This is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. It’s nobody’s business, except the person making the oath, who they make that oath to. If the President Elect believes in God, and chooses to make that oath to God, that’s up to him, and no one else. Now if he was Atheist, and being forced to say “so help me God”, I could see there being an issue, but from what I understand, that’s not the case, so these people should just mind their own business, and quit trying to claim persecution where there isn’t any.

O my, this is everyone’s business. The problem is that the president – who ever it is to be, now or in the years to come – is actually swearing to the nation, not to God. This is a holdover from a much more theistic period in history. We have this national nostalgia for the good old days of witch burning, slavery, and a host of other miscalculation by our faithful forebears of years gone by. Perhaps it is time to grow up and take seriously the ceremonies we use to mark our changes.
There is a case to be made here, but it is effectively too late. Timing is everything. They should get their act together for the 2012 inauguration – it will take that long at the least to make it to the Supreme Court. .

Why can’t they just be tolerant of my religious views? Why is it so hard to coexist with atheists?

because atheist hate God. period.

Most religions have an understanding of a God, and speaking God, under God, or any other reference to God has always been part of the American scene. Atheists are particularly annoyed with the fundamentalist push that has existed for at least the last eight yrs., and truthfully they are annoying. Like Lisa said, nobody is making Atheists pray to God. If we can’t use the word God, then what else do we Christians, and Muslims have to do? Stop wearing our crosses, stop wearing our scarfs on our heads, stop advertising our Church news in the newspapers? We’re not China, we’re not Russia, we are the United States of America. Can’t you Atheists get along with who we are? I like nnmns and he’s an atheist, we get along and agree with many things. I think people should just quit fighting so hard to just live, against people who just want to live, too.

This Michael Newdow clown needs to be ostracized from American society. He’s nothing more than a self-loving publicity seeker who wants to stir up trouble every chance he gets.
If a President wants to swear in on a Bible and with a prayer, that’s his business. If that’s the way he expresses the depth of his commitment to serving the country, so be it. If a President wants to opt out of that or find another way to express the same thing, that’s fine too. Newdow and other militant atheists are no better than religious fundamentalists; they can’t mind their own business even when the issue at hand isn’t hurting anything or anybody.

ck wrote:
“because atheist hate God. period.”
Actually, my understanding is that they deny God exists. You can’t hate what you don’t think exists.
Nate wrote:
“This Michael Newdow clown needs to be ostracized from American society. He’s nothing more than a self-loving publicity seeker who wants to stir up trouble every chance he gets.”
Wow, can we do the same with Dobson and a whole bunch of other publicity seeking loudmouths? There is quite a list of folks I might nominate. Sadly, this is against the rules.

Sure, jestrfyl. Dobson and Pat Robertson and the whole lot can go. Heck, I’d even help you dig up Falwell’s corpse and do it to him too, if you wanted.

It’s funny how some people think adding the word “period” to a post makes it any less ridiculous of an opinion.
I think I tried that tactic when I was about 4.

Atheism is no better than any other religion that wants to force its beliefs down everybody’s throats.
If the president elect believes in God and wishes to believe that having the pastor of his choice pronounce a blessing over his presidency will bring favor to him and the country, it is his freedom of choice to believe that.
Who is anyone to force their beliefs onto him? This is the United States of America. Atheists are hypocrites.

jest wrote: “Wow, can we do the same with Dobson and a whole bunch of other publicity seeking loudmouths? There is quite a list of folks I might nominate. Sadly, this is against the rules.’
Perhaps we can do the same with ministers that defend every claim that comes down the pike and still claim to be Christian?

Taking the Oath of Office is a public event but also a personal one. It must be done in a way that is meaning to them and shows his commitment to what is, arguably, the toughest job in America. If he is a christian then he need to put his hand on the bible. If he was an Atheist I’d expect he’d put his hand on a law book and not say; “so help me god.” To do it any other way is like swearing on your mother’s grave and she’s still alive.

im sure they dont speak for all atheists, but why cant the courts, before the case , check with the witness on what religion they are and just re-word the swearing in to reflect that?

“because atheist hate God. period.”
As per jestrfyl, how could we hate something we’re sure doesn’t exist. Do you hate the Flying Spaghetti Monster cknuck? It’s exactly the same thing. You have now failed Atheism 101.
And Nate you want to ostracize someone out of society just for exercising their right to approach the court with a law suit. Well, one you don’t agree with of course. Step back. Take some deep breaths.
It’s an interesting question whether the swearing in is for the pledger or the audience. We do want to put every restriction on the incoming president we can to observe and defend the Constitution. Certainly swearing on the Bible didn’t influence the Very Christian George W. Bush to defend the Constitution. But the parts Warren and the other guy will do aren’t part of swearing him in, they are icing and no doubt meant to influence the nation more than anyone or thing else. I wish the 18 atheists luck because I think their cause is just, but I doubt they’ll have any luck.

nnmns you probably know that they will not have much luck because this country was founded on freedom of religion and every president up to now have did the same pledge. Suddenly a bunch of atheists, (God haters) feel as though their sensibilities are offended and attempt to change history and deny Obama his chance to do what those before him have done. They want to take some of the dignity from the swearing in process.
By the way nnmns you ought to take a survey and see that you are not dealing with a “Flying Spaghetti Monster” that you might be able to dispose of easily, you and this guy Bob Ritter are not the first to take a swipe at God. My prayer is that He swipes back.

nnmns said>>>>>>But the parts Warren and the other guy will do aren’t part of swearing him in, they are icing and no doubt meant to influence the nation more than anyone or thing else.

George Washington said “so help me God,” that is the significance of invoking God and if there is a secular God, say a “Father”, then it would be George Washington. He founded this country, created it, set aside rules like giving up power after two terms. I’m an atheist, am I repressed, yes, and so long as I live in the US, I will always be repressed as the US is an extremely religious country, do I want to break tradition, that’s weighted in history, unlike Michael Newdow, no. Whether its Newdow or Hawkins, or someone else, atheists overshoot their target, just like the Christian Right overshoots all people who believe in God. Ever since Scopes we’ve gone to war on education, I do not believe the Bible should be taught, but it is a sad day in American History when we go to Court to rub out anything to do with Washington Father of our country because American History isn’t taught, this is why Roberts is in charge and he’s already dismissed Newdow once.

The flying spaghetti monster is just atheists way of saying we don’t believe in God? How can you “take a swipe at God” if you believe it doesn’t exist. And to be perfectly fair to God, we’re in your world, taking a “swipe” at the Devil? This swipe is the most underrated swipe because, it says we don’t have a grudge on God, because we don’t acknowledge his counterpart either. I don’t see why there would be a problem when understood in that way? Let’s all be content that each person has made the right choice, even if another doesn’t agree with it.

cknuck: “you and this guy Bob Ritter are not the first to take a swipe at God. My prayer is that He swipes back”
Thanks cknuck. I’ll be watching out for the Easter Bunny, too.
But if you think I had any part in the suit you have me greatly inflated.
As far as “God haters” you are wrong in theory as has been pointed out but you might be right in a couple of ways.
First some former Christians or whatever may have come to despise their imagined gods and declare themselves atheists even though that ugly god meme hangs on in their head and they aren’t really atheists by definition. I’ll be happy to point out such people aren’t atheists if they or discussion of them shows up here.
Second, while real atheists don’t hate our public “God” (there being nothing real to hate) many of us hate its inclusion in public rituals and the pretense we all believe in it. What could be sillier than “One nation, under God” when so many of us know there isn’t a god and some of the rest do hate it. The next word, “indivisible”, is strained by inclusion of that immediately preceding bow to superstition that does in fact divide us.

nnmns, you said>>>>Thanks cknuck. I’ll be watching out for the Easter Bunny, too.>>”that ugly god meme ”
nnmns,
Know yourself. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. You are revealing the hatred you have for God. That is because you don’t know Him. YOu have the wrong idea of who He is. We, who know Him, love Him. Get to know Him. Taste and see. The Lord is good.

This whole “atheists can’t hate God because they don’t believe in him” line is nothing more than a meaningless semantic game that doesn’t reflect reality. It’s entirely possible to hate (or love) something logically prior to believing that it exists. Attraction or revulsion by the idea of something is often one of the prime motivators in the complex set of processes that lead to our belief or disbelief in that something. Atheists can certainly hate God without believing God exists, as many do; the religiously inclined, similarly, can love God before they’re convinced God exists. To deny this is to deny some pretty fundamental tenets of religious epistemology.

“To deny this is to deny some pretty fundamental tenets of religious epistemology.”
Well since “religious epistemology” is developed by people who’ve swallowed the god meme based on no evidence I find that fundamentally easy.
“You are revealing the hatred you have for God. That is because you don’t know Him.”
I don’t believe in your god, in Nate’s god, in cknuck’s god, in jestrfyl’s god, in any of the Jewish or Islamic gods, any of the Hindu gods, etc. Which god should I try to get to know first? And if any of those gods existed and wanted me to “get to know it” why wouldn’t it do anything at all to prove it exists? Compared to the fables in the Bible your god is remarkably reticent.

Ah, nnmns, you never fail to reveal the depths of your ignorance. I love it.
Religious epistemology isn’t developed just by people who “swallowed the god meme.” It’s the philosophical study of how and why people form beliefs about religious topics, and it’s done by people of all religious and non-religious persuasions.
It’s simply objectively true that when you study the writings of classical atheism, protests against certain conceptions of God are prime motivators in the rejection of God’s existence. Marx didn’t reject God simply because he didn’t see evidence for God, but more fundamentally because he saw religious faith as stifling the revolutionary impulse; Sartre didn’t just not see a reason to believe in God, but he thought that God could not exist because God’s existence would make human freedom impossible. The list goes on and on.
But examples are hardly necessary, anyway. If you can’t fathom the fact that people can love or hate someting that they’re not convinced exists, you’re simply out of touch with reality. You must not get out much, because I know countless people who quite explicitly make affective statements about things they don’t think exist (“I hate the whole idea of hell,” as one of my non-hell-believing friends told me just the other day). I realize that you tend to have a bit of trouble grasping basic concepts, so I can’t expect you to understand what I’m saying, for everyone else out there, rest assured: it’s entirely possible to love or hate what you don’t believe exists. People do it every day.

“And if any of those gods existed and wanted me to “get to know it” why wouldn’t it do anything at all to prove it exists? Compared to the fables in the Bible your god is remarkably reticent.”
That is the point, nnmns. We know He exists. We may have been introduced to Him by our parents or other church members, but at some time we got to know The Invisible God (Collosians 1:15; 1 Timothy 1:17). We got to know Him ourselves. He is actually alive and real. He does not jump at your tests whenever you command, however. If you truly want to know Him, and whether He exists, I am sure He can oblige you that honor, if you ask from a pure heart. Others who did not believe in him, who asked to know if He is real have communicated with Him and He has shown them in a powerful way He is real. The son of Madelyn O”Hare became a Christian.
He is a just God, and He gets involved in the affairs of His people. If you wonder which are His people, between all the religions, that is a question you might ask Him. When I am unsure about an issue, I ask Him. He has His way of getting the answer to us, whether we are more adept at communicating or whether we are newborn in the Kingdom of God. The majority of the people in this great country are not all insane and you sane. Check it out more thoroughly.

Nate: “Religious epistemology isn’t developed just by people who “swallowed the god meme.” It’s the philosophical study of how and why people form beliefs about religious topics, and it’s done by people of all religious and non-religious persuasions.”
You are right, Nate, I left out the very important word “mostly”. But I still have no problem fundamentally rejecting most of religious epistemology.
“Marx didn’t reject God simply because he didn’t see evidence for God, but more fundamentally because he saw religious faith as stifling the revolutionary impulse; Sartre didn’t just not see a reason to believe in God, but he thought that God could not exist because God’s existence would make human freedom impossible.”
I’m taking your word for what facts you’ve stated about Marx and especially Sartre. You are indicating Marx is not necessarily an atheist but whether he was one or not he was acting from political impulses in denying a god exists, so that has nothing to do with whether he believed in any god.
Sartre apparently used what amounts to a proof by contradiction; assume what you want to prove is false and if that leads to a contradiction (that being that, I presume, Sartre was sure we have human freedom) then what you want to prove (there is no god) is of necessity true. That may or may not be how his reasoning started out but by your description it’s what his reasoning amounted to.
Geri: “That is the point, nnmns. We know He exists. We may have been introduced to Him by our parents or other church members, but at some time we got to know The Invisible God”
Invisible, silent, showing no physical signs of its existence. I’m not impressed by what happens in your head, Geri. I used the term “god meme”. Look up “meme” and you’ll find it perfectly describes belief in a god, passed on from one person to another, with no objective proof such a thing exists.

