Supreme Court rejects atheists' attempt to scrub 'In God We Trust' off US currency
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Show me the motto.
The Supreme Court rejected an atheist case Monday to remove "In God We Trust," the national motto, from all coins and currency from the Department of Treasury.
Michael Newdow, the same activist attorney who tried to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, lost his case, arguing Congress' mandate to inscribe "In God We Trust" on currency was a government endorsement of religion and a violation of the First Amendment.
Newdow argued in his petition to the Supreme Court that because his clients are all atheist individuals or atheist groups, the government violated their "sincere religious belief" that there is no God and turned them into "political outsiders" by placing the phrase "In God We Trust" on their money.
The justices rejected his petition without comment.
The phrase was first put on an American coin in 1864, due to "increased religious sentiment." It was added to both coins and paper bills in 1955.
Newdow also tried to silence prayer and any religious references at the inaugurations of President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama.
Tell him to have his atheist clientele mint and print their own money that they can use among themselves. As I, as an outsider, see it, Americans are just getting crazier and crazier.
Nope, just the [deleted,] and atheists, who insist on wasting the Court's time.
I just can't understand it - I mean, what's the big deal that "In God we trust" is on the money? Who is hurt by that? What great injury does ANYONE suffer? Who even LOOKS at what's written on the money - it's not like a schoolroom where kids can be influenced. I'm glad that the SCOTUS told them to shove their lawsuit where the sun doesn't shine.
I take it you'd gladly accept your country adopting "In Allah We trust" on the money? It's such a non-issue who cares, right? Who even looks at what's written on it, right?
Your backhanded smear is not missed, nor that of your supporting thumb-uppers. What I wrote was not directed at you, but you made damn sure your insult was directed at me. That's reason, in my opinion, why this site is losing so many good members and gaining so few new ones. Way to go.
I'll buy that.
I did no such thing and made almost exactly the same comment in reply to Magic Eight Ball down at 10.2.
My comment was not a smear or backhanded in any way, I simply switched the supposed "God" in question and apparently it touched a nerve. I have to assume that you would have an issue with it since you chose to simply rage at me instead of answering a very simple question.
I don't give a flying fornicate what religion anyone is, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, they're all the same to me. I only about care how often some religious extremists choose swing their religion around like a mace in an effort to smash their faith in everyone else's face, forcing their imagined Gods into our pledge, onto our money and into almost every aspect of what should be a secular society.
And yes, there are likely half of American citizens who are apparently completely insane, and they are those who are trying to turn America into a Christian sharia-like theocratic Nation and I will continue to oppose them with every ounce of my being.
Perhaps had you said Vishnu or Buddha instead of Allah it might not have touched a nerve, but I have been unfairly accused of Islamophobia so many times on this site that yes it DID touch a nerve. If I am wrong for having reacted to what I perceived as an insult, I apologize.
Actually I really don't give a damn what is printed on money as long as it does not demonize anybody or anything and is usable for what it is intended for.
Other than just blindly parroting "buh buh buh separation of church and state" what is the problem? Is it harder to buy things with your religious dollar when shopping in the atheist quik-e-mart? Are you feeling like the money doesn't get you? What is the actual problem?
of course they did. the lunatic left will never learn.
this is a christian nation. always has been and always will be.
cheers
Sounds like wishful thinking on your part. But otherwise inaccurate.
It is a shame that you cannot prove this claim.
.
.
.
Especially since actual facts contradict it.
Never has been, never will be. If it were a Christian nation, all other religions would be banned and.............
...........................
---------------------------------
They aren't.
nope. christians are more tolerant of other religions than that. and far more tolerant of other religions than the atheist community which would ban religions in a new york minute if they could. but they can't and never will be able.
cest la vie
They aren't even tolerant of fellow Christians. Nice try though.
Since they can't, anymore than Christians can get rid of Muslims, it's pointless to speculate.
Like I said above, if we were a Christian nation, as you suggest, the Founders would have outlawed all religions except Christianity.
See, the Founders were fleeing Europe, which was a theocracy, (for the most part), at the time; observing any religion but Christianity was illegal. That's why when they penned our constitution, they gave the free exercise to worship as you see fit but no ability to enact any laws based on religion. Get it?
Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, Catholics, LDS, Heavens Gate, etc. etc. etc.... ALL have equal representation under the US constitution, PERIOD. We are no more a Christian nation than we are a Muslim nation.
Many Christians are not tolerant of other Christian sects, much less not the religious beliefs of Christians. I posted a thread of a minister who said that he would execute LGBTQ people and others who appear at a Pride parade because of his religious beliefs. Does that sound like he is tolerant?
I dare you to prove this outrageous claim. When have any American unbelievers said that they would prohibit religious belief? Conservatives claim that the ACLU is anti-religion but I can post 10+ cases where they defended Christians right to believe and worship as they wish, as protected in the 1st Amendment
Both the religious clauses in the 1st amendment are just as beneficial for atheists as they are for members of the many religions.
