The fact that humanity’s origin was only discovered post Darwin ?
When the question is that trivial, yes.
Because we know we aren’t; this is a foolish question
And being myths, all of them are wrong. Myths are a type of fiction, you know.
How could they have any clues; none of the people who made them had any way of knowing.
Cite?
Ok, can’t argue with your opinion.
Cite?
Cite?
Cite?
Erek
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the Establishment Clause.
This has nothing to do with my point.
Which has nothing to do with the Establishment Clause.
Your point?
Fiction, of course, is neither antithetical to being correct nor antithetical to the truth. Myths are expressions of the perceived truth held by a group. As such, it is fruitless to argue over whether myths are “correct” or “wrong” because that is not their purpose.
One may take issue with a belief held by a group and point out that their belief is based on inadequate or erroneous assumptions, but it is simply foolish to attack the myth, itself, which is merely a fictive presentation of the underlying truth that is held.
You are the one claiming this knowledge exists, you are the one who should prove that it existed. There are no “cites” for my position; that’s the point. Before Darwin’s time, there is nothing to cite.
Because we evolved, of course.
Once again, there is nothing to cite. The knowledge is recent.You keep making these insane assertions and demanding that other people prove them wrong; meanwhile, you take offense at demands for evidence. That is hypocracy, and it’s very irritating.
Rather than whining “cite”, why don’t you provide the slightest evidence that your beliefs are anything other than delusions ?
The Volstead Act outlawed the manufacture of alcohol but still allowed it to be produced for sacramental use.
Then don’t put atheists and freedom haters in the same sentence,
and then try to back-paddle your way out of it,
There’s a difference between “opting out” and being “on the fringe”, stop moving the goalposts.
Please define “the national character”.
I certainly can put them in the same sentence. I can name values that are contrary to the mainstream. That we live in a country where people are free to do this is not something I’d deny.
What is the difference? Either you’re in or you’re out. Or you’re on the outside, which is the fringe.
Interestingly, I found a cite that shows Jefferson changed the first line from
However, your definitions are arbitrary and your grouping of “atheists” and “freedom haters” both is arbitrary and appears to be intended to simply provoke reaction.* We could just as easily claim that the values of the nation are individualism, charity, anti-authoritarianism, isolationism and insularity, bigotry, anti-intellectualism, various levels of xenophobia, or a host of other attributes. We clearly have firm examples of each of those traits being enshrined in law, discoverable in the writings of the founders and framers, and practiced with enthusiasm by the populace. At times, the populace can be encouraged to overcome their natural bent toward these traits, (the good, unfortunately, as well as the bad), but they are clearly part of the national character.
Singling out some vague notion of an undefined religiosity to claim it has a preeminent place as part of the national character, a place that we need to recognize by law, does not seem to make sense, to me, unless we are also going to enshrine in law various xenophobic utterances or expressions of hostility toward authority.
Because genetic information shows that our common male and female ancestors are separated by a lot of time, that’s how.
That’s why I said, “Adam and Eve, for example.” :rolleyes:
Myths have a lot of value in describing what is important to a culture. I’m just dismissing their value in giving accurate scientific information. I asked you for a myth that reveals that the writers of a myth do have a clue to our origins, and you dismiss the question. It appears you know of none, so I conclude that Der Trihs is, in this case, absolutely correct. You are again invited to submit a myth that shows a clue. The key to the evaluation of the myth is whether a reasonable person, without access to the right answer, would say the myth was accurate.
As for your statement on the value of myths - I can publish a table of random numbers from which a future generation could extrapolate the set of winning lottery numbers. Want to buy? All you have to do, just like with myths, is to figure out what parts to keep and what parts to discard.
We’re not attacking the myth, we are “attacking” (too strong a word) people who claim that the myths include scientific fact. Saying that someone is foolish for expecting the spells in Harry Potter to work is not saying anything against J K Rowling.
Actually, different individuals participating in this thread are attacking different things and those chewing on “myth” do not appear, to me, to hav e a single set of opinions. I am not going to wade into the middle of that part of the discussion because I see most of that debate as futile, (if fun for the participants), but I strongly suspect that the “nature god” model of mythology has never actually been the model that people have used (prior to the 19th century) and, this being the Straight Dope, I prefer that readers understand how the word is used in anthropology–especially since its popular usage is probably wrong. A claim that myth is “wrong” because it is “fiction” is, itself, “wrong” because it misrepresents how myth exists and how it is used.
While you don’t deny it you certainly do not seem to embrace it!
Where in the DoI is capitalism mentioned?
Where in the DoI is religion mentioned?
Nowhere in the text is capitalism written in, nor is atheism written out of the national character
iN RESPONSE TO Crowmanyclouds earlier post: Asking where our rights would come from , to me they came from an evolution of thought over the centuries when people realized that in order for the human population to continue they had to decide not to kill, steal etc. from other people or they would be in a sense giving others permission to do the same to them. Just as I taught my children that if you steal from a store you are stealing from all your friends and relatives because the stores raise the prices to make up for their loss. It just amounts to common sense.
Monavis
I’m about a week late responding, but here goes … .
Yes. Prior to the development of archeology and the theory of evolution, humanity was utterly clueless at to its true origins.
Some myths are indeed encoded knowledge. (I wouldn’t go so far as to say scientific because that implies a particular systematic approach to knowledge gathing that I don’t think applies in these circumstances. However, that doesn’t mean that ALL myths have a basis in fact. Some are made up out of whole cloth.
Yes. I also know more about why the sun shines and why the sky is blue.
I sure hope not. I thought martyrdom went out a couple of millennia ago. ;j
(of course, the same could be said of any faith…obviously not just Christianity…)
The answer to the OP is really very simple. 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. Removing statements like “under God” and “In God we Trust” from the public lexicon do not equate to statements that God does not exist. They would merely amount to the government doing what it is supposed to do, which is to remain silent on religious questions.
I’d also like to add that the argument that simply intimating that God exists does not represent an endorsement of a particular one is a specious one. For one thing, it’s hard to argue with any seriousness that monotheism is not a specific religious view but more significantly, such an endorsement automatically constitutes a statement that all other paradigms are false. The government is not allowed to say that atheism or polytheism or Taoism are false any more than it’s allowed to say that they’re true.
It would be simple if everyone made the same assumptions you do. 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. It is taking a philosophical one, which answers the philosophical question: “How did we get here?”. 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.
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.
Belief in a creator is a religious statment; one of the more common ones.
Thanks so much for clearing things up. I’m truly impressed with the amount of intellectual rigor you put into your reply, attacking my position by showing the flaws in the logical steps I provided. YOU are a Genius!!!
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.