Seperation of church and state

[GodlessSkeptic]

Ronbo and NoDope4us:

Imagine for a minute a sort of Bizarro America where the overwhelming majority of the populace are atheists…many of them “strong” or “positive” atheists.With the end of WWII our country is taken by a wave of paranoia about capitalism having just defeated Hitler’s capitalist forces in a bloody war and information is coming to light about an alleged “holocaust” which resulted in the murders of at least six million agnostics.

Sen. McCarthy argues “We must weed out the threat of capitalism in all it’s subversive manifestations!I know for a fact that many of our own citizens are in league with capitalists, working in Hollywood where they have access to spread their corruption through the media!”

AN organization called The Knights of Epicurus are pushing Eisenhower to amend the pledge of allegiance so that it reads “…One nation, Against God” as well as changing our national motto from “All together now” to “In reverence to Robert Ingersol”.They argue that “Capitalists are christian.What better way to weed them out adn let them know they are not welcome than to make these changes to the pledge and national motto?!”

In Bizarro America in the 1950’s, christians are only about 5% of the population as near as anyone can figure but by 1998 they will be around 14% of the population and they will start to argue that They are American citizens, who fought and died in the trenches, who donate to charity, pay taxes, etc. and this Pledge that reads “One nation against God” does not reflect them.

Atheists fire back:"“Against God” is a generic term.Everyone has some gods they do not worship.For you christians you can just interpret the line as meaning “against pagan gods” or whatever.

"Why should the money we work for and earn and spend have this anti-religious propaganda displayed on it?That does not seem right.What happened to “all together now”…our original motto??

"You would have us spend all these resources to change our currency again, upseting millions of atheists who have no problem with reverence for Robert Ingersol, just to appease a small minority of the populace?That is pathetic!Don’t you care about tradition?!?

“Well, ‘All Together Now’ was the tradition for hundreds of years before you guys mucked it up less than 50 years ago.Plus that motto included ALL Americans.It said to us that we would stick together as AMERICANS no matter what threat or hardship…”
“-Blah, blah, blah.You christians are always tring to drive atheism out of the country with your whining and protesting.You and the ACLU can kiss my ass.I hope you suffer greatly before you realize on your death bed that there is no afterlife and all of your deceased loved ones are maggot food!”

I am not sure the above will be effective in illustrating why the “under God” adn “In God We Trust” stuff is SO injust and downright insulting and exclusionary.

[Ramanujan]

perhaps here’s something that might illustrate why atheists might feel as though they are persecuted. from here:

Banning, who was never married to Newdow, filed suit in August challenging Newdow’s standing in the case and asking her daughter be removed from it. She expressed concern her daughter, who has remained unnamed, would be harmed by a “lifetime of public scorn” if she is incorrectly perceived as the “little atheist girl that attacked the pledge.”

that’s from a christian website. it’s a christian’s viewpoint.

if christians feel that way, how are atheists supposed to feel?

[BrightNShiny]

Ronbo:
I will concede that his theory of the creation of the universe is lacking, but the point is that it is within the realm of possiblilty that there is a non-supernatural explanation for the Force(s) that caused the Big Bang.

You keep saying that, but your evidence for such is a new-agey pseudo-science website. It’s also possible that this is all a big Virtual Reality simulation so that we can provide power for robots. Neither of those things are within the realm of science, though.

By the way, please show me your cites that whatever Force caused the Big Bang could not possibly be a Natural Force, and that it or Forces like it no longer exist.

It’s statements like this which make me think you don’t actually understand Big Bang theory or GUT.

The idea that there is no “before” or “outside” the universe falls out of Big Bang theory, because time starts at the moment of the Big Bang. When you use the words “Big Bang,” I assumed that you were referring to this theory, but I see now that you are not. You are referring to your own theory, which until now you have yet to definie.

As to my evidence in support of this theory, are you really serious? Because it’s not my evidence. Perhaps you’ve heard of a person named Hubble? There’s a big telescope named after him. Or maybe you’ve heard of background radiation? You know, I don’t even know why I’m doing this, since I don’t even know what theories you are talking about at this point.

You are using a “God of the Gaps” argument. Fine. But please stop pretending that you are not talking about something supernatural. If you have a scientific theory that is different than Big Bang, start a new thread, propose it, and let all the physicists here see how it stacks against observed scientific data. Otherwise, you are just talking about vague, un-scientific assertions that are your own beliefs.