Quite the sweeping genrealization there.
Well that is not true. And you need to post some links and prove it if you want to claim otherwise. Here is some of MY proof your statement is bullshit.
Really? You have some stats to this claim because this is news to me.
I haven't heard on the news of any Christians blowing each other up because one is Protestant and the other Lutheran. I could be wrong I'm not religious though and don't generally go around looking for something to harp about a religion because they hurt my feelings. Off the top of my head I couldn't tell you the branches of the Muslim religion either. Now I know that Muslim sects are not Tolerant of each other. Is that the kind of tolerance you are trying to allude to?
Did you ever hear of Northern Ireland or European religious wars of the 16th and 17th century? The protestant Christian Klan believe that Catholics should be killed and have done so more than once. Not all Protestant sects support each other.
This is why we have the strict separation of church and state because if we didn't then Christians would attack non-Christians. When that had been accomplished then the Catholics and various Protestants would fight among each other for political and social supremacy in the same way that the Sunni, Kurds, and Shia Muslims kill each other in the Middle East. It is only pragmatic and stable to keep religious belief and political power completely separated.
You are correct. See I told you I don't give a shit about religion.
If it wasn't for the European religious wars I would not be an American because both sides of my family left central Europe and came to the US to escape the fighting and religious persecution.
Actually yes!
Why would the phrase in god we trust upset one who trusts there is no god?
It's the idea of separation of church and state that is at issue. The government should not be endorsing a god or religious belief on our money.
if a word... any word hurts you?
you will have a miserable life.
cheers
I take it you'd be fine and vote to just leave it as it is if some group of religious conservatives had forced "In Allah We Trust" onto our money back in the 1950's? I'm not saying those words would hurt anyone, but they certainly don't belong on our currency.
this is a christian nation so the chances of that? were always ZERO
go talk to your imagination elsewhere... fantasy bores me.
A "Christian Nation" you say? Where does it say that in the constitution? I recall the constitution explicitly stating "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." so it would be quite a revelation if you can show where in the constitution it states we are a "Christian Nation".
In fact, in the original 1796 treaty of Tripoli stated "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.". And yes, I've heard all the tired ridiculous excuses as for why that shouldn't be binding and that it was later removed from the treaty, but it still remains, our founders did express that sentiment 223 years ago and completely left out any mention of the United States being any sort of "Christian Nation" from the constitution.
You asked if "any words hurt you", I didn't realize you only meant "any 'Christian' words", as it appears you would, in fact, be against "In Allah We Trust" emblazoned on our money.
yepp.
the document you speak of is derived from the notions contained in the declaration of independence. our "original founding document... try reading that.
and when you do read it...
the words "natures god" and the words "their creator" are not talking about the govt or our parents... LOL
Do these ideas sound familiar? Jesus, god, and Christian are never mentioned.
Demonstrably false!
Along with many "notions" from other secular sources, but they intentionally left out any mention of Christianity.
That's hilarious. That's the best you can do to claim we're a "Christian nation"? To claim in another document, not our constitution, it says "natures God" and "creator" and you jump to "That proves it! Christian Nation! See, right there, ah ha...". I feel like I should look around for the hidden cameras because you can't be serious. It's beyond absurd.
Is this Saudi Arabia? If it were, or some other country steeped in Muslim culture, I would totally understand and never complain.
No, what a ridiculous thing to say. Not true.
yer funny...
75% of polled American adults identifying themselves as Christian in 2015.
that my friend is what a christian nation looks like.
but, true enough. our country is becoming less christian as time goes on.
then again, past trends are not always indicative of future trends.
and maybe people just stopped admitting they are christians out loud?
who knows... LOL people are weird like that ya know
cheers
Nope. That's what a nation of Christians looks like. A Christian Nation is one where the Christian religion is the established government religion and the laws are made for Christians by Christians catering to biblical beliefs and traditions. It would look something like a Christian version of Iran, which is sadly what some worthless pieces of trash religious zealots desire, but it's never going to happen here because our founders were smart enough to ban any establishment of religion. This wasn't by accident, they had come from England and Europe and knew very well the how the whore of Babylon worked and chose to keep that bullshit out of their laws, thank goodness.
if you walk in a bar and 75% of the people there are gay
guess what... you are in a gay bar. (not that there is anything wrong with that)
as 75% of our population is christian.
guess what... you are-in a christian nation. (not that there is anything wrong with that)
cheers
I think some confuse the term " christian nation" with the term " theocracy"
I blame bush and the every child left behind act for the confusion here...
cheers
Total nonsense. I guess that would be an easy mistake to make for someone who doesn't get out much or is an incel staying home 24/7 imagining what other people do at bars, fantasizing about gay sex, but there are many clubs and bars where gay Americans frequent that aren't "gay bars". They are just regular people who enjoy a night out just like anyone else. If the club or bar isn't catering to the gay community or advertise themselves as a gay bar, then they're just a bar regardless of whether a group of eight lgtbq friends walk in when there's only two other people in the bar (that's over 75% if you're not all that good at math). I guess if it was your bar you'd kick out the group of gay Americans so as to keep from being mistaken as a gay bar then, right?
