All the Deities vs. No God At All

acylate resuperheat impressionless capernaitical palatalism polyarthrous residua flavory
http://www.newmacharmotors.co.uk/ >Newmachar Motors
http://studiocb.net

IN REPLY TO:
ANONYMOUS TO MARY CUNNINGHAM:

IN REPLY TO:
"I FAITH that Devil was in the ball of fire. OK This is still a free country where Devil worship complete with praying to Devil before opening sessions of the senate is in vogue. Probably because "we are all sinners" as our president says."

ASW.
When did the president say, "All are sinners?"

Second, have you any idea what the First Commandment says?

THE COMMANDMENTS IN BRIEF:
I. "You Shall Worship the Lord Your God and Him Only Shall You Serve"
II. "Him Only Shall You Serve"
III. "You Shall Have No Other Gods before Me"
IV. "You Shall Not Make for Yourself a Graven Image"

Now wouldn’t it be irrational for Satan to tell you to honor God, worship Him, and not worship the Devil himself?

The Commandments given to Moses were contemptible to Satan. As to the burning bush, it would be foolish to believe it was the devil. Namely, it would be irrational to believe that Satan would give Moses the Commandments that are against everything the Devil stands for.

Moreover, the Commandments command one not to steal, not to lie, not to commit murder. This is not the counsel of Satan. Those who worship the Devil are the antithesis of the Commandments and the rational social order.

Being a free country is not a license to do what you will. Uninhibited freedom is a prescription of social disorder and chaos. To allow disorder is to be irrational. Thus, any country that would legalize murder, lying, and stealing would, in the end, destroy itself. However, these are the trades of Satan which are anti-God.

“If that was God in the ball of fire, we have no choice but to do as IT demands. If that was Devil in the ball of fire, only the very stupid will do what IT demands but they will get the big money for so doing.”

Unfortunately, the rain falls on the good and the bad. Yes, the bad, if powerful enough, may get, as you put it all the money, but not necessarily. However, getting all the money may not be so propitious. For instance, Hitler, Mao, Idi Amine Stalin, Pol Pot, and the like got all the money, but they also got a few unwanted consequences that came with it, namely death.

IN REPLY TO:
“I FAITH Devil was in the ball of fire Moses made the deal with. What does you FAITH that allows me to not declare you to be what you declare me to be?”

ANS:
The Devil wasn’t in the fire, as shown above, God was.

IN REPLY TO:
“What's your evidence to say IT was God?”

ANS:
One obvious thing is all the Commandments work; they cause the proper social order. They do not contradict human nature. Second, they’ve lasted through time. Lies, errors, myths, and fables don’t last over 2,000 years as being true.

Third, the Son of God confirmed that the Commandments were given by God. Moreover, the Commandments say, “I am the Lord your God.”

Further, the Eighth Commandment is to tell the Truth. The Devil by his fallen nature would never tell you to honor God, nor tell you not to lie, or steal, commit sexual sins etc.

Therefore, your hypothetical is FALSE. It would be irrational for the Devil to ask you to obey God, worship God, and obey the Commandments. It is written that a house divided against itself will destroy itself.

IN REPLY TO:
"Want to see some of the evidence that says IT was Devil? Try hoax buster. And respect other people's faith."

ANS:
If you are relying on Hoax Busters, better get another link. Hoax Busters proves nothing.

IN REPLY TO:
"While you're about it try respecting Jay who has no faith at all. Faith that there was nothing in that ball of fire is faith too. That's known as ZERO FAITH which is the special case of faith making Jay and his group special. You're not a primitive that hasn't discovered zero yet are you?"

ANS:
Faith in nothing is no faith at all. One can believe that there is no sky or ocean, or that a fish swim in the desert, and not the ocean. They can choose to be foolish, but anyone who countenances such absurdity is just as foolish.

IN REPLY TO:
ANONYMOUS TO MARY CUNNINGHAM:

IN REPLY TO:
"I FAITH that Devil was in the ball of fire. OK This is still a free country where Devil worship complete with praying to Devil before opening sessions of the senate is in vogue. Probably because "we are all sinners" as our president says."

ASW.
When did the president say, "All are sinners?"

Second, have you any idea what the First Commandment says?

THE COMMANDMENTS IN BRIEF:
I. "You Shall Worship the Lord Your God and Him Only Shall You Serve"
II. "Him Only Shall You Serve"
III. "You Shall Have No Other Gods before Me"
IV. "You Shall Not Make for Yourself a Graven Image"

Now wouldn’t it be irrational for Satan to tell you to honor God, worship Him, and not worship the Devil himself?

The Commandments given to Moses were contemptible to Satan. As to the burning bush, it would be foolish to believe it was the devil. Namely, it would be irrational to believe that Satan would give Moses the Commandments that are against everything the Devil stands for.

Moreover, the Commandments command one not to steal, not to lie, not to commit murder. This is not the counsel of Satan. Those who worship the Devil are the antithesis of the Commandments and the rational social order.

Being a free country is not a license to do what you will. Uninhibited freedom is a prescription of social disorder and chaos. To allow disorder is to be irrational. Thus, any country that would legalize murder, lying, and stealing would, in the end, destroy itself. However, these are the trades of Satan which are anti-God.

“If that was God in the ball of fire, we have no choice but to do as IT demands. If that was Devil in the ball of fire, only the very stupid will do what IT demands but they will get the big money for so doing.”

Unfortunately, the rain falls on the good and the bad. Yes, the bad, if powerful enough, may get, as you put it all the money, but not necessarily. However, getting all the money may not be so propitious. For instance, Hitler, Mao, Idi Amine Stalin, Pol Pot, and the like got all the money, but they also got a few unwanted consequences that came with it, namely death.

IN REPLY TO:
“I FAITH Devil was in the ball of fire Moses made the deal with. What does you FAITH that allows me to not declare you to be what you declare me to be?”

ANS:
The Devil wasn’t in the fire, as shown above, God was.

IN REPLY TO:
“What's your evidence to say IT was God?”

ANS:
One obvious thing is all the Commandments work; they cause the proper social order. They do not contradict human nature. Second, they’ve lasted through time. Lies, errors, myths, and fables don’t last over 2,000 years as being true.

Third, the Son of God confirmed that the Commandments were given by God. Moreover, the Commandments say, “I am the Lord your God.”

Further, the Eighth Commandment is to tell the Truth. The Devil by his fallen nature would never tell you to honor God, nor tell you not to lie, or steal, commit sexual sins etc.

Therefore, your hypothetical is FALSE. It would be irrational for the Devil to ask you to obey God, worship God, and obey the Commandments. It is written that a house divided against itself will destroy itself.

IN REPLY TO:
"Want to see some of the evidence that says IT was Devil? Try hoax buster. And respect other people's faith."

ANS:
If you are relying on Hoax Busters, better get another link. Hoax Busters proves nothing.

IN REPLY TO:
"While you're about it try respecting Jay who has no faith at all. Faith that there was nothing in that ball of fire is faith too. That's known as ZERO FAITH which is the special case of faith making Jay and his group special. You're not a primitive that hasn't discovered zero yet are you?"

ANS:
Faith in nothing is no faith at all. One can believe that there is no sky or ocean, or that a fish swim in the desert, and not the ocean. They can choose to be foolish, but anyone who countenances such absurdity is just as foolish.

IN REPLY TO:
ANONYMOUS:
Mary Cunningham: "It's all about faith. The fact that Moses sold his soul to Devil is faith too.

ANS:
No facts are here! The fact that Moses sold his soul to the devil is faith, for whom, the devil worshipers?

More stranger is that Moses would sell his soul to Satan by giving the Ten Commandments to the Jewish people and ultimately to the world. If anything, Moses appeared to be the nemeses of the Devil. Moreover, why would he sell out to Satan when he went through all the trouble risking his life to save the Jews from Satan? And finally, how did Moses sell out? Do you have any logical rationale to prove such a ridiculous statement?

IN REPLY TO:
“Agree you claiming either a patent on sacred scriptures or demanding your very limited short sited view be accepted as the only faith.

ANS:
Why is it shortsighted to believe there is only one Faith, if by Faith you mean the one true religion? Do you not believe in right reason? Do you not believe in the First Principles of Aristotle, one being the Principle of Contradiction? To believe anything else would be to render one's self incapable of thinking, and that would be ridiculous. So it’s not shortsighted to believe that there only can be one Faith; to the contrary, it’s shortsighted to believe that there could be anything else. One Faith can not be as good as another is. That would be irrational.

In Christianity alone, some 26,000 Christian religions contradict each other either in part or in whole. Some denominations approve of Abortion, some Divorce, some taking illicit drugs, some approve contraception etc and some all of the above. Only one can be the right religion. In addition, all religions and denominations were created by man except the Catholic Church that was created by the Son of God.

The Catholic Church was created by the Son of God, a.k.a. God. Even the Jewish religion broke away from the Church God had founded, since Catholicism was the fulfillment of the Old Covenant. So if you were to believe in any religion, it seems that the one created by God would be the rational one to choose. Anything else would be irrational, and God can not be irrational.

Further, what other founder of a denomination or religion INSTANTLY cured the sick, made the lame walk, the blind see, cured lepers, fed over 150,000 with two loaves and three fishes, walked on water, controlled the seas, commanded the creatures of the sea, and when they murdered him, rose from the dead?

GOD IS IN A SINGLE FORM NOT PLURAL

I'm curious as to why anyone would not want to believe in God, what are your reasons and to those who believe in God, what kind of God do you believe in? I Know God very well, and not by faith alone, He is not the God most people believe in, He is very very gentle and kind, and very very powerful, absolutely powerful. He condemns no one, people condemn themselves.

Well done Paganplace. I guess all the Devil worshipers are speechless for a change.

"Unlike my comadre Mary Cunningham, I am not offended by atheists qua atheism (I'm not sure that's what she meant either). What many of us have been tiring of is the lengthy, recurrant posts on every thread and in reference to every question. No more cutting and pasting, OK?"

I don't recall much cutting and pasting, but maybe there is some. If the cut & paste post makes a good point, I don't see what the problem is. It's hard enough to navigate among these various discussions, so I don't mind seeing a post repeated.

Every religious question that arises in "On Faith" has an underlying counter-question: what if the basis for the controversy is simply human-made? That does not mean that the controversy will simply evaporate, but it can change the perspective of how important the controversy really is.

Theists work with a different set of assumptions than do atheists or agnostics. I see no problem with pointing that out, even if I and others are accused of being "trolls" (a term I, as a non-believer, have not used in reference to anyone posting here, including those who were trying to be provocative). I would think that those who are armored by their faith would have a little bit more tolerance for criticism.

BTW, I am not "disenfranchised from" or striking back at any religion. I simply find the various arguments for theism or any religion to be not very compelling compared to the evidence for naturalism.

*sigh*

Tony, you're a touch off-base, here, these things you voice are specific religious beliefs *about* nonbelief and other-belief you repeat here, not the nature of science or reason or in fact, other beliefs:

"It takes a great deal of faith to believe in eternal universes that came from branes that just happen to bump into each other or universes that came from nothing only to return to nothing, such as they supposedly will."

Actually, M-theory seems to indicate that the multiverse is teeming with universes, within which our own arose... It doesn't take a 'great deal of faith' since it's neither a creed nor does it make any religious demands. It's simply what our best understanding of the mathematics would seem model. Finding the prediction or experiment that could falsify it is going to be the tough part, really, but that doesn't mean the math doesn't work.

" They seem intent intent on disproving the existence of God, yet accepting these beliefs."