And, also, you can play semantic games with the word “God” all you want. However, most people use a definition of God which is tied to religion, and as such it is a religious concept. Even if tomorrow some physicist proposed a theory which threw out Big Bang theory, I seriously doubt that the word “God” would appear anywhere in it.

[BrightNShiny]

I think I should clarify something here. There is some scientific speculation as to what happened “pre-Big Bang.” One theory that is being floated is that a series of “branes” collided to form the universe (I guess that would be polytheism if I used ronbo-style terminology). You can find out more about these theories here:

http://www.ba.infn.it/~gasperin/

However, these theories describe a process as opposed to a causitive force. I think to label the branes or whatever as God is still disingenious, and really, God is a religious concept. I’ll let this thread die now.

[GodlessSkeptic]

However I will NOT let it die!

I would really like to hear someone from the pro-theocracy camp reply to what I posted above.I have YET to get an answer to this one from those who favor the “under God” and “In God We Trust” inclusions.

[Ramanujan]

*Originally posted by GodlessSkeptic *
However I will NOT let it die!

I would really like to hear someone from the pro-theocracy camp reply to what I posted above.I have YET to get an answer to this one from those who favor the “under God” and “In God We Trust” inclusions.

you won’t get a good response. there is none.

and i won’t get a good response about people who think it’s “harmless” to have “under god” included, but get all litigious about making sure their child isn’t seen as an atheist, to save them from a “lifetime of public scorn.”

you say we shouldn’t fear your wrath, yet you fear it. what is that?

and for the record, pre-big-bang is not part of the realm of science. time did not necessarily begin at the big bang, BUT it is convenient to say t=0 at the big bang because there can be no causal relationship between what happened before and what happened after.

[ronbo]

*Originally posted by BrightNShiny *
** One theory that is being floated is that a series of “branes” collided to form the universe (I guess that would be polytheism if I used ronbo-style terminology). **

My definition is a neutral definition. It is non-theological and does not rule out the possiblity/probability/likelyhood that there is or is not “intelligent design” by deity/deities. My definition speaks only to the facts and forces as we are trying to understand them.

All else is speculation. Any speculation that allows change as information changes is Science. Any speculation held as fact or by faith is Religion.

I take comfort that both the fundies and the fundie atheists have difficulties in accepting this definition.

The facts: we exist, we did not always exist. All human experience shows that for every other effect there is (was) a cause. It is up to the people that say no Natural Law and caused the Big Bang, that it happened all by itself, to prove that this is the one and only exception to cause and effect. This goes for both Atheists and Theists.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

“fundie atheists?”

ronbo, you are really, really not getting it about the Big Bang. What you’re trying is pseudo-scientific cosmological (“first cause”) argument for God.

There is no “natural law” before the Big Bang because natural law is a result of the Big Bang. It’s part of the universe itself. Whatever processes “led” to the BB ceased to exist at the moment of the BB.

[ronbo]

*Originally posted by BrightNShiny *
You keep saying that, but your evidence for such is a new-agey pseudo-science website…
It’s statements like this which make me think you don’t actually understand Big Bang theory or GUT.

I now understand the confusion about “the so called grand unified theories” (Stephen Hawking.)

** A Brief History of Time pg.74 Stephen Hawking**
The success of the unification of electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces led to a number of attempts to combine these two forces with the strong nuclear force into what is called a grand unified theory (or GUT). This title is rather an exaggeration: the resultant theories are not all that grand, nor are they fully unified, as they do not include gravity. Nor are they really complete theories, because they contain a number of parameters whose values cannot be predicted from the theory but have to be chosen to fit in with experiment. Nevertheless, they may be a step toward a complete, fully unified theory.”

Notice the modifiers “a” and “they”. You are speaking of a grand unified theory that does not include all of the forces of nature: a Not All That Grand, nor Fully Unified, Theory: [Tongue in Cheek]NATGNFUT[/TiC]. I was speaking of The Grand Unified Theory: GUT, also known as the Theory of Everything: TOE. or The Unified Theory of Physics: UTP, or maybe the Complete, Fully Unified Theory: CFUT.

