Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheists can't hold office in the USA?
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 181 of 777 (748266)
01-24-2015 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by petrophysics1
01-24-2015 4:54 AM


Re: The Foundation of the Rights of Man
Petro writes:
If you will not sign this then I do not believe you should hold elective office in the United States.
Oh us atheists will sign anything. We're totally corrupt. I've been known to eat babies without cooking them first.
Seriously, you know that you can sign anything if you cross your fingers don't you?
Pffnrr......

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by petrophysics1, posted 01-24-2015 4:54 AM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 182 of 777 (748268)
01-24-2015 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by petrophysics1
01-24-2015 4:54 AM


Re: The Foundation of the Rights of Man
Given that the British monarch rules by divine right (AKA By The Grace of God) proclaiming independence from said monarch is practically an act of atheism in and of itself.
The U.S. is hardly alone in proclaiming it's constitutional underpinnings as having Godly origins. But of course people pick and choose God's will to suit their own political ends....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by petrophysics1, posted 01-24-2015 4:54 AM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 183 of 777 (748270)
01-24-2015 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by petrophysics1
01-24-2015 4:54 AM


Re: The Foundation of the Rights of Man
This is not a document of the USA government. When this was written there was no USA and no legal documents of the USA.
Even so the document says nothing that one has to believe in a god in order to participate.
I notice you also ignore the parts that do not agree with your premise.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by petrophysics1, posted 01-24-2015 4:54 AM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 184 of 777 (748271)
01-24-2015 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by petrophysics1
01-24-2015 4:54 AM


Re: The Foundation of the Rights of Man
Petro writes:
If you will not sign this then I do not believe you should hold elective office in the United States.
You don't know jackshit about US History do you?
What the hell does the Declaration of Independence have to do with holding elective office in the US?
Sheesh, I did not think it was necessary to go over 7th. grade social studies here but I guess it is.
The rules for holding federal office in the US are laid out in the US Constitution. Article one covers the rules for Congress while Article two covers the Executive Branch. Congress means the Senate and House of Representatives while the Executive Branch means in President and Vice-President FYI. Article three covers the Judicial Branch which is the Supreme Court and any inferior Federal courts.
If you like I can print out transcripts of the pertinent Articles for you.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by petrophysics1, posted 01-24-2015 4:54 AM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 185 of 777 (748290)
01-24-2015 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by petrophysics1
01-24-2015 4:54 AM


Re: The Foundation of the Rights of Man
Petro writes:
I do not see how you can sign this as an atheist, since it clearly states that the Rights of Man come from God/Creator or from somewhere outside of the purview of man.
I regard my parents as being my Creators, but if I had to pick one, I'd go with my mother, because she clearly did most of the work creating me.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by petrophysics1, posted 01-24-2015 4:54 AM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 186 of 777 (748306)
01-24-2015 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Tangle
01-20-2015 11:21 AM


Re: agnostic anyone? when "don't know" is the logical answer.
Then you can not believe and are therefore an atheist. Obviously.
Is ancestor worship and the belief that the ghosts of your ancestors watch over you a theistic or atheistic belief?
Is the belief in a spiritual essence to the universe a theistic belief or an atheistic belief?
Is Buddhism a theistic belief or an atheistic belief?
Is Pantheism a theistic belief or an atheistic belief?
Is the belief that you cannot know whether god/s exist or not a theistic or an atheistic belief?
Another answer could be "sometimes" ...
Correct and when you sometimes believe you are a theist and when you sometimes don't believe you are an atheist. In neither situation is someone an agnostic.
So now when I say "I don't know," I am on the cusp between the times I do and the times I don't ... so am I then both a theist and an atheist at the same time? or neither?
Or is your position silly.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Tangle, posted 01-20-2015 11:21 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by jar, posted 01-24-2015 2:12 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 191 by Tangle, posted 01-24-2015 7:04 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 192 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-24-2015 7:56 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 194 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-24-2015 8:28 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(2)
Message 187 of 777 (748307)
01-24-2015 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by RAZD
01-24-2015 2:09 PM


Re: agnostic anyone? when "don't know" is the logical answer.
Did the cat die?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2015 2:09 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by AZPaul3, posted 01-24-2015 2:47 PM jar has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 188 of 777 (748317)
01-24-2015 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by jar
01-24-2015 2:12 PM