Christians seem to think the founding fathers were Christians, and put the “so help me god” in the oath, and “In god we trust” on the money. All of that was added in the mid 20th century, when we had the red scare and feared communist takeover. The founding fathers were primarily Deists, not Christians

cknuck: care to provide some evidence that “every president said so help me god?” Bet you can’t find it, since it’s as false as the existence of your god

Epistemology: Epistemology is the study of how we know what we know. [A definition from the Internet]
Since what we “know” about religion is mostly that there’s no proof any of the large number of religions is true and there’s no proof any of the miracles upon which they are built is true, religious epistemology must be a very small field of study.
Of course you could pretend that, for instance, the Bible or parts of the Bible are true and go from there but that would be building castles on sand. Is that what you do, Nate?

Nnmns all of we Christians of various beliefs are very content with our Father in heaven, His son, Jesus, His mother Mary, all the rest of the family, the Saints, and Angels, and most of all the Holy Spirit that God’s Son sent us. Some of us only believe bibical scripture, some of us have had experiences with heaven, and that can change the way you read old scripture. Whatever, we’re happy with our faith and don’t feel particularly dumb using it. Someone said somewhere on belief.net in another section that faith was an imginery thing, as well as God. To that person it is, to us it isn’t. If religions hurt people they should be rectified, if not, they should be tolerated at the very least.

nnmns,
The irony of your rejection of religious epistemology is that you yourself so often engage in it. Any time you make a statement about how or why people might be justified or not justified in holding religious beliefs, you’re engaged in religious epistemology, even if at a very basic level. That’s why there’s not a hint of truth to your claim that religious epistemology is done mostly by those who have “swallowed the god meme” (a phrase which itself presupposes certain epistemological ideas). When atheists discuss the nature of faith and why it isn’t a legitimate means of attaining knowledge, that’s religious epistemology, epistemology of religion, or whatever else you want to call it.
But all semantics aside, you’re not engaging my actual argument, and you haven’t offered any refutation of the explicit claim by so many that they love or hate what they are not convinced exists, and you haven’t offered any refutation of the common belief in epistemology (not just religious epistemology) that our affections often help determine our beliefs and don’t just follow from our beliefs.
You’ve missed my point with the Marx and Sartre examples. The point is not that either of them is rejecting God in their rhetoric for some kind of pragmatic or political purpose. Both of them, from all we can tell, really were atheists–they really believed God didn’t exist–and they did so because they found the idea of God incompatible with other values to which they were more passionately committed. This is precisely my point, that when we hold certain values strongly, and another concept contradicts those values, we can and very often do reject that other concept at least in part on the basis of its incompatibility with what we value. It’s entirely possible to hate something that you don’t believe exists or don’t believe is true, and people do it all the time. You’ve offered no reason why people can’t do that; all you’ve done is take cheap shots at scholars of religion without ever engaging, or even displaying an elementary understanding of, the work they do.
You’re not going to beat me on this. This is what I do for a living every single day, and it’s arrogant and ignorant of you to think you can win an argument with me about this when you’re own description of religious epistemology reveals that you don’t seem to have any clue what you’re talking about.

Nate,
You wrote, “You’re not going to beat me on this. This is what I do for a living every single day, and it’s arrogant and ignorant of you to think you can win an argument with me about this when you’re own description of religious epistemology reveals that you don’t seem to have any clue what you’re talking about.”
All of the rest of the discussion aside, this is the very sort of thing that defeats your won argument. Have you ever watched “Princess Bride”. This statement reminds me of those made by “the Sicilian” in that movie. Asserting your intelligence more and more strongly simply emphasizes your own doubt. You clearly have no affection – or appreciation – for anyone whose views oppose yours. Making an “I say so” statement does not win an argument, nor does “I’m smarter than you”. What wins is proof that you have listened to what someone – anyone – else has said, and can respond in a calm tone and thoughtful voice. Until you can learn and integrate this into your writing, you will only continue to alienate others and diminish your own credibility. Back down and LISTEN, you will learn a lot more than from making your own point with bigger words, longer sentences, and more obtuse points. Sure you are smart, now try to achieve some wisdom.

I for one snd there are millions of us see nothing wrong with the use of those statements at the inauguration. Our country was founded on religious belief and I get so upset when a minority of people try to take God out of everything!I remember Madalyn Murray O’hair qnd what damage she did to taking prayer and other things out of schools. If someone doesn’t want to say the pledge of allegiance or pray fine but lets not stop those children who want to. As a former teacher I taught respect for all beliefs even though I’m a born again Christain which I know blows atheists minds that someone could believe a God exists. I tolerate you and in turn I should be given the same courtesy.

“I tolerate you and in turn I should be given the same courtesy.”
And we tolerate you. Heck, some of us might possibly welcome you into our homes. As far asw children praying in school, I presume they do it all the time. But as far as the school setting a prayer they all have to say (or obviously avoid saying) that’s the school board or some government advocating religion, a particular religion. And thankfully that’s a no-no.
Anyway, can you imagine the time taken up in school board meetings deciding what prayer to demand and who’ll be the prayer leader at public events? Notice how hurtful just that question has gotten on the national scene? Imagine that repeated at thousands of school boards around the country!