**Don’t Know Much About The Universe pg 308 Kenneth C. Davis **The brilliant physicist Stephen Hawking-who sits in the “chair once occupied by Isaac Newton at the University of Cambridge- is discussing a theory that explains it all-a Theory of Everything, or TOE, an explanation for the fact that some laws of the universe conflict with others. This idea which Hawking has poetically christened “the mind of God.” has been given a much less poetic name: GUT.

I know, you’re going to say: “He admits he Doesn’t Know Much About the Universe, he doesn’t understand GUT either.” And “That proves it: Stephen Hawking admits that the TOE is religious… the mind of God indeed.”

I believe my definition of GUT is more accurate than yours. I don’t believe that the Laws of Nature necessarily imply a deity (dieties).

[ronbo]

*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic *
**ronbo, you are really, really not getting it about the Big Bang. **

[parable]I have a stop watch, it has been running since it came off of the assembly line. It has now been keeping time for 4 years, 215 days, 3 hours, 12 minutes and 23.14 seconds. According to my theory, and all available information contained within that watch, the watch, it’s components, and time began on the day my watch came into existance.[/parable]

In the Beginning, the Universe consisted of Earth and Heaven and nothing else could possibly exist. Then that pesky Galileo came along and the Universe evolved to include the Earth, our Solar System and stars but nothing else could possibly exist. Then our Universe evolved to include our Galaxy and Other Galaxies but nothing else could possibly exist. We have added extrasolar systems to the Universe but nothing else could possibly exist. We have traced the Universe to the Big Bang, but nothing else can possibly exist.

Sorry, I don’t buy it. Human experience says that there is always something else. It is up to you to show evidence for the exception: that the Universe does not include other Big Bangs or “Universes” that follow the Natural Laws of the All Encompassing Universe.

BTW, some interpretations of Quantum Physics call for multiple universes. Can you give evidence that multiple “universes” do not exist/did not exist prior to the time our Big Bang began keeping time for us? That there have been no other Big Bangs creating other Universes? Other Big Bangs that follow Natural Laws that are a subset of the Natural Laws of The All Encompassing Universe? Can you give evidence that the All Encompassing Universe does not have its own relative time? That there is not an All Encompassing Universe that has existed “forever”?

Personally, I enjoy considering all of the possiblilties, even the ones with I which am inclined to disagree.

e=mc[superscript]2[/superscript] Energy **IS ** Matter. Whatever IS our universe IS what existed “before”, just a different form.

There are interpretations of Quantum Physics that indicate that the “nothingness” of space consists of virtual particles of infinite mass and energy. Isn’t that similar to the description of the virtual particle that became the real singularity that begat the Big Bang?

Dio: You seem to be stuck in a narrow and chauvanist interpretation of the Universe if you cannot accept the possibility that there is more to the Universe than the Big Bang. You tell me I don’t understand something but fail to give me a valid argument or cite to support your view. You seem offended at any hint that there might remotely possibly be a deity.

Isn’t that what anti-fundies do?

[ronbo]

*Originally posted by BrightNShiny *
Perhaps you’ve heard of a person named Hubble? There’s a big telescope named after him. Or maybe you’ve heard of background radiation? You know, I don’t even know why I’m doing this, since I don’t even know what theories you are talking about at this point.

No wonder you don’t know what I’m talking about. Please show me which of my quotes even implies that I do not accept the Big Bang. Show me what Hubble, the telescope and the background radiation have to do with the cause of the Big Bang.

[ronbo]

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

*Originally posted by nodope4us *
**The whole seperation of church and state movement is a joke.
Here is where I looked to read the amendments. Amendment numero uno says for those who do not want to look it up. It says it will not make a LAW respecting a religious estableshment or prohibit it. **

From recorded history, people have wondered about and tried to explain Existence. Secular people and Religious People.
From recorded history, people have wondered about and tried to define Morality: Good vs. Evil. Secular people and Religious People.
From recorded history, people have celebrated Life, the Seasons, People, History. Secular people and Religious People.
From recorded history, people have tried to incorporate Laws into their Society. Secular people and Religious People.

Because of this, any mention of existence, morality, celebration or law has a religious implication, even if it is done in a secular context. The Politically Correct cannot allow that. Just look at the people that think I am trying to sneak religion into the Big Bang.