Quantum God?
When did Schrodinger post?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by jar, posted 01-24-2015 2:12 PM jar has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 189 of 777 (748329)
01-24-2015 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by dwise1
01-23-2015 5:06 AM


Duh, I dunno agnostic
Does "agnostic" mean the same as "Duh, I dunno"? No, it does not.
The Duhgnostic variety of agnostic seems to be the person that some members upthread are plugging into the theist OR atheist OR agnostic trinary system. While this is technically incorrect, it does seem to be the most common usage.
Or perhaps the Duhgnostic is another term for Ignosticism. That message has the subtitle "Re: Yes, no, or "I don't understand the question"", which was what I presented as an alternative to the theist/atheist/agnostic system.
Ignostic is not a really a third position to the the question "Do you believe in god"? (or god/God/gods/etc, if you must). It's a statement that the question does not make sense and/or is unanswerable.
And theist or atheist isn't a choose one or the other question. It's a "If you don't choose theist, then atheist is the default alternative". Theist/not theist. Not theist=atheist.
Maybe agnostics can be divided into three types:
1) True agnostics (don't and can't know god).
2) Ignostics - The use of "know" and "god" in True agnostics is so poorly defined as to be worthless.
3) Duhgnostic - Just plain stupid, confused, or mentally incompetent.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by dwise1, posted 01-23-2015 5:06 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 190 of 777 (748334)
01-24-2015 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by petrophysics1
01-24-2015 4:54 AM


Re: The Foundation of the Rights of Man
If you will not sign this then I do not believe you should hold elective office in the United States.
I will not sign that, because I believe that I do not have the right to declare the independence of the original thirteen states. For one thing, I was born far too recently to have that right. And, secondly, I do not live in any of those thirteen states.
Would you care to explain why that should disqualify me from holding public office?

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by petrophysics1, posted 01-24-2015 4:54 AM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 191 of 777 (748335)
01-24-2015 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by RAZD
01-24-2015 2:09 PM


Re: agnostic anyone? when "don't know" is the logical answer.
RAZD writes:
So now when I say "I don't know......."
... You don't believe.
I am on the cusp between the times I do and the times I don't ... so am I then both a theist and an atheist at the same time? or neither?
When you believe, you're a theist, and when you don't you're an atheist. I know this stuff is hard to grasp, but with a bit of practice you'll get it.
Or is your position silly.
So far you've failed to demonstrate why.
So to your superstitions and so on. Ancestor worship, ghosts, spirits etc etc. Whatever you care to mention. For what it's worth, my position on *all* this irrational nonsense - including beliefs in so called gods - as I've said before, is that there should be no word for a lack of belief in them. There is no word for a lack of belief in fairies, ancestor worship, etc etc so what's so special about another made up superstion called God? (god, gods, Gods).
I know you're fond of logical falacies - try special pleading.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2015 2:09 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by ringo, posted 01-25-2015 1:29 PM Tangle has replied
 Message 204 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2015 5:53 PM Tangle has replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 192 of 777 (748336)
01-24-2015 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by RAZD
01-24-2015 2:09 PM


Re: agnostic anyone? when "don't know" is the logical answer.
Is ancestor worship and the belief that the ghosts of your ancestors watch over you a theistic or atheistic belief?
The ancestors and ghosts would seem to be of god like nature, so I say theist.
Is the belief in a spiritual essence to the universe a theistic belief or an atheistic belief?
This falls into the perspective of ignosticism. That is, the situation is so ill defined as to be unanswerable. But I guess if one were to think of this ill defined "spiritual essence" as a manifestation of god, then one would be a theist.
Is Buddhism a theistic belief or an atheistic belief?
My weak understanding of Buddhism is that it is a life philosophy and not a religion. Atheistic.
Is Pantheism a theistic belief or an atheistic belief?
Pantheism is the belief that the universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity,[1] or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent God. Theistic.
Is the belief that you cannot know whether god/s exist or not a theistic or an atheistic belief?
It's at least part of the definition of agnosticism (seemingly dwise1's, if not yours). dwise's fuller version is along the lines of "The belief that you don't know and can't know if god/s exist". The "can't know" is an unprovable (but disprovable) hypothesis. Certainly, if one can't know, then one doesn't know. The Tangle/Moose position is that one doesn't know, but that doesn't rule out that later one can know. Disproving agnosticism is to prove gnosticism (at least if you consider gnosticism to be "one can know that god/s exist".
Regardless, agnosticism (dwise1 use) is not a third option in the theist or atheist question. As the 4 field advocates have pointed out, one can be a agnostic theist, an agnostic atheist, a gnostic theist, or a gnostic atheist. But the Tangle/Moose position is that gnosticism is not really a valid option. Nobody is really a Dawkins type 1 theist or type 7 atheist. Which leaves agnostic theist or agnostic atheist. And while the dwise1 "agnostic" term does have use, agnostic theist or agnostic atheist still functionally reduces down to theist or atheist.
The Dawkins "gnostic" above, used in the sense of "know" and not "know god". Being a "know god atheist" would be an oxymoron.
So now when I say "I don't know," I am on the cusp between the times I do and the times I don't ... so am I then both a theist and an atheist at the same time? or neither?
I would say neither, BUT that "cusp" is essentially of no time length. Not remotely long enough to think "You know, I just don't know".
Even in binary electronics, there is that state between 0 and 1. But that doesn't make it a trinary system. It's a binary system with a transition.
Moose (and a long enough message to jusify posting my "sig")