Nate you are confusing the concepts of hating a god and hating the idea of there being a god. I presume some of your professors understand those distinctions better than you do and they need to get more demanding in their classes to wipe out some of the sloppy thinking, like yours.

nnmns,
That’s nothing more than a semantic distinction. If you hate the idea, the essence, the form of a thing, you’re hating the thing. Whether or not that idea is instantiated in reality is another matter altogether. Although, if God does exist (as He does in the opinions of those who believe in Him), then you’re hatred of the idea of God can’t be distinguished in any way. After all, what sense would it make for you to say of a person, “I hate everything about him, I hate all of his attributes, I hate the very idea of him, his very essence, but I don’t hate him.”
Even if we do posit a technical distinction between a thing and its essence, there’s nothing inherently illogical about what some others have said here: atheists hate God. While certainly not all atheists hate God, it is entirely possible (and actually true) that some atheists do hate the very idea of God; and to haggle over whether hating the essence of God is different from hating an actual existen object named “God” is just a silly semantic game that most people don’t want to play because it makes no practical difference whatsoever.

jestrfyl,
I’ve listened to him all I can, but the fact is, there’s not much there to listen to. Everyone thing he’s saying demonstrates his ignorance of the fundamentals of the discussion. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about, he repeatedly insults anyone who believes in God and even anyone who studies the nature of belief in God, and I’m supposed to just sit there and “listen” to him? Get real. That’s like telling a psychiatrist he should just sit back and listen to a loony Scientologist rant about drugs and quack science and not, at some point, just step in and say, “Hey, buddy, I study this for a living, so you can either stop arrogantly wallowing in your own stubborn ignorance and listen to me for a second, or you can go on plugging your ears and making yourself look like a fool. You’re choice, but most of those who know what they’re talking about agree with me and not with you.”
For heaven’s sake, he’s trying to argue with me over what religious epistemology is and who practices it, when I know personally several of the people who are out there doing it, and I’ve talked with them and had classes with some of them. This isn’t about me asserting superior intelligence and using that trump his argument, it’s about me pointing out the simple fact that he’s trying to argue with me about a the basic structure of the world in which I live and move and have my being. I get this all the time from people who try to argue with me, “Academic theology is…”, “Academic theology is practiced by…”, etc. People are trying to tell me who I am and who my friends and colleagues are, how we think, what our motivations are, and so forth. That’s profoundly arrogant, and it doesn’t need to be “listened” to. At some point, you’ve just got to look at a person and tell them that they don’t know what they’re talking about because they’re not a part of the world they’re pretending to have all figured out.

You love to claim I don’t understand this or that but a moderately simple distinction throws you for a loop.
First let me say that I personally don’t hate the idea of a god and of course, not believing in any god, I don’t hate any specific god.
But I can imagine hating the god one believes in while not having any opinion about whether a god exists or in fact wishing some different god existed, say one that hadn’t caused the death of your child or allowed an idiot to foment a useless war. Or one that had just never invented mosquitoes.
And I can imagine someone hating the idea of there being a god, e.g. Sartre as you described him who wanted free will and thought if a god existed (probably actually the generic Christian god as so often described) he could not have it and no one could have it.
So for all your imagined high-falutin learning you have a big gap in your understanding. Buck up and bone up.

To complete my thought above, Sartre could have easily hated the idea of such a god without believing in it and thus, of course, without hating it.
“If you hate the idea, the essence, the form of a thing, you’re hating the thing.”
Yes, probably you are. But if you happen to think a general class of things (gods) all don’t exist and would not want any of them to exist then you aren’t hating the essence or the form of a thing because the class probably contains gods with lots and lots of different essences and forms.
I think it’s hard for some of y’all to imagine discussing/considering a god without actually discussing/considering your “God”. On the other hand I’ve happily never believed in a god so I find the term “God” loaded because to me it’s a non-existent creature but to each of you it’s a specific invisible friend or watcher or guardian that you are pretty sure exists. And yours are all different. Every one of you has a slightly different god in mind, though only some of you realize that.

nnmns,
Where’s the “gap” in my understanding? All you’ve done is said it’s there, but you’ve not even attempted to refute the arguments I actually made. What, pray tell, is the real difference between hating the idea, essence, or form of a thing, and hating the thing itself? If you hate everything the thing is, its whole set of necessary and sufficient identifying conditions, its very definition, then how is that different from hating the thing? Tell me, please, how you could come up to me and tell me, without making no sense at all, “I hate everything about you, your very essense, the very idea of you, but I don’t hate you”? And like I said before, even if it’s possible to make some technical distinction between hating the idea and hating the thing, what practical difference does that make, and how would it invalidate anything that anyone has said about an atheist hating God? Like I said, you’re playing a semantic game that’s practically meaningless; you’re wanting to push things to a level of impractical abstraction that no one here seems to care about.
Let’s get at least this much clear: when a person makes it part of their agenda to battle against the influence of an idea of God because they despise that idea and everything it entails, then that, from a perspective of a person who believes in the existence of a God who matches that idea, is the same as hating God. An atheist can hate the essence of something that he might not think exists, but if God does exist–as He does in the opinion of those who believe in Him–then the atheist is hating something that is real, that is, he’s hating the thing itself. That’s the most basic reason that those who feel the need to tell Christians that atheists can’t hate God because they don’t believe in Him are simply wrong, because in the mind of the believer, the atheist is hating the essence of something that exists.
But like I said, it’s all a stupid semantic game that doesn’t mean anything. Whether a militant atheist hates God or just some idea of God makes no difference in the end; he’s likely to go out and engage in the same behavior, and the same thing’s probably going to happen come judgment day. So what’s the point of bickering over mere semantics?

Nate W,
Can you imagine being an “atheist,” living in a world full of people who have decided they are going to believe in God, and you cannot do anything about it. You cannot change their minds. They talk about Him. You cannot silence them. They pray to Him. They claim He is real, and that He answers them. Events you call coincidence or nature, they attribute to Him. Aargh! Imagine for a moment, the way they look at you, the way they think of you. Imagine their appraisal of your sanity, the state of your soul. Image is everything. You look like a fool to them. You hate them. You hate Him.
We do not give up hope, but we pray.

