keeping god out of official pledges

Originally posted by Krazysh0t

Originally posted by kozmo
First of all, It's "Kool-Aid", not "Cool-aid". DUH!

Secondly, what makes you the authority on whether or not God exists???

Finally, if you'd like to have a constructive conversation regarding the founding principles of America, so be it. But might I suggest you drop the insults, sarcasm and attacks. You'd be smart to recognize that you are a very teeny-tiny minority who does not believe in a higher power - less than 2% of the population - and shrinking quickly I should add. Given that we are likely, in our lifetimes, to enter into a civil war driven by ideology, you'd be smart to acknowledge that you are playing for the losing team and perhaps behave accordingly!

Um no...

Poll shows atheism on the rise in the U.S.

Religiosity is on the decline in the U.S. and atheism is on the rise, according to a new worldwide poll.

The poll, called “The Global Index of Religiosity and Atheism,” found that the number of Americans who say they are “religious” dropped from 73 percent in 2005 (the last time the poll was conducted) to 60 percent.

At the same time, the number of Americans who say they are atheists rose, from 1 percent to 5 percent.

Wanted to get that unsited claim debunked first, now onto the OP.

The "less than 2%" number likely comes from the Pew Forum Religious Landscape Study, an ongoing survey which I have spent time researching the methodology of, and find statistically accurate. According to the most recent study findings, 1.6% of Americans self identify as atheists, 2.4% self identify as agnostics, and 12.1% declare themselves to be "nothing in particular."

I do not believe that the number of atheists is "shrinking quickly", but I think that a common mistake is to conclude that the increasing clamour from atheists, from blogs to books to billboards and everywhere in between, means that their numbers are increasing rapidly, as well, which is not the case.

Just because atheists are becoming evangelical doesn't mean that they are actually converting all that many people.

Originally posted by kozmo

2.1%

From the above link:

The number of atheists is on the rise across the world, with religiosity generally declining.[2]

Your second link says nothing about the numbers of atheist decreasing.

Your last link is....how should I say this... a tad biased. The report doesn't sound very scientific.

In its report, Christianity in its Global Context, 1970-2020: Society, Religion, and Mission, researchers analyzed data on church membership and activities from thousands of Christian denominations and other religions worldwide, presenting that data from 1970 and 2010 for a 40-year comparison and, using that information and related demographic data to forecast the world religious makeup in 2020.

What most Atheist fail to understand is that lack of membership in a "Church" does not equate to "Atheism" NOR "Agnosticism". Poll after poll demonstrate that Spirituality is on the rise. Belief in "God" is on the rise.

Really? Where are these "polls after polls"?

If atheists (as opposed to anti-theists) believe that God does not exist, then what difference does it make to include religious references in oaths and pledges?

reply to post by kozmo


Ok so your first source says this in the opening paragraph:

The number of atheists is on the rise across the world, with religiosity generally declining.[2] Scientists and in particular eminent scientists are mostly atheists, perhaps the only demographic in the West in which this occurs.[3][4]

Your second source says this:

The survey finds that the number of people who say they are unaffiliated with any particular faith today (16.1%) is more than double the number who say they were not affiliated with any particular religion as children.

Now this still includes religious people who just don't affiliate with a religion. However as a subset of this population, it is very likely (though cannot be confirmed through this source alone) that the atheist population is growing.

Your third source is clearly biased due to the study it cites being published by:

Center for the Study of Global Christianity

All you've demonstrated to me is that you don't read the sources you link unless it demonstrates confirmation bias. So produce all these studies that you were talking about, because all the studies I've posted and 2/3rds of the studies you've posted disagree with you.

reply to post by adjensen


I never claimed that the number of atheists were on a sharp rise. I just pointed out to the other poster that his claim that atheism is on the decline and more and more people are turning to religion. This simply isn't true. Deny ignorance and all.

Originally posted by Krazysh0t
reply to post by adjensen

 

I never claimed that the number of atheists were on a sharp rise. I just pointed out to the other poster that his claim that atheism is on the decline and more and more people are turning to religion. This simply isn't true. Deny ignorance and all.

As I said, I don't believe that the number of atheists is declining, I simply wanted to provide a source for the number you were rejecting as "uncited" and to refute the claim of your article that five percent of the American public are atheists -- the Pew Forum study is statistically valid, and even your own article suggests that the study that produced that five percent figure was questionable.

reply to post by adjensen


Ok I'll accept that. The other sources posted show the same thing. But again the main point of my post was to show that atheism isn't on the decline which is still the case.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


the answer to that is - try getting a theist to recite an oath / pledge calling on an aledged god - outside the pantheon of their religion

as I have already stated - I have no problem with theists invoking the name of their aledged god in oaths - but when they expect others to invoke the same name - therein lies the problem

reply to post by kozmo

Secondly, what makes you the authority on whether or not God exists???

The Noah myth was plagiarized from the Utnapishtam and Ziusudra deluge myths of Sumer and Babylon, respectively. The plagiarism has been extensivelt documented by scholars, and it is even believed that Noah may be a nickname for Ut-"noah"-pishtam (although I tend to disagree with that point).

The creation of human being out of clay and breath in a garden was stolen from the Sumerian Paradise Myth featuring Enki and Ninhursag, the Babylonian Enuma Elish featuring Marduk, the Greek creation of mankind, and even the Teutonic myths of the pre-Norse Germanic pagans who believed Odin, Vili, and Ve created the flesh, the soul, and the breath/spirit of human beings.

The righteous suffering of Job was plagiarized from a similar Sumerian myth where a righteous man suffers for his faith, and eventually is rewarded for his loyalty by his personal god. I've never tried looking this one up online, but, in the volume "History Begins at Sumer" by the archaeologist Samuel Noah Kramer it is thoroughly covered in chapter 15: The Sumerian Job.

Comparisons between the miracles and life of Jesus Christ with figures like Inanna and Dumuzi in Sumer, Osiris in Egypt, Attis, Adonis, and Persephone in Greece and Rome, as well as Mithra, Lugh, Balder, and Odin among the Romano-Celts, Insular Celts, and Norsemen have also been heavily documented.

If the Christian god exists, so does the following block of deities:

Enlil, Enki, Ninhursag, Inanna, Ninurta, Dumuzi, Marduk, Ea, Adad, Amun-Rē, Osiris, the Aten, Il, Yamm, Baal, Attis, Adonis, Teshub, Telipinus, Zeus, Apollo, Persephone, Dionysus, Mithra, Lugh, Odin, Thor, Balder, and Ahura Mazda.

Why? Because without the myths and religions of those gods, the Christian god wouldn't have a Bible, or his son Jesus Christ.

~ Wandering Scribe

reply to post by Wandering Scribe


Did you ever stop to think that maybe they're all talking about the same "God" but in different dialect, rooted in cultural traditions? You don't find it curious that in essence, all of these "Stories" share common themes?

What you call plagiarism, I call proof.

Originally posted by kozmo
What you call plagiarism, I call proof.

It is a common observation that, with the prevalence of "flood" stories, it is highly likely that there was at one time a flood event, over a wide geographic area, which caused severe hardship and only those who either foresaw it or acted quickly to save their families and livestock made it through and told the stories that eventually morphed in to tales found in multiple cultures.

Frankly, that makes a lot more sense than Moses (or whoever) knowing about Sumerian myths and saying "I know this has nothing to do with us, and most people know it's about the Sumerians, not the Israelites, but I'm going to put it in my book, too, and hope no one notices."

reply to post by adjensen


I think you would benefit from a Theology course. You confuse religious parables, fables and traditions with "Stories". I'm in no mood to describe the intricacies. You'd also do well to recognize that the whole of mankind originated in one part of the globe and migrated outward from there. I don't (and most religious scholars would agree) find a stretch to believe that they would take their traditional fables and parables with them.

