a purely religious statement. I acknowledge no such thing and the state has no right to say that I’m wrong. > [@](#): > > No, I have a philosophical opinion (which does not require a scientific proof): that we were intentionally created. Congratulations. Bully for you. You’re allowed to believe that all you want and the government is not allowed to say yu’re wrong…but it’s also not allowed to say you’re _right_. You say you don’t require scientific evidence. Unfortunately for your position regarding the Constitution, though, the STATE does indeed requre scientific evidence. > [@](#): > > I do not know what/do did the creating, or why. And even if I had an opinion that some, or all, religious beliefs were false, that isn’t necessarily a religious position. Yes it is…completely necessarily. > [@](#): > > For example, you seem to think that at least some religious positions are false: that doesn’t mean you hold a religious opinion. Yes it does, and when I worked in public schools. I was quite rightly forbidden to express those opinions in the classroom as fact. > [@](#): > > Wouldn’t you say that is possile for someone to be an agnostic or atheist and be so on philosophical grounds? What do you mean by “philosophical grounds?” I don’t understand your question. Philosophy doesn’t have “grounds” except for provisional ones. People tend to be agnostic or atheistic on logical or scientific grounds but those are not the only reasons. It doesn’t really matter. Having an opinion is not the same thing as asserting a fact. Any assertion _as fact_ that God does not exist represents an unscientific and unsupported position on religion and the government is not allowed to do it. > [@](#): > > No. But it can stake a chance on philosophical stances No it can’t., > [@](#): > > and already has. First in the DofI. The DoI was not an official opinion expressed by the government of the United States. It’s irrelevant. > [@](#): > > And currently on our currency and in our courtrooms. I’ve already addressed these. > [@](#): > > The scientific proof you want to be required applies to the issue of science in the classroom. I think you are confusing issues. I ncorrect. The government does not have the right to express religious opinions as fact, no matter what the context. > [@](#): > > There you go again. Stating something—even stating it is “de facto” so—doesn’t actually make it so. What’s “not so” about it? Address the point instead of waving your hands. > [@](#): > > As I think part of the difficulty we are having can be attributed to lack of agreement of what the word religion means, maybe the idefinition of “religion” will help the discussion. Her is one provided by the American Heritage Dictionary as found on [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) > > 1.a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. > 1.b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. > 2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. > 3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. > 4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. > > Note that only definition that comes even close to what you would like the word to mean is 1.a., but even that requires a “belief in” AND “reverence for” a creator". What a stunningly specious argument. Dude, you still just are not getting it. The problem is not just what the state would be claimng IS true in that regard (and a belief in a deity is religious. Your objection that you don’t “revere” it is too inane to even justify a response), but what it would be claiming is NOT true. This is the primary point that seems to keep sailing over your head. One last time: The government doesn’t have a right to say that anyone’s religious beliefs are NOT true Do you get it yet? ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/166 "2005-11-22T08:02:10Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > How asinine can you be? **Moderator’s Warning:** **Diogenes the Cynic** , you need to cool it with the personal insults outside the Pit. You have been [warned about this before](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=5102129); [more than once](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=6379183). If you keep this up, your temper is going to wind up costing you your posting privileges. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 8:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/167 "2005-11-22T08:19:48Z")
> [@](#): > > In God we trust This is not just a statement of some intellectual idea that more likely than not an intelligence created the Universe, but an expression of a belief about the proper relationship between human beings and God. If beliefs about the relationship between humans and God aren’t “religious”, then “religion” is a meaningless word, and the free exercise clause will have to go out the window–you might as well say “Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise of marklar”. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/168 "2005-11-22T11:28:40Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > It’s a straight reading of the 1st Amendment. > > It’s not an interpretation, it’s a straight reading. The fact that you do not even realize, or acknowledge that your reading of the First Amendment is an interpretation, is the height of hubris and does not bode well for any meaningful debate. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Yes, they are the facts. How asinine can you be? I’ve been civil with you, I expect the same courtesy. And no, they are not facts. I’ll also add that the more frothing at the mouth and more indignation that someone expresses when challenged doesn’t make one more right. If he is not right and yells, the yelling doesn’t change the error of his position. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Are you actually going to assert that remaining silent on the question of God is the same as claiming God doesn’t exist? You’re wrong. … Explain yourself. You are correct. I misposted. I meant to delete your quote that appered directly above my statement. The “those” was intended to refer to the two “facts” I was refuting in the two posts above. My mistake. Sorry for the confusion. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > You responded to it with the same hollow assertions that you started with and have completely ignored the inescapable point that endorsing one view amounts to a statement that other views are false. No, no, no. I’ll try again. The claim that there is a Creator (or creators, as I said) conflicts with NO religious belief. If I start to define that Creator and give him/it attributes, I will undoubtedly run into the problems you describe, but not until I do so. The only position that it MAY conflict with is atheism, and then only for those who hold that atheism is a religion, which from previous threads seems to be a debate among atheists themselves. But I offer that it is not a religious position, but a philosophical one. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I don’t think we are. The [iquestion\* is scientific but your _answer_ is not. Well, we won’t make any headway if you change your position mid-stream and not acknowledge it. In post #157 you claim that the conclusion that there is a creator is an answer to a **religious question** : “The Establishment Clause says that the state is not allowed to endorse a particular religious view. That means the government is not allowed to take a stance on whether gods do or do not exist” Then in post #161 you say that is a **scientific** question: “That’s not a philosphical question, it’s a scientific one…” And my answer was appropriate. If you ask me “What causes gravity?”, that is a scientific question, correct? Now some theories that may answer that question will be both both testable and falsifiable, and fall under the heading of science. Other answers might not be testable or falsifiable, and therefore not fall into the realm of science. The two groups represent two sets of theories, but only the former group will deserve to be considered _scientific theories_. Your confusion may stem from the erroneous assumption that all theories are scientific. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > There’s no “assuming” about it. Merely asking the question of how the universe came to be is a factual question with a factual (albeit unknown) answer. An agnostic, and I, would say that is incorrect. In fact, many cosmologists would agree, as well. We may very well never be able to answer that. Thinking otherwise is fine. Insisting otherwise I consider an indication of extreme hubris. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > That makes it purely scientific. Only if you assume that there is no “God” or extra-natural phenhomena. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The question of _why_ the universe exists is philosophical/religious. The “how” is scientific. I agree with the first part, not the second. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > There’s no “assuming” about it. Merely asking the question of how the universe came to be is a factual question with a factual (albeit unknown) answer. That makes it purely scientific. The question of why the universe exists is philosophical/religious. The “how” is scientific. Again, assumes that no Creator exists and leaves no room for extra-natural explanations. If we ask “How did we get here?”, there are two categories of answers: A: creator(s), responsible for First Cause B: purely natural forces, no First Cause > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > If you can’t prove it scientifically, it’s not a theory. There is no scientific theory of a divine “creator” for the universe. That hypothesis is a logical and scientific _non-sequitur_ in relationship to the question. It is a religious, unscientific- indeed _anti_-scientific answer to the question. Seems like we all are human, and make posting mistakes. I hope you don’t mind that I corrected it in what I stated from you post (above). But to answer: As I mentioned, I think you are working from the assumption that all theories are scientific. They are not. So while there is no “scientific” theory of us being the work of a Creator, there most certainly is a (non-scientific) theory of one. For the record, though, I maintain the position is a philosophical one. Answering the question “Is there a Creator” with “yes” does not make one religious. Indeed, that person may go as far to believe that we are merely detritus left over from some other creation and the creator has never, and never will, give us a thought. He may simply believe that we were created by a willful act, directly or indirectly. In which case, how woulod you say that person holds a “religious” view? You can’t unless you diregard the very meaning of the word “religion”, which I presented numerous cites for. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Incorrect. The state has no right to endorse unsupported religious answers to scientific questions. You are dead wrong and you don’t seem to understand anything about either science or SOCAS. I’ve covered this. And, :rolleyes: > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I never said anything “followed your logic.” You misquoted me. You attributed words to me in a quote box that I did not say. That is against the rules. Please do not repeat it. Another posting mistake I must apologize for. I was cutting and pastiing and forgot to delete a previous attempt at an answer. It was not an attempt to put words in your mouth, which should be evident by the fact that it makes no sense. Still, my full apologies. It’s never happened before and I will be intent on it not happening again. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Belief in a “creator” is the very _definition_ of a religious belief. Denying that is just disingenuous to the point of childishness. You also keep sidestepping the issue that it constitutes a position on the truth or falsity of _other_ specific religious beliefs. Something the government is forbidden to do. No. Belief in a creator is what separates theists and atheists. That is the initial toggle switch. Flicking it one way or the other does not make one pro-religious and the other anti-religious. They are mutually opposing beliefs that are both mute on religion. Question # 2 is one that each theist much decide for himself: “Assuming I can even guess as to the nature of this “entity”, do I believe that it/he should be acknowledged in some way?” The third Question is “How do I define this Creator?”. And Question 4 is “In what way, if any, should I pay homage this Creator I’ve identified and defined?” > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The Declaration of Independence has no legal relevance or authority. All that matters is what the Constitution says. True. But when it is unclear, we look to other founding documents for support. That is why Jefferson’s “church and state” letter to the Danbury Baptists is so often cited in support of your side of the debate. And that isn’t even a founding document, with the weight of any congress behind it. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The Bible in Courtrooms is optional. It is not required by law. The important thing is that it is NOT disallowed. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > When you say “acknowledging that we were created,” you are making a purely religious statement. I acknowledge no such thing and the state has no right to say that I’m wrong. We’ve been over this. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > You’re allowed to believe that all you want and the government is not allowed to say yu’re wrong…but it’s also not allowed to say you’re _right_. You say you don’t require scientific evidence. Unfortunately for your position regarding the Constitution, though, the STATE does indeed requre scientific evidence. Again, we disagree. And this has been covered. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Yes it does, and when I worked in public schools. I was quite rightly forbidden to express those opinions in the classroom as fact. I thought that our discussion had moved to what the correct interpretation of the Establishment Clause is, not what the law is. If it is the latter, pretty much this whole discussion is moot. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > What do you mean by “philosophical grounds?” I don’t understand your question. Philosophy doesn’t have “grounds” except for provisional ones. People tend to be agnostic or atheistic on logical or scientific grounds but those are not the only reasons. It doesn’t really matter. Having an opinion is not the same thing as asserting a fact. Any assertion _as fact_ that God does not exist represents an unscientific and unsupported position on religion and the government is not allowed to do it. We agree that government cannot take a religious position. We seem to disagree that the goverment can take a philosophical position. I say they can and do all the time. At what age shoud a person be considered an adult? Should we have the death penalty? Should we allow euthanasia. How should we treat the severly mentally ill? When does life begin? Etc. I maintain that whether there is a creator or is a philosophical position. And taking our cues from the founders, they clearly believed there was. No founding documents refute that. No private writings I am aware of refute that. The were theists, at minimum. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > No it can’t., Yes it can, and does. See the paragraph above showiing examples of philosophical positions the government has and does take. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Incorrect. The government does not have the right to express religious opinions as fact, no matter what the context. I agree with the statement you wrote. I disagree that acknowledging a creator necessarily constitutes a religious position and not merely a philosophical one. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > What’s “not so” about it? Address the point instead of waving your hands. I can only repeat myself so many times. (No doubt we are both feeling this frustration.) See above. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > What a stunningly specious argument. Dude, you still just are not getting it. The problem is not just what the state would be claimng IS true in that regard (and a belief in a deity is religious. Your objection that you don’t “revere” it is too inane to even justify a response), but what it would be claiming is NOT true. This is the primary point that seems to keep sailing over your head. Specious? Asking you to adhere to definitions of words as they appear in the dictionary is specious? If that’s what you think, you might want to look up “specious”. I think the word you meant to use is “reasonable”. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The government doesn’t have a right to say that anyone’s religious beliefs are NOT true And by taking the position that we are in some way the result of a Creator is not taking any religious belief. Look, **Dio** I have little more to say on this than I have said elswhere. Some of those threads you, I think, were in. But here are the links for reference, in case you haven’t gone through them. If you are interested in continuiing the discussion, reviewing those threads might give you a better idea of my position and reduce the frustration for both of us. Just a suggestion. If you think it a good one, I will do the same before responding to your next post, as well. (I wold have done it this time but I just thought of it.) > **[The U.S. Constitution is deliberately Godless. Discuss.](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=342534)** > > From: Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism, by Susan Jacoby: This post is continued in the next post… [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=334973&page=1&pp=50](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=334973&page=1&pp=50) I just skimmed over the second one and reread a few of our exchanges, I think we both pretty much understand the other. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/169 "2005-11-22T11:40:23Z")
I’m religious, and I don’t believe in a creator! ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/170 "2005-11-22T16:36:04Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > No, no, no. I’ll try again. The claim that there is a Creator (or creators, as I said) conflicts with NO religious belief. This is just flat wrong. It conflicts with any religion which does not believe in a “creator.” > [@](#): > > If I start to define that Creator and give him/it attributes, I will undoubtedly run into the problems you describe, but not until I do so. The only position that it MAY conflict with is atheism, and then only for those who hold that atheism is a religion, which from previous threads seems to be a debate among atheists themselves. But I offer that it is not a religious position, but a philosophical one. When you say that there is “a” creator, you are saying that there is not more than one. An endorsement of monotheism represents a statement that polytheism is false. It’s also not true that secular atheism is the only position which is denied by the endorsement of of theism. There actually are some non-theistic religions out there. Buddhism, Taoism, Janism, animism and ancestor worship, to name a few. The government doesn’t have a right to say that any of those are false. > [@](#): > > Well, we won’t make any headway if you change your position mid-stream and not acknowledge it. In post #157 you claim that the conclusion that there is a creator is an answer to a **religious question** : > > “The Establishment Clause says that the state is not allowed to endorse a particular religious view. That means the government is not allowed to take a stance on whether gods do or do not exist” > > Then in post #161 you say that is a **scientific** question: > > “That’s not a philosphical question, it’s a scientific one…” > > And my answer was appropriate. If you ask me “What causes gravity?”, that is a scientific question, correct? Now some theories that may answer that question will be both both testable and falsifiable, and fall under the heading of science. Other answers might not be testable or falsifiable, and therefore not fall into the realm of science. The two groups represent two sets of theories, but only the former group will deserve to be considered _scientific theories_. Your confusion may stem from the erroneous assumption that all theories are scientific. I didn’t change my position. You just don’t seem to understand the terms. Any question with an objective, factual answer is a scientific question. A scientific _answer_ to that question qould be one that is supported by observable evidence. Positing deities in the absence of evidence or necessity is positing a religious answer to a scientific question. > [@](#): > > An agnostic, and I, would say that is incorrect. In fact, many cosmologists would agree, as well. We may very well never be able to answer that. Thinking otherwise is fine. Insisting otherwise I consider an indication of extreme hubris. I don’t understand what you’re objecting to. There is an objective, factual answer to the question of how the universe began. That is true whether we know the answer or not. Theistic belief doesn’t enter into it. The _question_ is purely scientific EVEN IF the answer is “Goddidit.” > [@](#): > > Only if you assume that there is no “God” or extra-natural phenhomena. Not true. No such assumption is necessary. The question itself is purely scientific regardless of