Well there is Atheism and there is Christianity. If you believe in God as a Christian God then the Father Son and Holy Spirit is God, but the world is not atheists and Christians, its also agnostics, the belief that their might be a God but we just don’t know,nor will we, and Deism, the belief in God as a Clockmaker and then died after setting the world in motion, then there’s Buddhism,Taoism,Shintoism, Confusionism, are they “atheists” ? To Christians, yes, because Christianity believes their way is the only way to heaven, but then heaven is different to other religions. So not all the world shares the idea that God looks like the guy in the Sistine chapel, and Christianity is just an infidel religion to someone else. Which goes back to the idea that God is absolute in a nuanced world.

Geri: “Imagine their appraisal of your sanity, the state of your soul. Image is everything. You look like a fool to them. You hate them. You hate Him.”
So I understand you as saying I look like a fool to you and I’m supposed to hate you and hate an imaginary being. Well if you think I look like a fool I’m not well disposed toward you but prior to that I certainly didn’t hate you; still don’t. But you do have a very disturbing habit of imagining other people react like I suppose you think you would. We aren’t all the same and some of us would react better than apparently you would.
Nate: “Tell me, please, how you could come up to me and tell me, without making no sense at all, “I hate everything about you, your very essense, the very idea of you, but I don’t hate you”? [sic]”
Uh, Nate, this request is off topic. I believe in your existence already and if I happened to hate everything about you, your very essence, I dare say I’d hate you. Of course I don’t hate you; I find you amusing and sometimes I feel sorry for you but I certainly don’t hate you.
But earlier we were talking about the concept of hating the idea of a god existing versus hating “God”, two very different ideas though you apparently haven’t gotten that yet.
Let me try again. Suppose I ask you if you hate the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I’m guessing you don’t think it exists and I presume you have enough self control to not hate something you don’t think exists so surely you’d say “No.”
Now suppose I ask you if you hate the idea the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. Since if it existed it might dispose some folks to believe in it rather than “God” so I’d guess you don’t like the idea of it existing and I can imagine you might say you hate that idea.
Now do you see the difference?

There’s so much to react to.
Nate: “Let’s get at least this much clear: when a person makes it part of their agenda to battle against the influence of an idea of God because they despise that idea and everything it entails, then that, from a perspective of a person who believes in the existence of a God who matches that idea, is the same as hating God.”
Who are these people you are talking about who “despise that idea and everything it entails”? Quite likely some atheists do hate the influence on otherwise rational people of some very irrational ideas of gods and I think some may hate all such ideas. I, and I presume others, don’t hate most of those but find them disappointing.
But the main reasons I, and I think most of us, oppose those things are that they make it appear the government is supporting a religion and in school prayer cases they force children to either pray to a god they don’t believe in or risk harassment by publicly not praying. So all your talk about despising and hating is largely beside the point.

Atheists do push their agenda, they assume they are all the God we need, after all they have figured it all out. They know just how the earth was created, and how we all evolved form earth snot into male and female. They also know how we survived the elements, disease, predators and ourselves. Life is a no brainer to them a they wish everyone would jump on board with their “way”, they want to be the ones to “force” children to follow their concepts. They hate not only God but those of us who believe in God, who are of course of inferior intellect according to code of atheists. Now they would be so bold as to dictate to the president how to take his oath.

I miss the window to add my name when the session refreshed, but the last post was me.

nnmns,
“Uh, Nate, this request is off topic.”
No, it isn’t. For it to be off topic, you’d need to show me how hatingg the essence of a thing is different from hating the thing itself, whether the thing is instantiated in reality or not.
Suppose, say, you hated a person who existed, and then, without your knowledge, that person ceased to exist. Does that mean you’ve suddenly stopped hating the person, just because they don’t exist? Or do you go on hating the person, because you think they exist even when they do not?
And what about those of us who claim we love God? Should you correct us when we say we love God, by telling us, “Actually, you can’t love God, because God doesn’t exist”? Or do you think we really love God because we believe God exists, even if you don’t think God exists? Is our love for God depended on our belief that God exists, or on the actual fact of God’s existence?
You keep trying to create some kind of practically meaningless, purely semantic distinction, but you haven’t even clearly stated what that is or what it depends on. You keep saying I’m not grasping the distinction, but you’re not making it clear what it is, why it matters, or why I should believe it exists in the first place.
“Now suppose I ask you if you hate the idea the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.”
Well, see, I haven’t been talking about the idea that God exists. I’m talking about the idea of God, God’s essence or form, the concept of God, the set of necessary and sufficient conditions that define God, the thing proposed as existent or non-existent in different possible worlds. The idea of God exists, and that idea is God; whether or not that idea is instantiated in the actual world is another question entirely.
If you asked me if I hated the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and assuming that I did have strong negative feelings, I’d tell you that yes, I do hate him. Then I might go on to investigate whether he actually exists, but that doesn’t change anything.
I think there’s a confusion here over the way you’re talking about things and the way I am, the way things are usually talked about in analytic philosophy. But whether there’s a confusion over terminology or not, I’ve yet to understand why you are pressing this issue, when, as I’ve said over and over again, this semantic squabble makes no practical difference in how people live their lives. Whether or not you call a person’s crusade against religion hatred of God or hatred of the idea of God makes absolutely no difference.

“Atheists do push their agenda, they assume they are all the God we need, after all they have figured it all out.”
We do, it was created by atoms, sulfer, oxygen,water, and supernovas. The Bible states that God created the world in six days and rested on the 7th, everything was good, even Adam and Eve who had disobeyed God, fowls were made, the seas, everything, then around the 16th century or so, a star exploded causing it be seen by the human eye for at least two weeks. So here you have God’s perfect world with everything in order, then you have this star, or lost sheep, that’s not following the rules. Its called Brache’s star if I remember correctly, so you ask well why does the universe do that, why does God allow for that to happen, if at all? So we’re on our own little spiritual path-its not God but what does that care to you, who have already killed your spiritual growth by saying, God did it, its in the Bible, therefore everything else must be false if God is truth. Further, as an atheist who’s read the Bible, Jesus states that in Matthew chapter 7 verse 29 “For he taught them as having one authority, and not as the scribes,” since a scribe is one who writes a written record, Jesus is his own worst enemy because what are Matthew Mark Luke and John, but scribes of the Gospels.I have been an atheist since High School and I feel I’m on a very spiritual journey with Buddhism,Deism,Atheism, Agnosticism, Transcedentalism, Shintoism, while taking in the Jefferson Bible.
Dr. King, Gandhi, Robert Kennedy,Jimmy Carter, Theodore Roosevelt,Woodrow Wilson, these are not atheists in any matter of the word, they believe in God. Now the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades also had people that believed in God. The US massacred the Indians in part because they didn’t believe in Western Christianity, you got to seperate the right from the wrong, just as the Atheists of Robert Ingersoll and Clarence Darrow, versus Communism.
“They know just how the earth was created, and how we all evolved form earth snot into male and female. They also know how we survived the elements, disease, predators and ourselves. Life is a no brainer to them a they wish everyone would jump on board with their “way”, they want to be the ones to “force” children to follow their concepts. They hate not only God but those of us who believe in God, who are of course of inferior intellect according to code of atheists. Now they would be so bold as to dictate to the president how to take his oath.”
I’ve got good friends who believe in God, and then there’s the Irish Catholics And America. We gave America John Kennedy. The world is in nuance.