Finally, anthropological evidence clearly exists that demonstrates that early civilizations, despite the geographic separation, did interact with one another.

Originally posted by kozmo
I don't (and most religious scholars would agree) find a stretch to believe that they would take their traditional fables and parables with them.

Um, that's pretty much exactly what I wrote.

Contrary to what was posted above, the commonality in ancient stories is due to shared experiences, not plagiarism.

I have no idea what you think theology has to do with any of it, though.

Originally posted by kozmo
... Given that we are likely, in our lifetimes, to enter into a civil war driven by ideology, you'd be smart to acknowledge that you are playing for the losing team and perhaps behave accordingly!

I'm just curious, what would this behavior you are advocating for atheists involve?

reply to post by kozmo


What you call "proof" I call plagiarism, because the Bible goes on to call figures like Enki, Enlil, Ba'al, Odin, and all of the others' false gods. If they were the same god, then your God would have absolutely no problem with his people honoring a golden calf idol, or being worshipers of Ba'al, or Mithra, or any number of the other figures I mentioned.

Yet, He does have a problem with that. The only logical conclusion is that He wants the credit for their mythologies, their stories, their miracles and supernatural feats, but without being associated with them. So, He plagiarizes them, stealing their life stories, and claiming them for Himself.

A liar, a thief, a plagiarist; your God and his followers.

~ Wandering Scribe

God ain't beggin' nobody, to be a part of something. We're nothing more than a spec of dust, on this planet.

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
reply to post by kozmo

 

What you call "proof" I call plagiarism, because the Bible goes on to call figures like Enki, Enlil, Ba'al, Odin, and all of the others' false gods. If they were the same god, then your God would have absolutely no problem with his people honoring a golden calf idol, or being worshipers of Ba'al, or Mithra, or any number of the other figures I mentioned.

Yet, He does have a problem with that. The only logical conclusion is that He wants the credit for their mythologies, their stories, their miracles and supernatural feats, but without being associated with them. So, He plagiarizes them, stealing their life stories, and claiming them for Himself.

A liar, a thief, a plagiarist; your God and his followers.

~ Wandering Scribe

I see this 2 ways: Neo-nationalism and the political hijacking of religion which goes back over a thousand years. Recall, the Church was the ultimate authority and the government all at once. During the "Dark Ages" Christianity adopted many pagan beliefs to assuage the peasantry.

Next, you have no knowledge of "My God"! The Bible was written BY MAN, FOR MAN! It is the claim of MAN that the Bible is the Word of God. As is Muhammed's claim in the Koran. And the Jewish claim for His word in the Torah. And so on and so forth.

Do you honestly believe that the Original Sin of man would not have contaminated religion and their accompanying texts??? Man is inherently fallible and it shows in everything we do!

reply to post by kozmo


There are so many assumptions and incorrect claims in your posts it's hard to know where to start with you! I guess the beginning will suffice.

quote]
Given that we are likely, in our lifetimes, to enter into a civil war driven by ideology, you'd be smart to acknowledge that you are playing for the losing team and perhaps behave accordingly!


The winning team being Jews, Muslims, Christians? I don't think so. Science, not superstition, will win this war.

Ignorance is the assumption that the vast majority of people need to shelve their belief system, our country's traditions and values to assuage some idiot's incomprehensible display of intolerance.

No, the ignorance and intolerance comes from religious fanatics who want those who don't believe the same as them to acquiesce and just pretend to believe, so as not to offend the believers who can't defend their beliefs when under criticism.

No American should have to pledge allegiance to a god that they don't believe in as a requirement for anything. The Supreme Court already ruled on this.

The second sentence describes our inalienable rights as "Endowed by our Creator"!

The deists who wrote the Bill of Rights didn't assume that the "creator" was the Judeo Christain God. Further, Thomas Payne describes a "watchmaker" as the creator of the "found" watch. A potter is the creator of clay pots. A creator doesn't necessarily mean "God", nor it it mean something that should be worshiped or pledged allegiance to.