America is for all, regardless of race, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, faith or lack thereof. It's not a Christian Nation no matter how much some sick fucks want it to be.
No, there may be Americans that identify as christian, but that is not a christian nation. It is a christian IN a nation. Majority or not. And how christian is christian? Because their parents were, did they just tick the box? This is why its so important to define what you mean by 'christian nation'. Now you are just trying to say more identify as christians with no context. Not the same thing. Doesn't make a 'christian nation' by my definition.
no not really, but this conversation as a whole is total nonsense.
there is a difference between a "christian nation and a "christian theocracy.
one is a nation populated by christians and the other is a nation where god is the leader and controls all laws thru some supposed divinely inspired human we might call clergy or priest.
if you still do not know which is which go here.
without that distinction between govt or population we are talking about two different things. how could we possibly ever agree?
personally, I think the hard left is simply offended that the word christian is being used at all. I reckon as the left can not even handle the word god on the dollar bill, having the word christian associated with their country must seriously hurt like hell/
and i'm done playing racquetball on this issue. so, gone for the night
cheers
I think it is fitting. To a lot of people, money is god.
Well played, and accurate.
Do you realize you are describing Trump? And why we are calling out the hypocrisy and acceptance of things in opposition to that statement? In fact, you describe the gop and conservatives, who always use money as a measure of most importance. Look at Trump's lies and character, all against christianity. Yet we hear from evangelicals and other gopers 'but we got our tax cuts, look at the money', 'preachers need more money for that private jet', success is measured in money. How could you miss that?
At least money is tangible and more practical.
Does "in God we trust" on money mean that God is guaranteeing that our money will always be good?
I thought it means in God we trust all others pay cash.
Maybe it should say "In raising the debt ceiling we trust."
Or we could abandon the idea of failed supply-side economics and go back to a rational tax system instead if giving millionaires, billionaires and corporations a pass on their taxes.
Dwight D. Eisenhower was a Republican so we could return to his tax numbers.
If one is secure in their faith, they don't need to go out and push it on to the world. Live and speak those ideals, show the kind of person you are. People will be attracted to that loving goodness. Which was supposedly the basis for religion in the first place. Forcing others to acknowledge or accept a personal belief is not right. I don't really care about the words on money, what I care about is the intent of those who feels so strongly they need to make everybody go along with their insecurities. It's more of 'look at me, I wear the flag pin' (or I support the unnecessary inclusion of putting god in government). Like bragging, if you need to show it off, you don't really have it.
They should have just argued that a belief in "god" is childish as fuck and we as a nation should be better than that.
Well Thrawn, you know some children have a hard time letting go of their imaginary friends.
Some adults never mature emotionally and fully examine what they have been told as children. That is what Socrates is referring in his quote The Unexamined Life Is Not Worth Living. We are not meant to go through life mindless of our surroundings and our beliefs. This idea of questioning what you have been told and how the truth looks when you have believed myths is also referenced in the Allegory of the Cave by Plato.
Socrates? You believe Socrates existed? Where is the empirical evidence for the existence of Socrates?
We know for a fact that he did. He was born in 470BC and died in 399 BCE. We have his writings that were preserved by followers and we know what he looked like.
Prove it. Preferably with your vaunted "empirical" evidence. I don't think you know what that word means.
Yeah? Where's the body?
We have no such thing. You clearly know very little about Socrates. There are no writings extant attributed to Socrates. Not one. What we have are writings attributed to his alleged students, like Plato. And the oldest fragments of manuscripts of Plato's writings that we have are from six or seven hundred years after he supposedly died. Full manuscripts are separated by 1300 years from his death. So, even the ordinary historical evidence for Jesus is superior to that of Socrates or any of his students.
Are you claiming that Socrates did not exist and is a mythical Greek figure? Plato as a contemporary and a student of Socrates. We have the writing of Diogenes Laërtius to support this.
There are no first-person accounts of Jesus. The Gospels come 2-3 generations later.
Ask yourself that question. Did I make that claim or are you playing the idiotic "so what you're saying is . . . " game? You're the one making claims you can't support.
I see goalposts moving again. You said we had the writings of Socrates. What happened to that? Where is your empirical evidence for any of these people?
That's not true either. Your miseducation on Jesus is shocking. Like I said: hit Google. Get educated.
What sources are you referring to that have 3rd party non-religious evidence that supports the existence of Jesus?
More like child-like mentality on some things. Believing imaginary things is rather childish.
Would you be less opposed to that idea if it was rephrased as 70% of Americans views on religion are not based in logic and cannot be supported with facts?
Yeah, pretty much. If anything, that's probably a rather conservative estimate. I wouldn't limit that to just Americans either.
That's a nice way of putting it. It's too bad I'm not as eloquent as you epistte.