Nate: “Well, see, I haven’t been talking about the idea that God exists. I’m talking about the idea of God, God’s essence or form, the concept of God, the set of necessary and sufficient conditions that define God, the thing proposed as existent or non-existent in different possible worlds. The idea of God exists, and that idea is God; whether or not that idea is instantiated in the actual world is another question entirely.”
Well Nate since this started about atheists then got driven off into the usual whimsy that atheists hate a god they don’t even believe exists, I’m not the least interested in your tangent to a tangent topic of the instant. And since I know you’d claim I didn’t responded to your point, no matter what I said, I’ll just leave your contribution lying there, steaming, on the road.
cknuck: “Atheists do push their agenda, they assume they are all the God we need, after all they have figured it all out. They know just how the earth was created, and how we all evolved form earth snot into male and female.”
cknuck I don’t assume I’m any kind of god and that seems like the last thing any atheist would do. Humans, atheists and theists, do have a lot of it figured out but there’s an immense amount more to learn. But what seems quite clear is that we can keep pushing the boundaries back and get closer and closer to understanding how the universe and life started and how we’ve evolved. If you want to know “how”, consult science; the Bible is worthless. If you want to speculate on “why”, call it religion. I don’t know if science will ever have a major contribution to make to answering “why” or not. But just remember your religion is built on undocumented claims so don’t put too much faith into it, especially the parts that would hurt others.
“Earth snot”. Interesting term.

The problem with so many believers of “God” is that they insist that the rest of us are snobs if we just don’t go along with what is, in essence, a “leap of faith”. I’m not a snob; I’m simply don’t believe there is ample evidence for the Christian’s concept of “God”. The anger and outrage portrayed by many athiest would not occur if we hadn’t been villianized for centurized by our Christian brethren.

The Gospel writers were not merely scribes, but Matthew, Mark, and John were actually apostles. The Scriptures were written by Holy men as they spoke by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21). This is why the Bible has relevance today, and why the prophecies of old come to pass today and in the future. Words from those who have not truly experienced a thing do not seem to have the authority of words from the spirit of an experienced witness.
This is what atheists and those of other religions do not understand. The difference between Christianity and the other religions today is the Holy Spirit. Being born again means that one’s natural body is inhabited with God’s Spirit. This born again person can now understand there is a spirit realm, not seen with eyes, because they are now a part of that realm, having been inhabited by spirit. Without spirit, you cannot discern spirit. So now we understand that you and those of you who are not born again do not understand, and are not aware of the spirit realm. You say it does not exist, because you are not privy to it. Some of us had hoped to increase your desire to learn.

Geri you are all bought into your religion and can’t see that every religion has something that, its adherents think, makes it better than other religions. To an outsider your testimony sounds like something someone on a drug might say. And of course it’s been said religion is a drug.

Our country was founded on religious belief”
Actually, the Puritans came to American in fear for their lives because they wouldn’t follow the teachings of the Church of England, which was completely sacraligious to them. They didn’t come to to be a Christian nation. They LEFT a Christian nation. They could have stayed home if they wanted to be one people under THIS PARTICULAR Christianity.
The Founding Fathers mostly believed there could have been a god, but that being in no longer interested in what goes on on the 3rd Rock from the sun. They did NOT put “In God We Trust” as our motto, nor did they say “So help me god.” Even the Declaration mentions our creator, not god.
Why can’t religions be happy meeting with like minded individuals when they gather as Christians, and not as American Citizens? Why must the entire nation follow their teachings? And which one would we follow anyhow? According to South Park, the Mormons was the correct answer. What if Allah is the real god, and Christians are heathens damned to hell?
You want to pray? Fine with me. IMO, it does nothing beyond maybe making you think about something. But your choices to pray, and how you live your life, as long as you don’t hurt anyone, are no better than anyone else’s.

Confessora,
>>>>>”By all means, it is your right to believe whatever you find believable but I hope you are never in a position to take away the same right of others.” >>>”Actually, the Puritans came to American in fear for their lives because they wouldn’t follow the teachings of the Church of England, which was completely sacraligious to them. They didn’t come to to be a Christian nation. They LEFT a Christian nation. They could have stayed home if they wanted to be one people under THIS PARTICULAR Christianity.”

“Atheists did not need to come to practice atheism without persecution.”
Sure, if they did it in secret. Atheism has been as suppressed as any other religion, and in any country run by a religion it’s always one of the wrong religions.
” This is why the majority in the USA are Christian, and why this country has been so blessed and successful.”
We (our ancestors) brought diseases that decimated the natives. Was that “God” killing all those people who’d never heard about needing “Jesus” and all that, thus freeing up land we could conquer easily? World wars were fought in Europe, not here. There were Christians all over Europe, too. Was that “God” deciding to decimate them and their homes and farms and factories in war after war but not ours? Our resources were, after WWII, still largely unused while Europe’s were more used up. Of course ours are much more nearly gone now, too. Was that “God” who put resource-using civilizations in Europe much sooner than America but has put one here too, now?
And if we are so blessed and successful because of the Biblical nature of our laws, please devote a few paragraphs to pointing out how our laws are so much more Biblical than, say, England’s have been and France’s have been.