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith
"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien
"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2015 2:09 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2015 5:07 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 193 of 777 (748337)
01-24-2015 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by RAZD
01-20-2015 11:01 AM


Re: It's hard to modify Constitutions
And if this was done within 50 years of the initial amendment the people would have had a good understanding of the intent.
Original intent is not the only way to interpret the Constitution. I'm pretty sure I don't want the first amendment reset to the original, barely meaningful intent.
So you don't trust the Founding Fathers and Mothers to write the constitution in the first place.
I don't have to trust them. They finished their job before I was born. I don't have to wait and see what they will do.
Curiously I trust the public more than I trust the politicians
Good for you. I reserve judgement over whether I have the same trust in my fellow man when it comes to drawing a line between my rights versus his own.
We see an overwhelming tide of decisions state by state authorizing marriage of LGTB people, and it is now going to the Supreme Court to review 4 states in addition to 32 that already allow it, with the understanding that they may rule for the whole US to allow marriage of LGTB people.
Mostly court decisions. There are still very few popular decisions in favor of marriage equality.
Curiously enough, there is room under the federal constitution such that marriage equality ought to be a reality already. Historically it has been the court system and not the population that has been on the cutting edge of civil rights.
And there are a number of amendments pending that I would not mind seeing voted on by the public.
There is a process for amending the constitution. I find that the process is appropriately cumbersome such that it is not often subject to political or popular misuse.

Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by RAZD, posted 01-20-2015 11:01 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 194 of 777 (748338)
01-24-2015 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by RAZD
01-24-2015 2:09 PM


Re: agnostic anyone? when "don't know" is the logical answer.
Is the belief that you cannot know whether god/s exist or not a theistic or an atheistic belief?
An addendum of sorts to my previous message.
Agnosticism is the belief that you cannot know.
Atheism is the know that you cannot believe, or more precisely, atheism is the knowledge that you don't believe.
Each is an evaluation of ones personal belief/knowledge. In agnosticism, an atheist recognizes that he might be wrong. In atheism, an atheist recognizes that he has a (lack of faith) position, and that that position might be subject to change.
Moose
Another added by edit:
"I don't know" agnosticism is either irrational confusion or rational recognitions that the question is flawed. Basically, ether the questioner or the questioned or possibly both are confused.
One should be able to give a coherent answer to a coherent question.
One can give an incoherent answer to a coherent question.
One really can't give a coherent answer to an incoherent question, other that something along the lines of "that question is incoherent, at least to me".
Of course, "coherency" is also a judgement call.
Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added by edit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2015 2:09 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 195 of 777 (748356)
01-25-2015 8:49 AM


This is fun. Twenty years after coining the word 'agnostic', Huxley speaks at a Symposium to take a bow from his intellectual peers. He's given them an escape hatch to save their embarrassment. The world had turned but without the trapdoor of agnosticism, they'd have to admit to atheism.
Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/UnColl/Rdetc/AgnAnn.html
It's a plain assertion; confusing knowledge with belief - conflating science with an emotion. To say that you can't know if you believe or not is, obvious, tosh. Just ask Faith.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Phat, posted 01-25-2015 9:26 AM Tangle has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024