Subject:
|
Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 26 Jul 2004 19:27:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2387 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
> And the SC had the opportunity to make a ruling supporting the common man's
> stance on the wording of the pledge and chose to stick to the limited legal
> point. While I agree with their choice, I think the fact that they took that
> road does provide some evidence that they agree with the 9th district. If
> they flatly disagreed, they would have been tempted (and able) to make a more
> sweeping indictment of Newdow's claims.
Firstly, I think "common man" is a bit inappropriate here, since it very
inaccurately suggests that the majority of Americans are opposed to pledging
"Under God" (remember that many non-church-goers still consider themselves to be
religious).
Secondly, they also had the opportunity to strike it down. They seem to have a
dedication to making sure that they don't rule on the true issue until it's
brought before them in the proper manner. They could have flatly denied Gore's
claim, but they kept sending him away to reword his lawsuit. Many people
consider the SC to have been a pro-Bush conspirator in the 2000 election, but if
that were the case, shouldn't they have just ruled in his favor and been done
with it? Maybe in this case they thought the more important issue was making
sure that they struck down the precedent that suggested a biological father who
has no legal custody can still file lawsuits on his child's behalf.
> There is absolutely no evidence that my toes have all turned purple (I'm
> wearing shoes right now, so I'm not certain). But it seems so distinctly
> improbable that I'm willing to go on record as believing that it has not
> happened. Do I now belong to the church of beige toes?
No, on the basis that the CoBT does not exist and you have not formally joined
it. That doesn't mean you're not a believer, though.
> It is just so with a god. I can't claim certainty of knowledge. But I do
> believe, because of the complete lack of evidence where it seems that some
> would be quite likely, in the "utter absence of a god." Atheism seems to
> most accurately capture truth, so that's what I consider myself.
>
> If I took my shoes off and found purple toes, I'd change my mind. If a god
> presented himself, I like to think that I'd remain open to changing my mind.
> But there's no zeal to my toe-color fixation.
And thus you've described the difference between belief and fact. Until
presented with evidence that proves to you specifically, beyond a doubt, that
"god" does or does not exist, you can only believe.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
200 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