the answer. Hypotheses and theoretical explanations, however, are _not_ scientific unless they are supported by obrvable evidence and empirical method. > [@](#): > > Again, assumes that no Creator exists and leaves no room for extra-natural explanations. This is simply wrong. The question assumes no such thing. Whether the question itself is scientific has absolutely no contingency upon whether the factual answer is natural or otherwise. > [@](#): > > If we ask “How did we get here?”, there are two categories of answers: > > A: creator(s), responsible for First Cause > B: purely natural forces, no First Cause Neither answer has any bearing on whether the question itself is scientific, and unles it is supported by evidence, option A is a religious answer to a scientific question. And before you say it, it’s not a “philosophical” answer in the sense that it can be segregated or distinguished from a religious one. Philosophy is about epistemological exploration. It’s not just a synonym for “my unsupported opinion,” and it is improper to try to use the word as a obfuscation for religious assumptions. Philosophy relies on _premises_ about what is known or what it is possible to know. Scientific method (itself a “philosophy”) relies on the premise that whatever is empirically observable and repeatable is “true.” A belief in a spernatural “creator” would be discussed and explored under the philosophical headings of metaphysics and theology- realms which rely on \*\*_a priori_ religious premises[/b, and in the case of theism, a specific religious assumption that God exists. Please understand this. A belief in a creator is not a philosophy, it’s a _premise_. The chains of logic and discussion which _follow_ from that premise are philosphical. but the premise itself is religious. > [@](#): > > But to answer: As I mentioned, I think you are working from the assumption that all theories are scientific. They are not. So while there is no “scientific” theory of us being the work of a Creator, there most certainly is a (non-scientific) theory of one. For the record, though, I maintain the position is a philosophical one. Answering the question “Is there a Creator” with “yes” does not make one religious. Indeed, that person may go as far to believe that we are merely detritus left over from some other creation and the creator has never, and never will, give us a thought. He may simply believe that we were created by a willful act, directly or indirectly. In which case, how woulod you say that person holds a “religious” view? You can’t unless you diregard the very meaning of the word “religion”, which I presented numerous cites for. It sounds like you’re trying to apply a non-scientific definition of the word “theory” to a scientific question. If it can’t be confirmed or falsified by observable evidence, it’s not a scientific theory. If it’s not a scientific theory, it’s simply a premise or an opinion. If it’s a premise that “God exists,” it’s religious. I’ve already attempted to explain the difference between philospohy and religious assumptions. > [@](#): > > Another posting mistake I must apologize for. I was cutting and pastiing and forgot to delete a previous attempt at an answer. It was not an attempt to put words in your mouth, which should be evident by the fact that it makes no sense. Still, my full apologies. It’s never happened before and I will be intent on it not happening again. I assumed it must have been a mistake, and my apologies for being so sharp about it. > [@](#): > > No. Belief in a creator is what separates theists and atheists. That is the initial toggle switch. Flicking it one way or the other does not make one pro-religious and the other anti-religious. They are mutually opposing beliefs that are both mute on religion. Question # 2 is one that each theist much decide for himself: “Assuming I can even guess as to the nature of this “entity”, do I believe that it/he should be acknowledged in some way?” The third Question is “How do I define this Creator?”. And Question 4 is “In what way, if any, should I pay homage this Creator I’ve identified and defined?” Once again, the statement that one God exists amounts to a _de facto_ statement that non-theistic and polytheistic religions are false. Are you aware that not all religious traditions have gods or “creators” in them? > [@](#): > > True. But when it is unclear, we look to other founding documents for support. That is why Jefferson’s “church and state” letter to the Danbury Baptists is so often cited in support of your side of the debate. And that isn’t even a founding document, with the weight of any congress behind it. Jefferson’s Banbury letter has no legal relevance either…and the DoI is not a founding dicument. > [@](#): > > The important thing is that it is NOT disallowed. In order for it to be an Establishment violation it would have to be more than just “allowed.” It would have to be mandatory. The restriction applies to the state, not to the individual. Individual citizens are allowed to say all they want that God exists and they can say it in any building. The Constitution only forbids the _government_ from saying that or from forcing the citizenry to say that. The rest of your post is mostly just repetitions of the same points. I don’t think I would have any more responses than what I’ve already posted so I’ll just leave it here. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868.md?page=8)