To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 25098
25097  |  25099
Subject: 
Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:52:37 GMT
Viewed: 
6199 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Laswell wrote:
> 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).

Actually, I think you need to reread what I wrote.  I think the common man's
stance is that the POA is fine as is.  That's what the court could have
asserted.

> > 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.

And this "difference between belief and fact" is what you're claiming underpins
the difference between agnosticism and atheism?  But a Christian only has the
belief too, so are they agnostic?

Chris



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
 
(...) Whoops, I did misread what you wrote. Anyways, the bit about the Bush v. Gore Florida ruling still shows that they have no problem turning you away on a mere technicality, but then deny your claim later. And you know what? I'm perfectly okay (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
 
(...) 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). (...) (22 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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
    

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR