All I know is that the bill was sponsored by Rep. Riddle (R-Tomball).

OMG!!!

oldsoldier wrote: As a general rule, never really ever saw an atheist in the foxhole under mortar or rocket attack, some really loud mumblings, possibly prayer to some diety

Allow me to blow your mind:  I know many atheists that pray.  Some even pray regularly.

oldsoldier wrote: But to what, if they do not believe in any diety?

Perhaps to nothing in particular?  Perhaps to an irrational superstition they allow themselves?  Perhaps to their inner self?  Perhaps to a mental ideal?  Perhaps to an intentional manifestation of their hopes and dreams? 

Hard to answer as a general statement.  Human spirituality and belief is not as simple as Believe/Not-Believe.

EDIT - USAF:  you might call it wishing, but that would not (always) be correct.  Prayers serve many functions, and not all of those functions require an actual god.

oldsoldier wrote: But I did hear a lot of Jesus...God...and other references coming from a few positions occupied by self proclaimed "atheists" in my time.

Sure.  "Dear Irrational Manifestation" doesn't have the same ring as "Dear God".  Still does not require actual faith in an actual deity. 

An would not an irrational superstition constitute a form of religion by definition?

Only if you consider avoiding black cats a "religion".  And even then, many people avoid black cats even though they know that black cats are harmless - they just don't feel the need to combat the admittedly irrational impulse to avoid the cats.

Just because I know that my behavior is irrational doesn't make it any less satisfying.

I like avoiding the cracks in the sidewalk.  It's not OCD, it's not a religion, and I know that it has no metaphysical effect.  It is just soothing to me.  Doesn't make me a member of the Church of Crack.

Tolgak wrote: There are spiritual atheists out there too. They could have been praying to themselves for the motivation to do better.

Exactly.

oldsoldier wrote: Can we call it "Momentary lapses into belief" as required by situation, a resumption of some ingrained belief learned through parental or other early social teachings...

Certainly also possible.  Much like theists have occasional doubts, so do many atheists.

Like I said, it is difficult to make a general statement about why prayer appears to be so popular in foxholes.

I really don't understand the constant bickering between the right and left over the whole "under God" thing.

As a Christian the term "under God" is so vague that it couldn't possible uplift my beliefs in any way, so why do I care if they take it out?

On the flip side, if four words indoctrinate poor Billy into becoming a religious fanatic, then Billy should have been attending the special ed school to begin with.

oldsoldier wrote: I still enjoy those who care to believe in no belief, finding those who differ from thier belief as offensive to thier belief, which must be held above anothers, another classic 2 way street. Truth is for those who care to believe in thier truth, and see others as believing in their untruth as "stupid". There is no God is just as hard to prove as there is a God, depending on belief.

Actually it's much harder to prove the lack of something than it is to prove its existence. In fact, it's pretty much impossible to prove completely the lack of something on such a grand scale.

Tolgak wrote: stratoaxe wrote: I really don't understand the constant bickering between the right and left over the whole "under God" thing. As a Christian the term "under God" is so vague that it couldn't possible uplift my beliefs in any way, so why do I care if they take it out? It's not about uplifting beliefs. The reality is that few people, if any, truly care about those words in the pledge. The ones that want it in are just trying to make society the way they want it to be, one step at a time. On the flip side, if four words indoctrinate poor Billy into becoming a religious fanatic, then Billy should have been attending the special ed school to begin with. It's the same process that makes kids think they are Christians after a few years of going to church. You don't really understand what they're telling you to repeat, you just do it. After a while it grows on to you. As you develop the ability to reason, the "truths" that you've been indoctrinated to repeat become your arguments. Adding "under god" isn't going to work in as extreme a way as you think I'm trying to say. It's just one step towards the Christian idea of a Utopia. Every time a kid says that pledge, he becomes a little more susceptible to accepting the entirety of it as truth. And one by one, over time, there will be more kids ending up religious as adults. It's only a slight effect that impacts few, but it's part of the reason why almost everybody in this country would be uneasy about denying deities.

I wasn't really aiming that at anyone in particular, I was more referring to the constant debate that goes on about such a small issue.

I do think that you're mistaken about the whole "Christian utopia" however. I don't really know where you stand on religion, as it's almost impossible to fully soak in everything in these lengthy discussions, but I think the ruling misconception here on the forum is that most Christians are out to rule the world, which is simply not true.

Christianity (and I mean true Christianity, coming from the Bible) in reality should seek to seperate itself from society and government affairs. The Bible clearly seperates church from government.

However, the more modern self-defined Church (and I'll name drop here, I'm really speaking of the modern weekend warrior Baptist movement, and those like it) seeks to push its own into political power.

My question-what's wrong with that? People are free to elect and support what they agree with. Unfortunately I see alot of atheists who have a heightened sense of superiority, and feel that they are unquestionably correct, and only their opinions and voices should be heard. So by that reasoning, because Christians support religious legislation, they should not have their voices heard.

The idea really doesn't bother me, and to be honest I couldn't care less whether kids pray in school, whether In God We Trust is on my dollar, whether people pray at football games, or whether (gasp!) the president lays to claim to any religion whatsoever.

The idea that I'm somehow inferior to someone else because they choose not to hold a relgious belief offends me pretty deeply, however. To those people, get over yourself. Not believing in God doesn't raise your IQ or extend your penis. We get the point-you think we're idiots. Get this-most of us couldn't care less.

Just to clarify-I'm not speaking to Tolgak, or anyone else for that matter, with that rant, I just felt like venting.  /rant

Tolgak wrote: The problem with that misconception is that everybody on this forum knows at least a few people that agree with Christian control of this government, if not the world. It may be one out of dozens of Christians that each forumer knows, but that's one more person, and a family behind him, supporting the idea. Just like many stereotypes, it's so widespread among people that it's almost becoming true.

I think the general question here is what does Christian "control" refer to. I know lots of Christians who vote strictly based on religious belief. That doesn't mean that they want to control your life, they simply vote for those who align themselves with their beliefs.

Tolgak wrote: The problem with that is that the "greatest nation in the world" will deteriorate into another theocracy (just like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and some other countries that the US hates for being religious) if there aren't people like us that are against those ideas. This country started off as a haven for those persecuted for their religion in Europe. The founding fathers intended this place to be a haven for anybody escaping tyranny. That's why they stressed liberty and individual freedoms so much. The religious in power (without realizing it) are working on taking this country back to the dark ages, where not following the state religion is a crime. You want evidence for that? One of the biggest issues we have concerns the rights of gay people. There isn't a single non-religious reason that you can justify taking away their right to love each other like straight couples can. I've already explained how it wont raise STD rates. It's not anything unnatural, and who's right is it to say who people can prefer and what they can do that doesn't involve logically illegal activites? If you're religious, than you can try all you want to stop yourself from being gay. But to enforce this on other people is to enforce religion on the masses. And forget the founding fathers, being free from religious injustice should be a right to everyone on earth, not just people here.

See, this is where the religious arguments really begin to frustrate me. Who the hell is trying to take away the rights of homosexuals to "love each other"? Now if you want to argue gay marriage, which is an argument of the definition of marriage, then by all means.

I'll bet if you asked every single Christian in Texas if they wanted homosexuality eradicated by way of law, you'd probably find that the vast majority would find that completely beyond comprehension. However, it is against Christian beliefs to be homosexual. If someone feels something is morally wrong, that doesn't automatically mean that person wants their moral beliefs enforced by law.

Tolgak wrote: The entire world looks at non-theists as inferior. You've got a minority against you and a majority behind you. Any atheist that says he is smarter for not believing is a moron. What I can say is, that purely in terms of belief in deities, we are more rational. Not in terms of any other view. There are atheists that want to eliminate all religion and kill all the religious. As irrational as those thoughts are, it is still more rational to not believe in gods. By it's definition, faith is irrational. It should be easy for the even most devout to see that faith by its definition is irrational, so I don't think it should offend you to say that.

I'm not going to argue the rationality of faith, since it's insignificant to this discussion, but as I've said before it's easier to view faith as a set of moral beliefs with the inclusion of a deity than a set that is backed by a deity. It makes these discussions alot more civil.

And I'm not offended by anyone's beliefs-in fact, to take it a step further, in reality I'm not offended by too much of anything. To clarify what I meant, I see the same holier-than-thou snobbery among the "elite" atheists that they've been accusing the Christian right of for years. I don't see this in your responses, but I see it quite a bit on this forum.

If you choose to not believe in anything, then more power to you. I have friends who are atheists, it doesn't impact my opinion of them whatsoever. Unfortunately there are alot of atheists (just like any minority group) who want to cram their superiority down your throat every chance they get. I think it was a Dane Cook stand up I was watching on YouTube today where he mentioned a man on the subway sneezed, and so naturally he responded "God bless you." The man sneered and said, "Actually, I'm an atheist." It's pointless bickering like that I'm referring to. Yeah, they're atheists, we get it. That's awesome.

What this forum needs more of-atheist pilots.

Hades wrote: Plus if God loves the United States so much, why does he allow events like 9-11, Oklahoma Bombing, WTC '93, pearl harbor, and the Kennedy assassination happen? Is it because the Federal Government isn't paying its tithing? Yeah, if this Government is "so Christian" why doesn't it pay tithing?

the government is pretty sly in its ways. all it takes is for someone like bush to give a reason, christian or not to pass or veto a bill. is it a christian belief to not use stem cells?(this is merely an example im not 100% sure what their deal is). lets say it is, and bush being a born again christian agrees with this. its indirectly a christian reason, its his reason, and he has his right to choose heads or tails to a coin, now whether or not it just so happens to be a christian belief becomes immaterial.

is it right? no. do i actually agree with whale on this? yes. religious beliefs have no place in government, and as a society we should be looking at how to advance, and stem cells is doing just that (again, example).

edit-and ill assume the tidbit about god loving america is sarcasm?

oldsoldier wrote: I still enjoy those who care to believe in no belief, finding those who differ from thier belief as offensive to thier belief, which must be held above anothers, another classic 2 way street. Truth is for those who care to believe in thier truth, and see others as believing in their untruth as "stupid". There is no God is just as hard to prove as there is a God, depending on belief.

Strawman, thy name is ... actually, I can't figure out who you are talking about.

Yes, if somebody took an irrational position, that would be irrational.  But that much is obvious.  Atheists aren't out to "prove" that there is no god, any more than atheists are out to prove that there is no Santa Claus.  That whole bit is completely irrelevant.  What you are describing has nothing to do with atheism.

oldsoldier wrote: In the founding of the Nation, Faith as a tradition was the primary source of guidance on the then "human rights" issues. The use of God in several early writtings was fundimental in the establishment of the Nation, since at the time Religion was almost on par with education. Only recently did God and Religion become an issue, with the few over the many in this nation, where the many must change thier patterns of faith to accomidate the wishes of the few. The US was founded on Judeo-Christian beleifs modified and codified to establish the individuals rights. The State shall not establish a religion, or restrict the practice of any religion, was the guidance. Now many want the restriction of free religious practice in public, yet freedom to express thier views unrestricted. Show me the verbage "Seperation of Church and State" in any of the founding documents of this Nation.

And yet more self-serving revisionist history.  Several of the most central founders were quite clear in their non-Christianity, and several wrote quite clearly, both before and after the Constitution, that church and state should be separate.

Separation of church and state was a central theme of the Enlightenment, and the Enlightenment was the intellectual movement underlying this nation.

This bit has been hashed over again and again, and frankly it is intellectually dishonest to keep bringing it up.  Yes, many of the founders were christians.  Yes, many of the non-christians were religious.  But yes, the historical evidence is quite clear that separation of church and state was an important feature of the new country.  Pretending otherwise leads directly to reduced credibility.

Now, did the founders intend or contemplate the complete separation we strive for today?  That is less clear, but the very idea of a secular state was fairly fresh at the time - we now have the benefit of 200 years of thought on the matter, and we find ourselves painted into a logical corner.

oldsoldier wrote: That is the issue of today. The new religion now of individual self importance, I do not know your religion or faith, you sneeze, I use a traditional saying in friendship, and in your own self important world you respond with hostility towards a freindly gesture. No you were not an Atheist you at that point in time were an <TF censored word> plain and simple. The simple act of "God Bless You" to a sneeze, a long tradition, in today's PC world has become equivilent to "hate speech" to those too ingrossed in thier own little world to appreciate others. Too many want to become thier own little protected class above those around them, and anything they personally do not agree with is now offensive.

Again - Who the heck are you talking about?  These strawmen you are attacking don't exist.  Maybe there are three people in San Francisco that get offended by "God bless", but they are looniebins.  I can't tell you how many atheists I know that use that phrase themselves.

You do youself no favors by inventing these ridiculous villains to attack.

oldsoldier wrote: And as for Atheist pilots, its dark, starting to rain and your artificial horizon starts acting up, your compass and nav gear goes down, radio quits, and your fuel gauge is low, and you can not get a visual on the airport due to weather....I bet you still are an Atheist...

And this is truly the crux of it.  By this statement you declare loudly your complete inability to accept that others may actually have sincere beliefs different from yours.  Do you honestly believe that no atheist - EVER - has faced death, and remained atheist?  That statement is so bizarrely foolish as to defy comprehension.

I have to tell you - I know atheists that are pilots.  I know atheists that flew hot zone extractions.  I know atheists that were the hot zone extractees.  And yet they remain atheist.

oldsoldier wrote: Your blood pressure is rising Smitty.............I do beleive the 1802 Letter from Jefferson to a Church in Mass was the only reference to Seperation of Church and State, and the statement is never found in the official founding documents from the Articles of Confederation through the Constitution.

Did I say it was in the "official founding documents"?  I said that several of the founders had made their views clear. 

And you shouldn't focus so much on the phrase "wall of separation".

In the Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, President John Adams stated that "As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."  Part of the "founding documents"?  No.  Indicative of the intent of the founders?  Absolutely.

Thomas Jefferson also authored the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom in 1779, which is basically nothing but a rant supporting secular government.  It states in part that "... to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical...", and generally makes it clear that no tax dollars should be spent on religious matters.

Jefferson was so proud of this document that it was listed on his epitaph along with the Declaration of Independence.

Re Boy Scouts:  They are a private organization - they can require religious beliefs all they want.  Just like the RC church won't let you take communion if you aren't catholic.

Their church, their bidness.

oldsoldier wrote: Imagine the uproar and total disbelief if a President today led the Nation in a Prayer on National Radio or Television, How Dare a President Pray and ask us to also on a National Media, we must IMPEACH HIM IMMEDIATELY for trying to force his beliefs on others

Except for your standard hyperbole about impeachment and other silliness, you are right - times have changed.

oldsoldier wrote: H E double hockey sticks, I remmmember the Morning School Prayer right after the Pledge of Alligence, and no guns, school shootings, or poor equality grading. I remmeber reading, writting, actual science and math as a core, not PC Bravo Sierra classes and revisionist therories. We actually went to church as a Family Event, and saw it as a community, today what is the traditional family gathering, if there is any time or desire for Family/Community interaction? Times have changed, I could do math in my head, how many of todays High School Grads making change at Mickey "D's" are "challenged" without assistance from the registar, give them out amounts like lets say "oopps" $4.75 for a $4.22 order and stand back and watch the fun.

Translation:  Things are different, therefore things are worse.

Opposing change for no reason other than to oppose change is not a laudable position, OS.

i'm agnostic... i'm an eagle scout. 

I often times skipped out the camp religious services along with most of the rest of my group of friends. 

Of course, our troop wasn't run out of a church like a few others in my area, so it was a bit more lax than some.... like the troop that requires scouts to do eagle scout type projects for star and life ranks. 

High Voltage wrote: Wait, did OS just attribute school shootings to the lack of prayer in school?

I thought I was the only one that read it that way. Unfortunately, OS tends to think that things in his time were much better than they are now. He also believes that because a few founding fathers were Christian then God must be in our schools and money. A few of our founding fathers also owned slaves, should we bring that back too?

djrox wrote: The aclu is the biggest bunch of bs out there.

Mindless word vomit.

Dune wrote: djrox wrote: The aclu is the biggest bunch of bs out there. Mindless word vomit.

No, when you defend sex offenders right to be sex offenders, then yes that is bs.

djrox wrote: Dune wrote: djrox wrote: The aclu is the biggest bunch of bs out there. Mindless word vomit. No, when you defend sex offenders right to be sex offenders, then yes that is bs.

You need to do some research instead of listening in for buzz words. There are factions of people, that believe they fight for the ACLU when they don't. There are cases that when the ACLU fight, such as certain sex offenders (those who have flashed people and not always in a sexual way) should not have to register. You can't bash an organization that would come to your aid if you felt you were being attacked for your rights.

Dune wrote: djrox wrote: Dune wrote: djrox wrote: The aclu is the biggest bunch of bs out there. Mindless word vomit. No, when you defend sex offenders right to be sex offenders, then yes that is bs. You need to do some research instead of listening in for buzz words. There are factions of people, that believe they fight for the ACLU when they don't. There are cases that when the ACLU fight, such as certain sex offenders (those who have flashed people and not always in a sexual way) should not have to register. You can't bash an organization that would come to your aid if you felt you were being attacked for your rights.

The aclu is bad, they sued Hazelton, PA for banning illegal immigration.