You're giving us far too much credit because we cannot manage to get people elected in a party primary but apparently, you are convinced that we sit in the final judgment (that we do not believe in, which is a feat of its own) of 70% of the population. I only wish that we had the organizational ability.
Key word there is "believe," as in that's all it is and nothing more!
Until then, there's no reason to accept any empty claims.
What "proof" would that be? Presenting oneself as a god is also a baseless claim, as well as delusional.
Your paranoia is showing again. Sounds like quite the conspiracy theory too, and I've heard a few doozies in my time. Although, that does make me wonder: what makes you think your beliefs, and especially the claims based on nothing more than those beliefs, are free from challenge or scrutiny?
I'll give you two, which is more than you deserve.
Tacitus, a Roman historian, writing near 100AD: Confirms Jesus was executed by a Roman governor named Pontius Pilate, that Christianity originated in Judea, and Christianity was significant enough to be persecuted by Nero in the 60s AD.
Lucien, a mid 1st century Greek author: Confirms that Christians exist and worship a man who was crucified, understands that Christians consider themselves brothers because of the teachings of “their lawgiver,” they worship this leader as God, they believe in eternal life, and they held their property in common to meet the needs of the poor.
Those are both 3rd party, non religious sources that are perfectly valid historical evidence of Jesus and his earliest followers. Both are superior in their closeness in time to anything we have for Socrates, and they are sources that aren't trying sell anyone on Jesus as students of Socrates might have been. i.e. they are, at worst neutral sources, maybe even someone hostile. Yet no one goes around saying we have "no evidence" for Socrates.
You said there was NO EVIDENCE that Jesus ever existed. So, you don't get even to get to judge the quality of these sources (even though they're pretty damned good) like I know you want to. They are both evidence of the existence of Jesus. I could give you more if I thought you'd have even the slightest bit of respect for it. I'm not even posting these for you. I'm doing it for open minded people who might actually be interested.
And, in case anyone is wondering, I know of several more sources, which I will be happy to share.
Both are second-hand knowledge because neither of these men ever met Jesus.
So what? That's how history works - particularly ancient history. You said you wanted it to be someone non-religious but the people who met him tended to believe.
Are you suggesting that Tacitus was lying? Are you suggesting that his knowledge of Pontius Pilate and the execution of Jesus was somehow faked? That he somehow got that information by reading a Bible?
You said there was NO EVIDENCE that Jesus EVER existed. You keep trying to move the goal posts. You don't have the integrity to admit that what you said was 100% wrong. You are totally dishonest in these discussions. I knew the effort was wasted on you and you only confirmed it.
Apparently Gauis Marius, seven time counsel of Rome, who was the most powerful man in the world around 100 B.C., didn't really exist because their is no surviving contemporary documentation of his life. It's all second hand....
Jesus as the son of God never existed. The story likely began with an itinerant radical Jewish minister who got himself killed by both the Jewish religious authorities and the Roman political power because of his radical ideas. The story was fleshed out after that point to become the son of god with the addition of a virgin birth, miracles, and the resurrection.
Jesus as the son of God was a creation of the Romans.
We knew what he did, when he was born, when he died and what his actual name was, unlike Jesus. Jesus the son of God is a religious myth.
We don’t know when marius was born. Did you read your own link?
he was the most famous and the most powerful man in the world yet there are no first hand sources surviving. All the sources that survived are second hand, some from centuries later.
to claim that Because their is no “first hand” proof of a provincial preacher from that era that survived as proof of anything is idiotic. Almost nothing survives.
It always amazes me how zealots are quick to throw reason and common sense out the window in their crusade to claim that Jesus as a historical figure never existed.
[deleted]
You can't admit what you wrote. You make claims that are easily disproved (like your claim that we have the writings of Socrates). You make a lot of proud declarations about ancient history, but it's abundantly clear you have no idea what you're talking about. All you have is your militant atheist bias and when facts get in the way, you start dancing around.
The existence of a real human being who was crucified because of his public statements around ~30AD and was the basis for what eventually became Christianity is certainly plausible. I doubt that anyone would have problem with that since it is not uncommon to have charismatic people making claims and gaining a following.
Biblical scholars are a bit divided on the historicity of the biblical Jesus of Nazareth but many are indeed satisfied that such a person (or even persons) most likely did exist. See Dr. Bart Ehrman for a prime example of the Jesus most likely did exist camp and Dr. Richard Carrier who offers that the odds that there was a single figure is about 1 in 3.
There is hardly any information to go on to verify that the biblical Jesus of Nazereth actually existed, but if one is merely speculating on the likely existence of a charismatic human being whose life and violent death inspired Christianity, this is not too extraordinary. Similarly with Socrates. It is not so extraordinary for Plato to have had a teacher who he described, chronicled and named. In both cases (Jesus the human being and Socrates) the level of evidence required to satisfy the claim is rather low.