I understand the multiple points of view and for me there is validity in all of them though as a minister emotionally I lean toward inclusion of God in the ceremony. However there is an alternative! The president and others who are sworn in for public duty can affirm in God’s name. In other words they can say something to the effect..”With the help of God I agree” or “With God’s love and wisdom, I affirm my swearing in” …or “As God is my witness and the essence of my being I do” etc.
Shouldn’t it be up to the individual to bring their beliefs into the process?

nnmns and unbelievable it takes much more faith to believe in what you’re pushing I’d rather believe in God than both of you.

Well cknuck, at least unbelievable and I exist.

Robert NYC
Your perspective interests me. I know all too well where cknuck and nnmns stand – we all negotiate and argue with great frequencey and enjoyment (when it doesn’t get too personal). But I too am a minister and find your comments interesting.
I would prefer God be left out of the “swearing in”. It is not different than if someone were to insist on the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag during a service of worship. Invoking God’s name is inappropriate in a secular setting. Why not affirm a willingness to serve in the name of the Constitution – the docuement and structure the president is actually swearing to uphold – or the Declaration of Independence – “We hold these truths to be self-evident”. In the interest of pasting God into this very secular celebration we do disservice to both. Consistency may be “the hobgoblin of little minds”, but it ought to be applied here liberally.

“Atheists did not need to come to practice atheism without persecution.”
“Sure, if they did it in secret. Atheism has been as suppressed as any other religion, and in any country run by a religion it’s always one of the wrong religions.”
They must surely have done it in secret then, because the confessed founders of this country were Christians. They came to this land to practice religious freedom without persecution. They invoked the blessing of God in all they did through prayer and confessing God and attributing all good works to Him, and God blessed them.
jestryl,
It is not a secular setting. The President of the United States is being sworn into office. He believes it is such a solemn occasion that he wishes to invoke the blessing of God by having his presidency blessed by a man of God. This is his right as an American citizen. The atheists say this should not happen, that it is foolishness, that the president has no right to his belief and his blessing because they forbid the mention of God in their presence.
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God…For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength. (1 Cor 1:18 & 25)…
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Cor 2:14)
A minister of God is required to preach the word of God as it is written, as God gives it, not as man wishes and attempts to change it according to the times and according to their lusts and passions.
. And they shall teach my people [the difference] between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean. (Ezek 44:23) We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. (1 John 4:6)
Further, if one does not publicly acknowledge God, if one does not publicly call on God to bless the office because of the fear of men who reject God and do not want His Name mentioned in their presence, how can he expect his presidency to be blessed by Him? He is definitely going to need to hear God’s voice, and he will need God’s help to do the awesome job he has ahead of him. I do not expect the atheists to understand this. But a minister, a man of God should be more inclined do his job, to bow to God, rather than to follow the advice of foolish men who are perishing.

Geri: “Atheists did not need to come to practice atheism without persecution.”
nnmns: “Sure, if they did it in secret. Atheism has been as suppressed as any other religion, and in any country run by a religion it’s always one of the wrong religions.”
Geri: “They must surely have done it in secret then, because the confessed founders of this country were Christians. They came to this land to practice religious freedom without persecution.’ yada yada yada
Geri has trouble reading her own writing. She was talking about religious & nonreligious freedom in Europe, and I responded about Europe, and then she assumed we were talking about practices in America. But in any case, many colonies started out with little religious freedom, too.
And any claim the US’s founders were conventional Christians doesn’t fly.
“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.”
- James Madison [April 1, 1774
“I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.”
-Thomas Jefferson
:Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…
- The Treaty of Tripoli, 1796
Oh and Geri before you quote the Bible as in any way authoritative you need to show proof that it is authoritative, and since the miracles it describes are the basis for most believers’ trust in that authority
you need to show objective proof from contemporary non-Christian sources that some of those miracles actually happened. After all some of them were earth-shaking enough that if they actually happened there should be independent documentation.
But wait, you can’t! No one has found such documentation. The only “proof” for those miracles is text in the very Bible they are purported to support. It’s like a used car salesman you know nothing about claiming to be honest and you buying a car from him! It’s like a politician you know nothing about claiming to be honest and you voting for him! It’s like a TV preacher claiming to be honest and you sending him your money!
In other words, please don’t bother trying to prove something about the real world based on the Bible. It’s totally untrustworthy about anything other than the contents of the Bible.

“And any claim the US’s founders were conventional Christians doesn’t fly.”
” ‘I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.’ ”
-Thomas Jefferson”
My dear nnmns,
The Christian Puritans were fleeing religious persecution from the “orthodox” Christians in Europe. They were persecuted by that different sect of Christians for their particular Christian beliefs, different than those of their persecutors, and came here to practice their religion in peace. That is why they we do not believe the state should mandate what church one should attend or whether one should attend any church at all. The state is of no particular sect of religion and should not enforce any religion, but allow freedom of choice. This does not mean that religion should be quashed. Atheism is a religious preference as well–they should not be able to dominate others either claiming they have no religious preference setting themselves apart from other religious choices.
The president-elect has a religious preference. It is his choice, it is meaningful to him, and should be allowed, not attacked, at such an important event. It is his event. Let him have it without grief, but celebrate his “foolishness” like a good American– tolerate, if you must.
As for the miracles in the Bible, I can understand your difficulty believing to some extent. If I had not seen many of those miracles performed today, I might also feel as you do. I went about seeking, and I found that they are performed today–even I have experienced them and had a part in bringing some about. The Scripture says “”The truth is, anyone who believes in me will do the same works I have done, and even greater works, because I am going to be with the Father.” (John 14:12)
Jesus is gone to be with The Father. Now, it is up to His followers to do the works He did here on earth. The works prove God is God today, not just yesterday, and He has all authority. I pray God blesses your understanding.

