Liberal Atheists are at it again.

[JimL]

Absolutely, Jimmy -- even though when YOU are called on to substantiate an accusation you run away like a little girl at a rattlesnake roundup!

Your "explanation" exposed your profound ignorance.

What I admitted to you idiot was that I first considered myself an agnostic because I couldn't say that I know with certainty one way or the other, but that, after discussing it here on tweb with the likes of you and your's, you changed my mind to a more atheistic perspective. Did you notice the part where I said there is little difference between the two terms?

I certainly am.

Doubt it.

[Tassman]

Woah, doggy, did that strike a nerve.

Not at all! You may well be inherently depraved but I’m not.

The problem for atheism, and I know you guys are aware of this because we've discussed it before, is that if we follow it to its logical conclusion then we have no moral obligation to be cooperative or altruistic or whatever -- remember Hume's "you can't derive an ought from an is"?

There’s no problem. We have no moral obligation to be cooperative or altruistic or whatever, but we tend to be because that’s how we as social animals have evolved to be, e.g. a mother has no “moral obligation” to nurture her child, but she generally does, it’s instinctive..

The very notion that we have any sort of obligation to each other is distinctly grounded in theistic religion.

No its not, it’s grounded in our evolved instincts to maintain a cohesive society.

[Cow Poke]

What I admitted to you idiot

pee-wee idiot.jpg

It's actually right there in type... I'll bold the important parts....

So, you're finally admitting that you've been deceptive about your claim to be an "Agnostic"? You're coming out of the closet, Jimmy?

Admitted that long ago CP, but there is little difference between the two. If you have no opinion either way, then you don't believe!

perhaps you should actually READ what you're responding to, and respond a little more cogently, and with less malice.

was that I first considered myself an agnostic because I couldn't say that I know with certainty one way or the other, but that, after discussing it here on tweb with the likes of you and your's,

That would be "yours", Jimmy - there's no such word as your's. Yours should never have an apostrophe.

you changed my mind to a more atheistic perspective.

So, that's your story and you're sticking to it? You "admitted that long ago", but somehow we changed your mind about what you believe.

Did you notice the part where I said there is little difference between the two terms?

Yeah, well, you're ignorant, so.....

[Roy]

The problem for atheism, and I know you guys are aware of this because we've discussed it before, is that if we follow it to its logical conclusion then we have no moral obligation to be cooperative or altruistic or whatever -- remember Hume's "you can't derive an ought from an is"? The very notion that we have any sort of obligation to each other is distinctly grounded in theistic religion.

That's not a problem for atheism, just like it's not a problem for astronomy, numismatics or skateboarding. It's a problem for theists who can't produce or follow a moral framework unless some guy in a fancy frock tells them they'll be punished if they don't do what he, er 'God', tells them to.

[seer]

The SCOTUS has ruled otherwise, so stop whining.

I don't deny that leftists courts have violated the Constitution.

There were many religion-based hangovers dating from prior to the Constitution. Until and unless they are challenged and brought before the courts they continue unabated. This doesn’t make them right or in accordance with the Constitution. School prayer is one of these things.

That is just stupid, school prayer does not violate the Constitution AS WRITTEN. CONGRESS shall make no LAW. Even as dense as you are Tass surely you can see that a school is not congress making a law!

[Roy]

No I was speaking of teacher lead prayer (which I think I mentioned), school sanctioned prayer - that that is not unconstitutional. The option - not that students had to join in. I remember those days, you had the option of joining in or not - not compulsory.

If students had to attend and listen then it was compulsory.

We actually had teacher lead prayer, it was not compulsory for students,...

I bet it was.

... nor was it compulsory for teachers to do it. I had teachers who did and didn't. The option was there. But again, a school district is not CONGRESS making a LAW.

They're acting in accordance with a law passed by a congress.

[Cow Poke]

That's not a problem for atheism, just like it's not a problem for astronomy, numismatics or skateboarding. It's a problem for theists who can't produce or follow a moral framework unless some guy in a fancy frock tells them they'll be punished if they don't do what he, er 'God', tells them to.

That's a terrible summation of Christianity, Roy. My Christian parents taught us to do the basic "be kind, don't hit, share" things, not because we would be punished, but because it was the right thing to do. As I grew up and eventually became a Christian, my motivation was never "to keep from being punished", but to be more like Jesus. We are Christ followers, not punishment fearers.

(and my pastors never wore frocks - our nursery workers did )

[seer]

If students had to attend and listen then it was compulsory.

Nope, if you didn't have to join in it was not compulsory. Jehovah Witnesses will not say the pledge, is it compulsory just because they hear it - silly.

I bet it was.

You bet wrong, I was there.

They're acting in accordance with a law passed by a congress.

What are you talking about? I'm talking about a school initiating a morning prayer, or having the Ten Commandments on site - not a congress making a law mandating these things.

[seer]

That's not a problem for atheism, just like it's not a problem for astronomy, numismatics or skateboarding. It's a problem for theists who can't produce or follow a moral framework unless some guy in a fancy frock tells them they'll be punished if they don't do what he, er 'God', tells them to.

What is the atheist moral framework? Oh wait - there isn't one...

[seer]

That's a terrible summation of Christianity, Roy. My Christian parents taught us to do the basic "be kind, don't hit, share" things, not because we would be punished, but because it was the right thing to do. As I grew up and eventually became a Christian, my motivation was never "to keep from being punished", but to be more like Jesus. We are Christ followers, not punishment fearers.

(and my pastors never wore frocks - our nursery workers did )

Right, they can't seem to understand that we act out of love and gratitude for what God and Christ have done for us...

[Roy]

Do you think that the writers of the constitution and the fathers of our country, the USA, meant that there could not be any prayers in school when they wrote the constitution and the first amendment? That it was their intention to keep religion out of schools altogether?

No. Their statements and language are clear. Their intent was that the government not favour any one religion (or none) over another (or over none), which would include not permitting laws that force people (including schoolchildren) to attend particular church or religious services.

There will always be prayers in school as long as there are religious students who say grace and take exams. There will always be religion in school as long as there are religious views in society that students need to be taught about.* But neither of these require authority favouring a specific religion or group of religions.

I don't think this is in any way difficult to understand, or controversial, - except when those wishing to foist their own religious views on others deliberately misrepresent it.

*NB: taught about, not taught.

[Cow Poke]

Right, they can't seem to understand that we act out of love and gratitude for what God and Christ have done for us...

And that's key - we don't "do works" so we can get into Heaven, or for fear of punishment - we "do works" BECAUSE of what Christ has done....

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

[One Bad Pig]

And that's key - we don't "do works" so we can get into Heaven, or for fear of punishment - we "do works" BECAUSE of what Christ has done....

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Partly that, and partly because we love God.

John 14:21 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.

And, admittedly, sometimes for the wrong reasons. I'll sometimes refrain from a particular sin because I don't want to have to confess it later (IOW, pride can paradoxically keep me on the straight and narrow). This despite the fact that my priest is never judgmental, and I always feel so much better afterwards.

[Cow Poke]

Partly that, and partly because we love God.

Especially that.

[Mountain Man]

Do you believe that the right to free speech's* primary purpose is to protect minority opinions? Also, if you imagine a dominant minority scenario, you can assume I refer to that group when I say majority.

* as per the First Amendment

Are you really this dense? The primary purpose of the free speech clause is to -- wait for it -- protect all free speech. Those who espouse a minority opinion do not have a greater claim to legal protection than those who espouse a majority opinion.