Now, move to the claim that Jesus is the Son of God, performed great miracles, died, rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven to resume His hypostasis role. Here we have one of the most extraordinary and influential claims in history. The level of evidence required to support such a claim is rather high. Much higher than that which is required to support the claim of a charismatic human being.
To wit, maybe you and epistte should clarify what you mean by 'Jesus'. Are you talking about a human being who wound up being the historical seed for Christianity? Or are you talking about God in human form and all that comes with it?
I don't have to clarify anything. I wasn't even talking about Jesus. She said there is no evidence that he ever existed. I had to call BS.
The 1st-century man who would become Jesus of the Bible was likely a religious martyr because he was a radical, but he wasn't claimed to be the son of god. With time the official story was embellished by Rome with a virgin birth, him performing miracles and resurrection after the cruxifiction as the followers of "Jesus" become a more populous offshoot of Judaism.
I could not find where she made the claim, but it makes a big difference if by 'Jesus' epistte meant:
1. A charismatic human being (or beings) who was put to death for his public statements and in so doing inspired Christianity.
-or-
2. God in human form and all that comes with it (the divine hypostasis who rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven).
If epistte is using 'Jesus' in reference to the divine hypostasis [2] and you are simply referencing an historical human being [1] then you are talking past each other.
Addendum: The claim using Jesus [1] requires relative little supporting evidence. The claim using Jesus [2], in contrast, requires very high quality evidence given how extraordinary the claim.
I said that Jesus as the son of god and the person described in the 4 gospels never existed. Jesus as a charasmatic human being likely did exist.
I agree that the claim of Jesus (the Son hypostasis described in the Bible) has no supporting evidence. It is, currently, merely a claim made by the Bible.
By "Rome?!"
You know Rome was persecuting Christianity almost from its inception, right? Is this what people believe now? Its truly amazing what the fringe believes..Rome created Christianity to spend its energy persecuting it?
There are history books on the 1st Century available.
By the 3rd century, Rome found a way to make the Christians both useful and governable when Constantine made Christianity a permissible religion of the Roman empire.
Yes, hundreds of years later the Empire made its peace with Christianity. But the core christian beliefs were already in place by then.
They were not in agreement with Jesus as the son of god.
You seem to be forgetting the other Gospels, and pretty much all the New Testament were written Before the reign of Constantine. Singling out mark while ignoring everything else written around that time makes no sense.
I am saying that they are not in agreement and since Mark was the earliest it should be taken as a hint.
I understand that you want to believe in Jesus as the son of god but there are very real reasons why others do not.
@15.2
No qualifiers. No nuanced definitions. None of the other BS she has tried to couch it in since she made this absurd claim.
What garbage. If they all included the same exact details, you'd claim they were just copying each other. There is no justification for saying that three of the gospels are unreliable because one doesn't mention something they mention. Your confirmation bias on this topic is stunning.
I advise you to stop making blanket claims about antiquity. You're like 0 for a kajillion.
Pliny the Younger was tasked by Trajan with investigating Christians for the purpose of persecuting them. Writing around 112AD, he confirms that Christians met weekly, sang about God, viewed Jesus as God, had a code of morality based on his teachings, contributed what wealth they had to meet each others' financial needs, and they were evangelistic. In short, Christians had a pretty good idea what they were all about very early on.
Now, all one has to do is read Paul to see that there was disagreement about many things among Christians, but so what? That doesn't mean anything except that there was some very deep stuff happening that regular people had a hard time wrapping their heads around. Even the Gospels reveal that Jesus was frequently having to correct his disciples because they misunderstood him all the time. That says way more about people than it does about Jesus.
But I could throw out an ancient recipe for biscuits and you would call it proof that Jesus never existed. You are that invested in your atheism, which you always claim is not a "belief."
Given, as you note, no qualifiers how do we know that she was referring to Jesus the person rather than the Son of God?
One hint is that she is talking about adult belief in Jesus. Belief in Jesus (unless you are a Muslim) is that he was the Son of God. Why assume she was not talking about the divine belief (Jesus as the son of God)? Makes more sense to assume she was talking about Jesus as the son of God.
On top of that, look at what she was responding to:
Thrawn's quote clearly disambiguates since it establishes the context of: belief in "god". It makes no sense for epistte to reply to Thrawn's comment by speaking of the mere human being Jesus rather than the divine (son of God) Jesus.
Looks like epistte is stating that there is no evidence for the divine Jesus. How do you read this otherwise?
She has had multiple opportunities to say "that's not what I meant." Instead, she has continued to argue, demanding ever-changing standards of evidence because she thinks she can dismiss them. Don't bother trying to spin her comments for her. You are wayyyyyy too late.
By pretending that I am spinning you are actually the one doing the spinning Tacos!.
You gave me the link to her claim. I read it and the context quote.
Show me specifically where I am spinning. Identify the flaw in my logic.
In other words, I ask again, how does one take the words you pointed me to as epistte speaking of Jesus as a person rather than Jesus as God?
Do not just attack me, explain the flaw in my logic.
I think that's the point you seem to be avoiding. Nothing in the gospels or anywhere else has ever even claimed to be Jesus' own writing. Everything has been some ancient persons version of events translated and deciphered by other people hundreds of years later to be cobbled together by people who not only never knew the carpenter some claimed to be divine, but were literally murdering Christians up until a decade or so before Constantine supposedly had his visions and claimed the God of the Hebrews helped him defeat Maxentius and claimed he fought in the name of the Christian God at the battle of Milvian bridge.
So yes, the cobbled together bible says far more about the people who cobbled it together than it does about any supposed holy man labeled "Jesus" decades after the fact. Not a single word written in the gospels was contemporary. And today, we have millions of people basing their religious beliefs on a bunch of self centered power hungry religious zealots interpretations of letters written decades after the supposed "prophet" lived and taught that were selected by ex-pagan priests newly turned Christian when the Emperor of Rome took a liking to the Hebrew God and attributed some of his military victories to him.
What are you claiming that I said? I am bordering on abandoning this discussing with you because you are very emotional on the subject of religion and that doesn't bode well for having a rational discussion.
This has already been done. I can't help that you refuse to acknowledge it.
That's not important. The same is true of Socrates and Alexander the Great, but no one goes around claiming they never existed.
If you go through these threads, you will see that I have cited multiple sources with varying and even conflicting agendas that date to the first century. Again, we don't have anything that close to the source for Socrates or Alexander and yet no one questions their existence or the things they said and did.
Look in the mirror. You are talking about yourself. I have supplied actual historical evidence supporting my position. You make claims that Jesus never existed and you continue to make those claims in spite of strong evidence to the contrary. You are the one who gets emotional about this stuff and you are the one who ALWAYS accuses others of that very thing when you realize you can't back up your wild claims [deleted]
Claiming a true rebuttal is not the same as actually delivering one. Stumped, eh?
Further, epistte has recently made it clear that she was talking about Jesus as God (the normal, most common meaning), not simply a human being. So your argument does not even apply.
That's not what we are discussing. You claimed that Rome invented the belief in Jesus as a deity. That's simply false as the basis of the Christian religion (including the 3 other Gospels you ignore) were written about 200 years before Constantine's conversion.
tand that you want to believe in Jesus as the son of god but there are very real reasons why others do not.
I'm an atheist. I just believe in honesty.
Your self-proclaimed authority to decide on the validity of someone's argument holds zero water with me. [deleted]
Always the same pattern when someone cannot formulate a calm, logical rebuttal. Deflection, unsupported declarations, going personal, etc.
I suspect most readers see through those tactics.
Show where my logic is wrong rather than employ sideshow tactics.
I won't be trolled (or sea-lioned or whatever we're calling it these days). Try it on someone else.
All sideshow, no debate.
[deleted]
According to Bible historian Bart Ehrman, the early church did not consider Jesus to be divine man-god but was only a prophet. The divinity was a later addition.
Do you have a Ph.D. in divinity? How many books have you written on the subject?
Because ... ?
This would be a good seed.
You keep moving the goalposts and creating new arguments.
You falsely claimed the Romans created the tenants of the Christian religion. The link you provided proves you wrong.
No matter how many times you obfuscate, the core beliefs of Christianity, including the divinity of Christ, were in place before Rome accepted Christianity. The timeline isn't confusing. Just admit you are wrong.
How so? What do you have to offer that proves him wrong?
Too bad there isn't any evidence to support such assertions.
Many modern day individuals claim to have been abducted by aliens. There are millions who insist the world is flat. Some claim Elvis sightings. And, closer to home, there are millions who insist that the Earth is 6,000 years old.
Claims of truth by individuals with a cause is unreliable. 2,000 year old claims with no evidence but the ancient writings in the Bible is mythology.
But for some reason, some people completely accept claims for or on behalf of a god with no supporting evidence and with no questions asked. But with anything else, claims made are more suspect. Go figure.
It is circular logic to continue their currently held confirmation bias beliefs. If they question the deistic legitimacy of the Bible then they also must question their religious views, which they do not want to do because their entire world view would them be open for critical thought. They would rather continually patch a sinking house built on a foundation of quicksand that to build a strong foundation on stone.
A 6-year-old knows that Santa isn't real so why do adults continue to believe in Jesus when there is no evidence of him actually existing.
Jesus is the adult version of Santa.
And the Easter bunny.
That demonstrates either an astounding level of denial or ignorance.
Let's examine this claim of your further if you don't mind. Where is the empirical evidence that any sentient religious deity exists or has ever existed?
1.)The Bible is the obvious work of man so you can not claim that it is proof of god.
2.)The fact that the universe exists is not proof of god and that argument is known as the watchmaker's fallacy. Just because a watch needs a creator to exist doesn't mean that the universe needs a sentient creator to exist.
3.) Your religious belief or that of 2 billion other people also does not constitute evidence of a god. That argument is a popularity fallacy.