Example: I celebrate the birth of Martin Luther King. Not because he committed adultery, but because he spoke of Truths and Ideals with which I agree. I celebrate Christmas. Not because I believe everything the Fundies tell me, but because Christ spoke of Truths and Ideals with which I agree. And I celebrate the Solstice, the return of the Sun, the promise of a future spring. And it is a good excuse to take a day off and share with my Loved Ones.

One cannot separate secular from religion. If the Government decorates a Christmas Tree (stolen by Christians from a Celebration of the return of the Sun, the promise of a Spring), the Politically Correct athe-fundies complain that it implies the establishment of religion.

The First Amendment is contradictory, a paradox. Secular and Religion are intertwined, you can find religious implications in the Secular. If the Gov’t allows “Religious” symbols it “implies” an establishment of religion, If it bans symbols with religious implications it “ implies” the prohibiting of free exercise thereof.

Personally, I believe that the goal of the Founding Fathers was to prevent the American Equivalent of the Church of England. Acknowledgement that its citizens have religious or atheistic beliefs is not an establishment or prohibition of religion. I do not believe the First Amendment means that “religious” symbols of any denomination cannot be allowed on government property.

As I suggested earlier, maybe we should post disclaimers when there is a question that the Gov’t is endorsing religion.

More Importantly, People need to be more tolerant. We should celebrate diversity and learn from and incorporate the best of all cultures and religions. I am not aware of the Fundamental Right to not be Offended.

[ronbo]

*Originally posted by BrightNShiny *
But please stop pretending that you are not talking about something supernatural.

I cannot stop doing something I am not doing. Will you stop pretending that I am talking about supernatural.

def:supernatural:

1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.

I am talking about none of these. A law that science has not yet discovered is not necessarily outside the natural world. I am speaking more of the human condition than the devine. I honestly do not understand why you refuse to believe that. An eclipse was never supernatural, not even before civilization understood the natural laws.

*Originally posted by BrightNShiny *
**And, also, you can play semantic games with the word “God” all you want. However, most people use a definition of God which is tied to religion, and as such it is a religious concept. **

Almost all words have multiple definitions. Just because one definition is the way “most” people use it today, does not mean that the other definitions are not valid. They may have been or might someday be, the definition “most” people use. In my previous post I discussed the point that secular with religious implication does not make religious.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

“God” has only a supernatural definition.

Sorry, I don’t buy it. Human experience says that there is always something else. It is up to you to show evidence for the exception: that the Universe does not include other Big Bangs or “Universes” that follow the Natural Laws of the All Encompassing Universe.

Horsehit. Those are your assertions, you have to prove them.

BTW, some interpretations of Quantum Physics call for multiple universes. Can you give evidence that multiple “universes” do not exist/did not exist prior to the time our Big Bang began keeping time for us? That there have been no other Big Bangs creating other Universes? Other Big Bangs that follow Natural Laws that are a subset of the Natural Laws of The All Encompassing Universe? Can you give evidence that the All Encompassing Universe does not have its own relative time? That there is not an All Encompassing Universe that has existed “forever”?

It’s irrelevant to the conversation. Whether there are no other universes in this universe therefore alternate universes have no meaning or significance to us. They certainly can’t be called “God.”

Because of this, any mention of existence, morality, celebration or law has a religious implication, even if it is done in a secular context.

Wrong. Questions about existence, codes of ethical behaviours and laws can all be formulated without a whit of religion.

Just look at the people that think I am trying to sneak religion into the Big Bang.

You are. You’re trying to shoehorn the word “god” into a theory where it has no meaning.

One cannot separate secular from religion.

Sure you can. It’s done all the time. We have a secular sytem of law. We have secular elections. We have secular educations. What the eff are you talking about?

Almost all words have multiple definitions. Just because one definition is the way “most” people use it today, does not mean that the other definitions are not valid. They may have been or might someday be, the definition “most” people use. In my previous post I discussed the point that secular with religious implication does not make religious.

You also don’t just get to randomly pull your own definitions out of your ass and just expect people to accept them. There is no non-religious definition for “God.” Period.

And could you please tell us what the hell a “fundie-atheist” is?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Whether there are no other universes in this universe therefore alternate universes have no meaning or significance to us. They certainly can’t be called “God.”

Please disregard the word “whether” in that first sentence.

Thank you.

[Apos]

If it bans symbols with religious implications it “ implies” the prohibiting of free exercise thereof.