The "Creator" of our physical circumstances could very well be Darwinian natural selection and evolution.

Do you honestly believe that the Original Sin of man would not have contaminated religion and their accompanying texts??? Man is inherently fallible and it shows in everything we do!

Science, through evolution, has proven that Adam and Eve didn't live during the same periods of history, and came from different places. There was no Adam and Eve and there was no Original Sin. Original sin if a construct of Pauline scripture and the Catholic Church as is a false teaching. Debunking Original Sin

reply to post by kozmo

I see this 2 ways: Neo-nationalism and the political hijacking of religion which goes back over a thousand years. Recall, the Church was the ultimate authority and the government all at once. During the "Dark Ages" Christianity adopted many pagan beliefs to assuage the peasantry.

There is no doubt that the Church's doctrines did change (Irish Christianity being a perfect example), and this would be an absolutely lovely way to wrap things up, if it weren't for a handful of problems. Let's see here...

1.) Jesus Christ as a resurrected Messiah, who died and spent three days dead in Hell before ascending to Heaven. This story is paralleled in the myth of the Descent of Inanna / the Descent of Ishtar. Inanna is killed, and stays dead for three days in the Underworld before being resurrected and rising to become Queen of Heaven. The problem here, though, is that both variations of the Inanna/Ishtar myth were written, er, chiseled, into cuneiform tablets between 3500 BC and 2300 BC. The Medieval Age (Christian Dark Age) occurred between 500 AD and 1500 AD, nearly 3000 years after the disappearance of the Sumerian and Akkadian people under Persian rule. The tablets were not rediscovered until the early 1900s by Assyriologists. So no, the Church couldn't have aligned the Jesus mythology with Inanna to assuage the Sumerian pagans.

2.) The majority of the Church's changes were enacted to convert the Greco-Roman pagans, not the Egyptian pagans (an extinct ethnicity during this time), the Sumerian and Akkadian pagans (also an extinct ethnicity), or the Norse pagans (who outright rejected the Church and Christian divinity), and so on. The Church was only concerned with converting those whom she ruled: Greeks, Romans, Gauls, Britons, Irish, Scots, Etruscan, etc.

So no, the parallels do not arise from the Church adopting pagan ways to assuage them. The parallels existed before the Church was a functioning figurehead. The Jewish scribes plagiarised from Egypt, Sumer, Babylon, Assyria, Akkad, Anatolia, the Levant, and just about anywhere else they wandered before they finally settled down. It was plagiarism, plain and simple. Stolen ideas for the sake of infiltrating another peoples culture.

Next, you have no knowledge of "My God"! The Bible was written BY MAN, FOR MAN! It is the claim of MAN that the Bible is the Word of God. As is Muhammed's claim in the Koran. And the Jewish claim for His word in the Torah. And so on and so forth.

There is no knowledge of your God beyond the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Holy Qur'an. Everything else attributed to your god has no foundation anywhere outside of the fertile mind of His zealous followers who invented all kinds of claims for Him any time they met somebody else, whose god could do something more.

Do you honestly believe that the Original Sin of man would not have contaminated religion and their accompanying texts??? Man is inherently fallible and it shows in everything we do!

The only way Original Sin can exist is if you believe the Adam and Eve story in Genesis is a literal truth, instead of an allegorical or metaphorical myth. Which, if you believe the whole 6 billion of us are descended from the same two parents, then "original sin" is the least of your problems.

The sheer amount of genetic defects, birth defects, and other biological problems which arise after a few generations of inbreeding... much less several thousand generations, is absolutely disgusting. So, no, I don't believe Original Sin contaminated the religions of man.

I don't believe in Original Sin at all. To believe in Original Sin requires special pleading (a logical fallacy) as to why we're not all deformed, mentally retarded, genetic mutations with severe organ problems.

My stance remains: your God is a liar, a thief, and a plagiarist. His followers are so zealous that they're willing to leap immense gaps in logic to support His thieving ways.


~ Wandering Scribe