You can't even stay on your own topic. You claimed there was no evidence that Jesus ever existed. I basically said that's wrong and you come back with a whole bit of shit that I never said:
I never said one word about proof of God. I responded to your comment about Jesus.
Even then you want build a new goalpost. You said,
and then when you started rambling about God and Creators, you said
Empirical evidence is a narrow subset of "evidence." You made no such distinction previously. I'm not going to debate something with you where you change the subject every time. It's unproductive and shows what you're really about.
Google "evidence for Jesus" and spend some time getting educated. The shit you said about "no evidence" is 100% wrong.
Where is the empirical evidence for the existence of Jesus, either as a man or as a man-god?
Logically it is not my responsibility to find your evidence. Please post it or admit that you are wrong. The Jesus claim of Tiberius is 2nd-hand at best and is not proof.
You didn't say anything about empirical evidence. You said there was "no evidence" that Jesus existed. Asking for empirical evidence about someone who has been dead for 2000 years is stupid. There's no empirical evidence for Julius Caesar. Evidence? Of course. Empirical? No way. There's no empirical evidence for the existence anyone from that time unless you've got a body and some DNA you want to trot out.
Where is the evidence for the existence of Jesus that is verifiable via a 3rd party non-religious source and not needing religious belief or faith?
The Bible or anything stemming from it is not evidence of Jesus when it needs faith or religious belief.
Okay, let's have a debate on the claim of a flat Earth, the claim of an Earth < 10,000 years, the claim of alien abductions or the claim of Allah granting 70 virgins to martyrs in Heaven.
Lets go with flat Earth for now:
Do you not realize TiG, that when someone makes an irrational and unsubstantiated claim, they don't have to back that claim up with any evidence, as long as they say they "believe" it? It's as if they think mere belief makes them exempt from any scrutiny or challenge.
I agree. When someone makes an extraordinary claim in general, is it unreasonable to ask the person to back up the claim with evidence?
What I find curious is if someone has nothing, really, to offer better than an exasperated: 'I just believe' does that ever (maybe later on) give them pause? Would they not ask themselves if it really makes sense to believe something just because other human beings claim that it is very, very good to believe it?
Extraordinary claims should be challenged, if for no other reason than to expose how weak and unsubstantiated they are, or expose the person making the claim as intellectually lazy and/or ignorant and therefore lacking any credibility.
Somehow, I doubt it.
There could be a "peer pressure" facet to it. I'd say it has to do with emotional comfort, even if it is irrational.
Did you have trouble reading my post? There was no 'prove it' stated or implied.
In fact, I just asked you a generalized version of the question you had just answered.
Why dodge such an easy question given you answered the first one?
I agree. It is quite reasonable to challenge an extraordinary claim.
Absolutely. As the old saying goes (I might be paraphrasing here), "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Somehow, some people think that doesn't apply to them.
Those have nothing to do with the question I asked you.
Why dodge such an easy question?
So in other words, dodging. Got it!
Someone did.
Your words, not mine.
I was done responding until you made your comment.
That's hilarious coming from you!
Who's angry?
Those words together do not make sense.
Another sweeping generalization I see.
You're the one not making sense. And given your penchant for sweeping generalizations, it's quite obvious too.
It's obvious you don't even know what a sweeping generalization is. I suppose that's why you keep making them all the time.
That seems to be the best rebuttal you have to offer.
As I said, you don't even know what a sweeping generalization is.
[Deleted]
No, just plain ignorant.
Argumentum ad populum fallacy.
Nope. Here is the definition of a sweeping generalization: A sweeping generalization occurs when a writer or speaker takes a general rule and applies it too broadly. If one takes a general rule, and applies it to a case to which, due to the specific features of the case, the rule does not apply, then one commits the sweeping generalization fallacy.
I've made no mention of my beliefs.
You said it, I didn't.
The Origin of the Separation of Church and State
Americans can be justifiably proud of their founding fathers’ insistence on a separation of Church and State. And, yet, surprisingly, very few Americans seem to understand what their founding fathers meant by this concept.
Conservative politicians take pride is saying that the US is, primarily, a Christian nation and that their Christian forefathers fought King George in order to have the freedom to practice Christianity as they saw fit.
Liberal politicians tend to take an opposing view – that separation of Church and State means that the concept of God has no place in government. In fact, some go so far as to say that landmarks such as a plaque stating that George Washington attended a specific church, should be removed, as it compromises the separation of Church and State.
Unfortunately, both these groups have got it wrong.
So, let’s take a step back and have a look at what caused Thomas Jefferson to repeatedly insist that the separation be implemented in the US Constitution.
Mister Jefferson attended the College of William and Mary, where he received the customary university education, but went on to study law privately under George Wythe in Williamsburg, Virginia. Mister Wythe was not only his teacher, but his mentor, a man in his latter years who not only imparted knowledge to the young Jefferson, but wisdom. He frequented the Raleigh Tavern with his pupil, but additionally brought him to banquets at the mansion of Governor Fauquier, in an effort to expand his outlook.
I believe that it’s safe to say that, when Mister Jefferson completed his education at age thirty-four, he had both the energy and imagination of youth and the wisdom of the elders at his command. The former gave him his drive and the latter provided him with the farsightedness that guided the writing of the American Constitution and the future direction of the new nation.
George Wythe lived conveniently next door to the Governor. (His home is still there today, as is his small study where he taught the future president.) On the other side of his home was Bruton Parish Church. In the 18th Century, one could not be elected to office unless he was a member of the Church of England. As Attorney General, Mister Wythe tolerated this, but taught his pupil that, as a free man, he should not be required to be an Anglican.
To add insult to injury, Mister Jefferson was not a Christian, but a Deist, as were several others of the founding fathers. He did believe in his own form of a God and even referred to him in the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence, but did not ascribe to him the power of miracles and omnipotence, as described in the Bible.
In addition, he regarded Jesus as an admirable human being, but did not regard him as anything more. (In later years, he would create his own Bible, by removing much of what he considered to be latter-day additions to the King James Bible, leaving little more than the words of Jesus.)
In spite of his beliefs, Mister Jefferson was required to be a (paid-up) member of the Anglican Church in order to sit in the House of Burgesses and he chafed at this requirement.
However, he was a deep believer in the concept of God as a being with both consciousness and conscience, who, he believed took no direct part in the affairs of man, but did create all men as equals and therefore entitled them to “certain unalienable Rights”.
But he saw the Church differently. He regarded it as a political organization, controlled by the King, intended to dictate morals and acceptable behaviour.
Mister Jefferson was entirely comfortable with the concept of a moral God as a principle upon which to base a government. However, he distrusted the inclusion of the Church.
Comedian George Carlin once said, “I’m completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death.” Had Mister Jefferson been in the audience, I believe he would have nodded his approval.
Today, politicians tend to treat God and Church as being one and the same. In the perception of America’s founding fathers, they were entirely different entities. One was a creator, the other was a controller and, at times, a usurper.
Not coincidentally, it was the latter description that they ascribed to governments. The Constitution was written not only to outline what their new government should be, but in what ways it should be limited to keep it from being a controller and a usurper.
In past history, much good has been done in the name of the Church, but, indeed, whenever it has become a political power centre, it has abused this position. This is evidenced by the Crusades, the Medici’s, the Spanish Inquisition and more.
Today, we see this same problem manifesting itself, particularly with the destruction of Europe by religious zealots.
Individual spirituality lies at the very core of what makes a person moral. However, a strong personal moral fibre, and an adherence to a religious organization which dictates blind obeisance to itself are, in fact, polar opposites.
The former offers a moral compass to the individual; the latter, especially when connected to a government, trounces mankind’s natural morality and increases the potential for oppression by that government.
As in so many other things, America’s founding fathers had the right idea with the separation of Church and State. The phrase still exists today, but its original intent has been largely lost.
Should its true meaning be revived, we can be fairly certain that it won’t be done by the political class.
By Jeff Thomas
Contributing to kitco.com
As I say Have you ever seen a serpent talk? The Bible tells you not to believe in Magic. So why do so many churches teach magical teachings? Why did someone buy the plate to the King James Bible from England around 1812, When stereotype printing was begun in the USA? Even though we had an American English version of it already, they just did not have plates for stereotype Printing made yet. In fact, they did not start printing paper money until there was stereotype printing. Before Stereotype printing was invented it was a 3 person operation to run a printing press.
As for that Serpent that talks, They don't it means something else. You may say that Adam was using the wrong head and tricked Eve With a Diamond. (Even Coal & Oil belong to a Family Tree)
What a lot of fuss for nothing. Well, anything to argue over.
In my willful ignorance, I convinced myself that the words "in god we trust" was meant as a gentle reminder and warning that the value of money can fluctuate, can be lost or stolen and in any event was considered for most people just a means of transaction.
But with GOD, GD it, God was steady and eternal. Sort of a anti-greed message.
See? that was nice.
My other theory, is that each bill has a scripture on it, a $5 has 5 scripts and so on, and some people think you should gather and hoard these scripts as brownie points to get into Heaven, as just sort of a subconscious side-hedge (money is holy by those words) and another extra excuse for being greedy.
Take your pick, it's a silly response to a silly argument. Replace "in god..." with "shit don't smell" and as long as it spends the same, I'm fine.
IGWT was meant to ideologically separate us from communism and the then Soviet Union.
Nope. Only to those who appreciate the separation of church and state.
You just can't help yourself with the sweeping generalizations, can you?
Amazing. I thought buying the YEC evolution-is-pseudo-science nonsense was ridiculous enough. But you also think progressives in the USA wish the USSR was around and dominant? Almost like taking every obvious position and inexplicably believing the opposite to be true.
Wow, TWO whole politicians, eh? Point out where they specifically said they thought the wrong country won the Cold War! Such a statement would definitely have been recorded somewhere.