I don’t think you understand the difference between the government ITSELF refusing to post religious symbols, and it banning private citizens from doing so. Only the latter is prohibiting free exercise. The government has no right to free exercise because it has no authority to exercise a religion whatsoever, as we have not granted it that authority: the authority to believe rests solely and completely in the people. This is idea going right back to John Locke, and a core idea for all the founders.

[GodlessSkeptic]

Ronbo:When you get the chance I would be interested in seeing a response to my “Bizarro America” post above.Some posts you and NoDope4us made indicate that you are in support of certain government endorsements of religion(“Under God”/“In God We Trust” etc.) and so I would like to hear what you have to say about the contary(“Against God”/“In Reverence Of Robert Ingersol”-see “Bizarro America” post above).

I don’t know of any atheist who gives a rat’s ass about gov’t officials decorating christmas trees and more than they would care about the President singing “Santa Claus is coming to Town”.

However, government representatives work for ME(and you and all other tax-paying American citizens).I don’t care what they are doing or praying to on their own time but when they stand up in an official capacity(Inaugural speech, State of the Union address or what have you) and drag a representative of the christian church up to the podium to say prayers or bless Air Force One or somesuch, THEN I have a problem.

Likewise if a mayor villifies atheists in a speech or a senator villifies wiccans or the president demonizes jews, I will have a problem.The reasons why I would have problems with these things SHOULD be obvious I would think.

[ronbo]

*Quotes Originally posted by GodlessSkeptic *
Ronbo:When you get the chance I would be interested in seeing a response to my “Bizarro America” post above.

There a question somewhere in that post?

I would really like to hear someone from the pro-theocracy camp reply to what I posted above.I have YET to get an answer to this one from those who favor the “under God” and “In God We Trust” inclusions.

I’m not in the pro-theocracy camp, so I did not respond. Please review this thread and show me the quote that says I support “In God we Trust/Under God”.

It is clear from your post that you find the mention of God “downright insulting and exclusionary”, but that is not a question nor does it ask for a response.

I am truly sorry that your self-image is such that you cannot smile and shake your head at those people that just don’t get it. (Then again, I have a hard time with that too.)

I cannot force you to agree that a perfectly acceptable use of God refers to “Nature’s God” (as in the Declaration of Independence) which is another way of saying “Natural Laws” (without implication of a Deity). If its good enough for Thomas Jefferson, its good enough for me.

I find it downright insulting and exclusionary that you absolutely refuse to accept this as one of many definitions.

Maybe you are the one doing the excluding.

[ronbo]

*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic *
**“God” has only a supernatural definition.

You also don’t just get to randomly pull your own definitions out of your ass and just expect people to accept them. There is no non-religious definition for “God.” Period.**

From Wikipedia Encyclopedia:
Likewise many people hold non-literal, sometimes even secular interpretations of God – few of which may actually contradict the pure concept of an “infinite God,” despite any contradictions these may have with any particular religious tradition.

I will say that you are consistent. Most of your other posts are exactly as accurate as this one.

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic ***
We have a secular sytem of law.*

Unfortunately we do not. Our laws are riddled with religious based morality.

*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic ***
And could you please tell us what the hell a “fundie-atheist” is? **

What is a fundie?

Have you ever tried to discuss evolution or abortion with a fundie?

Its no different than trying to discuss the Big Bang with a fundie or a fundie-athiest.

I agree with the definition that Atheism is Religion without a Deity.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ronbo *
**I will say that you are consistent. Most of your other posts are exactly as accurate as this one.
Your cite does not actually include any examples of secular definitions for “god.” I suspect it may be referring to some vernacular uses such as “god mode” in video games. “God” as it is used in the Pledge of Allegiance and on currency has only a supernatural definition

Unfortunately we do not. Our laws are riddled with religious based morality.

Name one law that is religiously based.

What is a fundie?

Have you ever tried to discuss evolution or abortion with a fundie?

Its no different than trying to discuss the Big Bang with a fundie or a fundie-athiest.

I agree with the definition that Atheism is Religion without a Deity. **

Fundies are frustrating in conversations about evolution because they hold onto preconceived conclusions in contradiction to proven fact. They are “fundamentalists” because they cling to a fundamental set of assumptions even when those assumptions are not born out by reality.

Atheists do not have any preconceived opinions except that no one has proven that any gods exist. they also do not ignore empirical evidence. Your analogy is not symetrical.