[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="edgewalker16"]

You should all watch this documentary called "Jesus Camp". It's about 90 minutes long and fairly interesting. I tried watching it once and the first 30 minutes kinda creeped me out...I was bored one day and decided to finish it. I'll let you form your own opinions, but I think the documentary sums up this whole thread quite nicely.

http://quicksilverscreen.com/watch?video=43408

edgewalker16

How in the world does a documentary about a bunch of crazed Bush-worshippers sum up this topic, again?:|

I just thought it was relevant, that's all. Why, are you offended?

I don't think he was offended, you just said it "summed up the thread" which it doesn't really, but it is relevant. Just a simple case of confusion.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]But as I stated here in court we neither say that nor use a bible. Thus, his evidence is NOT universal to the government in the entirety. Deity_Slapper

Lies. I just told you of my own experience where the judge said that to me. And actually, he said it numerous times, to all the different people who were having hearings on the same day. Every single person was asked the same, "do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing bu the truth so help you god?"

You are flat out wrong on this one LJ.

He wasn't flat out wrong, but he was flat out wrong, in stating that you were flat out wrong, and that's alot of flat out wrongs in one sentence. And he's still wrong here, just because an example is not universal doesn't mean it should be disregarded like he tried to do with it. The fact of the matter is, there are examples of the government using religion as a tool of fear. I don't believe it is an incredibly large problem, or that it is always detrimental to our society, but it does happen.

EDIT: I haven't been on these forums in probably over a year, but I recall LJ being the same back when I used to frequent here. Its a completely random occurence of boredom that I'm even here today, but if I keep posting here, I can see LJ and I having many more disagreeances to come =P

How do these threads always tend to start with one question, lead to another question, and snowball into like twenty full-blown arguments... 0.o

Lol, I love religious threads, but they usually tend to go way off-track =P

criinok

Its just how discussion works, it evolves. If every time you tried to talk to someone and you brought up a topic, and all you talked about was that topic and it never led into any branching conversations, like "Oh that reminds me..." You would be a pretty boring conversationalist imo.

[QUOTE="sutherland19"]

My post still stands. Just because you preceive an argument to be weak, doesn't mean you can completely disregard it.

LJS9502_basic

I presented a fact this country has used for quite some time. Notice that one can't display a Christmas decoration on ANYTHING GOVERNMENT RELATED...and tell me religion rules the country.:roll:

Actually his examples did provide some evidence. The "So help you god" while holding a hand on the bible, and swearing, is a scare tactic to help ensure that they tell the truth, its saying they are making a promise to God to tell the truth, and if they don't, well so help you, may he have mercy, I'm quite sure thats using religion as a tool of fear. Fear is a powerful motivator and persuader.

Also, I know he didn't say this, but his argument, has to be proved in two steps, first, that Religion and Government aren't seperate, and then second, that Government uses Religion to instigate fear to keep people in line etc. His arguments weren't "Blow you away convincing" but they certainly held some merit in what he was trying to prove.

[QUOTE="sutherland19"] [QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sutherland19"]

I wasn't saying I had any, just saying that your proof, isn't proof at all really.

LJS9502_basic

From what I gathered from skimming the thread. Didn't want to read through 30 pages of all of the same arguments, was that Diety is saying there is no seperation of Church and State, and you are saying there is. Diety gave some small examples of where there isn't, that you simply shrugged off as "sayings", when they are legitimate instances of the two meshing. Then the only counter argument I've seen you make is that: the law says there is a seperation of church and state, and I simply stated, this doesn't PROVE that there is, since many laws are broken.

Then you go on to claim that you are the only one that provided evidence...wait WAT?!...diety's examples, just like your example of the law, is evidence. You can't simply dismiss someone elses evidence because it doesn't agree with your point. So what if they were simply sayings that he used as evidence, they still are evidence of the meld of Church and State. They aren't extreme examples, I'll give you that, but they are still, evidence, so don't lie and say you are the sole person to give evidence either way.

Wow...what a concrete argument that DOES NOT prove his initial statement.:roll:

My post still stands. Just because you preceive an argument to be weak, doesn't mean you can completely disregard it.

[QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"]

Then "confused" should be another word for agnostic theism, because it makes no sense to believe in something that you're not sure is there...in fact, how could you believe? There's nothing to anchor your beliefs to. You wouldn't know where to start. What does this god look like? Who is he? Where is he? etc. Makes no sense whatsoever.

tycoonmike

All of which are answered by one word: "Yes."

God is omnipotent, therefore the only answers that truly define your questions are relatives, not absolutes. My entire problem is that you are answering questions such as "Who is God?" with absolutes when the concept of God renders such answers inadequate. I know exactly where to start, the mathematical concept of infinity, and I leave it at that, because I have accepted that I will not know the answer during my life. Indeed, can you comprehend the vastness of the mathematical concept of infinity? I sure can't.

Just nit-picking here, but the concept of infinity is easy to comprehend, its imagining infinity that will drive you crazy. =D

[QUOTE="sutherland19"]

I wasn't saying I had any, just saying that your proof, isn't proof at all really.

LJS9502_basic

From what I gathered from skimming the thread. Didn't want to read through 30 pages of all of the same arguments, was that Diety is saying there is no seperation of Church and State, and you are saying there is. Diety gave some small examples of where there isn't, that you simply shrugged off as "sayings", when they are legitimate instances of the two meshing. Then the only counter argument I've seen you make is that: the law says there is a seperation of church and state, and I simply stated, this doesn't PROVE that there is, since many laws are broken.

Then you go on to claim that you are the only one that provided evidence...wait WAT?!...diety's examples, just like your example of the law, is evidence. You can't simply dismiss someone elses evidence because it doesn't agree with your point. So what if they were simply sayings that he used as evidence, they still are evidence of the meld of Church and State. They aren't extreme examples, I'll give you that, but they are still, evidence, so don't lie and say you are the sole person to give evidence either way.

[QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"]

The fact that you say you believe in god, is also a crystal clear way of claiming that "HE IS REAL". Period.

tycoonmike

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism

Maybe now you'll understand why I have a problem with you...

1. I don't give a crap if you have a problem with me. That's your deal. Hopefully, for you, one day you can learn to live without holding grudges, because it only hurts yourself.

2. Wikipedia is NEVER a good way to prove a point.

3. What I said makes perfect sense. If you believe in god, then obviously you're saying he is real. Because you wouldn't, and couldn't, believe in something that ISN'T real.

1. I don't hold a grudge against you, all I see is someone who is making up arguments and calling them his own, and then tries to back out of the fight when things get rough for him.

2. On whether or not Wikipedia is as reliable as other, more antiquated, encyclopediae:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/322818/wikipedia_is_as_reliable_as_any_other.html

http://its.unc.edu/inside/fs/?p=23

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/12/14/1134500913345.html

Care to restate that?

3. Then perhaps you should reread the article. Agnostic theism is basically the idea that the person in question doesn't know if God exists, but he believes in It despite this.

What's ironic, is that this is basically every religious individual. None of you KNOW God exists, but you believe he does. And that's fine.

[QUOTE="sutherland19"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="CoreoVII"]

Look........Basic.......buddy, I know you want fact's, but it's not like your proving what we say is false...

LJS9502_basic

This doesn't prove his argument false at all, not even close, many laws are broken all the time, who's to say this one hasn't?

I wasn't saying I had any, just saying that your proof, isn't proof at all really.