I suspect this lawsuit will fail because, as has been demonstrated here, it is too difficult to get every American on board with the same interpretation of the Constitution. However, the fact that asking an atheist president to swear before God would be inappropriate is the very reason it should be stricken from the oath. Should Obama or any future president choose to declare their endless fealty to Jesus, Odin, etc. after reciting the oath that is their perogative, and no one is going to stop them. Stop them legally, anyway – it remains that such an act is highly inappropriate. As jestrfyl mentioned earlier, the president serves the nation first, not God. If the two duties happen to coincide, so be it, but the president must be prepared to turn his back on God in favor of country, if necessary. If he is unwilling to do so, he is not fit to be our leader. In fact, it would make more sense to add to the oath of office a section asking the president elect to swear his allegiance to the United States (or freedom, liberty, justice, etc.) above all else – including their chosen deity.

So Geri you’ve walked on water? Parted a sea? Traveled here and there inside a fish? You need to get some reporters and scientists and skeptics on hand; you could start undermining non-Christian positions if you could repeat it.

Well the Christian Puritans settled in Massachusetts, but the Christian Quakers settled in Pennsylvania, and the Christian Catholics settled in Maryland, and the Christian Anglicans settled in Virginia and became Episcopalians. And the Christian Puritans banished one of their own to Rhode Island. So you have a multitude of Christian sects, not everyone agrees on Christ the same or practices. Then in Massachusetts you got the Congregational church which broke off to become Unitarian and Congregational. That the Baptists. The Indians were here first, they believe something else entirely, that’s why we westerners had to put them down. For John F. Kennedy to become the first Irish Catholic president, he had to give speeches like the Houston Address and confront the Catholic question in West Virginia, Wisconsin and New Hampshire to Protestants afraid that if he were elected the Pope would be the real leader and Kennedy would be a prime minister puppet. Yes we are a God fearing nation, but we’re children of the Enlightenment as well. Jefferson, Adams, JQ Adams, Madison, Monroe,Washington,Franklin, Hamilton,Calhoun, Webster,Lincoln. Fillmore,Jefferson and Taft were Unitarian presidents. This is by no means over, and since the Religious right and the Reagan Revolution has run out of gas, its time to embrace our E pluribus unem.

nnmns you are a angry atheist. Some things are just beyond your scope of understanding but its no reason to angry and say such harshly ridiculous things to people who are pouring out their hearts to you.

cknuck does it sound angry or outlandish to ask if someone has done such things? Yes I guess it does and I apologize for the tone.
But she said she’d been involved with miracles and those I mentioned are a few of the major miracles that people use to claim validity for Judeo/Christian gods. So I asked if she’d done those. Or by implication anything comparable.
And the fact it sounds outlandish says something about how much you and I both expect to see such miracles, doesn’t it cknuck.

I too have seen firsthand the hand of God move in miraculous ways so I guess you have to lampoon me as well. Mine you if you do it simply means to me that you are angry because God has not chosen to reveal Himself to you, surely you’ll have to question your motives for such a cruel response to someone’s real life experiences.

Well cknuck we’ve insulted and lampooned each other for a couple years now and survived. So, when I spoke of miracles I was talking of such as were described in the Bible, big miracles. Geri said she’d seen miracles so I asked her if she’d seen big ones. No response.
You say you’ve seen miracles. Any big ones? Anything a Bible writer might have inked in?

Yes

Yes, I have seen some big ones. One example I think you might believe is people are healed of terminal diseases–those are miracles–some instantly. There have been people healed of palsies and blindness, even AIDS. Yes, even someone coming back to life. Those are just the ones I think you might possibly believe. I have seen so many things that are miraculous, and been directed by God, by His still, small voice, so that I know He is real, and that He is God Almighty. As I said before, I was introduced to Him by others. But that was not enough to believe everything in the Bible for my entire life. I set out to find out if the words in the Bible were really true. I found they are. I believe them. The Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35). I did not immediately answer, because these things are done all the time. I am sure it is available to you to find out. When I wasn’t sure I sought, and I found out. You could do likewise.
Some miracles I could describe you probably would not believe, not at this point. Even some of those who introduced me to Christianity do not believe some things I have seen and experienced, some until they were shown to be true in front of them. This shows that faith is received according to God’s grace. They never told me miracles are for today. In fact, they told me the opposite. I set out to find out, and found out.
The other miracles are described in modern books, and seen, lived and testified about at churches quite often, or out in the field–more in some denominations, obviously, than in others. The believing in some Christian circles is greater, so they see greater miracles. Jesus did say, “according to your faith be it unto you.” (Matt 9:29) In Romans 12:3-6, we are taught that the gifts operate according to our proportion of faith. Miracles, healings, and prophecies, are three examples of those gifts. That means if you have faith they will operate in you, and if you do not have faith they probably will not. So, some Christian denominations or sects will have more faith, resulting in more miracles, than others in those areas. Don’t give up searching if the first one doesn’t operate that way, or even if they tell you they don’t believe miracles happened past the time of the original apostles.
As explained before, in our faith, it’s not about buying what someone told us–doesn’t have to be. God makes Himself known to us whenever He pleases. It is a mystery to you now. But, if you desire to know the truth and humble yourself, He may also reveal the same to you. He is God, and He is very gracious–though, He does not jump at your every command. You might ask awhile before He decides to answer, or He may answer immediately–He is know to. A humble heart surely helps.

It sounds impressive but if this kind of thing is really happening, why isn’t it done in front of witnesses who can document it scientifically and report it so the world is aware it’s happening?
And it’s relatively easy to fake being sick. Heck, I could probably do it if I put my mind to it.

It is done in front of witnesses. For just one example, check out The Healing Rooms founded by John G. Lake. People really do get sick, and come for healing and receive it.
And yes, of course there are some fakers. People set up skits to fool people and make money. But don’t let that deter you from the real ones. Psychics and shamans can tell you your past and present to hook you in, but can only guess at the future–don’t believe them either. Only God knows the future. Only God can absolutely make things happen in the future.
I really hope you find the truth for yourself. See, I am not saying to believe me. I am saying, learn for yourself so that you have your own faith and believe. Then, like me, there will be those who said you were hoodwinked, you believed someone else and are crazy. But you will know you were led, not convinced, by suggestion, but learned the truth yourself from a living and communicative God Who answers those that diligently seek Him.

nnmns you assume it is important to God to prove to you.