But not 'on faith,' ...people who want to believe the Bible overrides the observable history of the universe are the ones who draw the false equivalency. Personally, my religion isn't at odds with M-theory in the least: it's not science's fault if your version of yours overreached.

" Always blaming religion for the worlds troubles yet have no solutions of their own."

Umm, like cutting our carbon emissions because of the effects of burning fossil fuels that have been trapped in the ground since millions of years ago when our climate was very different?

Like not breeding superstrains of diseases or screwing with plant genomes because some folks won't believe in evolution, even as it can be observed quite readily in the case of bacteria?

" I think, perhaps they may have some great guilt, that if they believed in God, God would judge them harshly, they think that if their was a God that God would prevent all the worlds troubles, but that would deny our free will and our responsibility and our role in salvation history."

Wouldn't you say it's far more likely that they're miffed at *religion* 'judging them harshly' when they aren't hurting anyone? When it's more likely *they* met *real abuse* at the hands of certain religions, all justified by things told to them by people they may know are lying or indulging faulty reasoning?

Of being disenfranchised in their own countries while religious radicals blithely and arrogantly lead us toward ever-greater folly and disaster?

" Not to believe in a divine being only leads to despair, because without God everything becomes meaningless."

Many atheists would disagree. As a Pagan, I certainly do. Everything *has* meaning. Humans are *meaning-finders:* a capacity that can be used to bring great joy or great horrors.

People that believe 'God' means, 'My tribal God and associated tabooes and denigrations of humanity, or none,' ...aren't necessarily gifted with any great sense of meaning to the universe.

In my daily life, 'God' in the sense of a living and aware spiritual depth to the universe, is very much a presence, (we say 'Great Goddess,' often to make this very distinction; it's also to us a much more fitting metaphor, ...a mother rather than just a controlling artificer...)

Life's hardly meaningless to *me,* and I don't even have to dumb down the science or panic what new understandings of the universe might mean for the fate of my soul... I'd say you guys are the ones so afraid of being 'judged harshly' that things lose their meaning: the vastnesses and wonders of the universe and the human spirit pushed aside in favor of trying to ensure conformity to a very static and simplistic view of what everything 'means.'

Frankly, as more and more people seem to see every problem before government and challenge before science as a *referendum on Abrahamic piety,* well, *that's* where we lose the meaning of the unquestionably-real lives before us.

In these threads we speak of people trying to *silence* others simply for having a different view of the Divine. Clearly, *they're* the ones who fear harsh judgements, or enjoy *making* them by 'proxy.'

I think they're the ones who are missing out.

tony55398: "They seem intent intent on disproving the existence of God"

I haven't noticed anything along that line. Atheist Ray seems to be bemoaning the fact that atheists are left out, no atheists prayers to open sessions of the senate. Me? Of course there is a God. No doubt about it. Wouldn't think of not acknowledging the existence of God. And creation is a GIVEN.

Now the question for you. Do you really believe in God? Do you believe that was God in the ball of fire, the voice that Moses spoke to and made the deal with? Is that where your faith comes from? If not then where does your faith there is a God, creator, etc come from?

Examine http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul That,, that whatever he is,, says the whole story is a hoax, that he has found it in it's original form. We must not believe him. There really was a supernatural being in that ball of fire. IT was Lucifer, the biggest Devil of them all. Don't you agree that hell is on fire with the fire that burns but does not consume, sinners just keep on burning for all eternity and never burn up? Is there a greater sin than worshiping a STRANGE God, Devil Lucifer that attempted to throw God out of heaven? In the U.S. senate?

Now the real question. Do you, assuming you are an American, want Devil worshipers, all three great faiths, opening sessions of your senate? Ray don't. Maybe atheists are just a tad ahead of the curve while you are worshiping Devil and definitely headed for hell being led by the moralists with Bibles, Korans, Books of Mormons, and now, horrors, sacred Hindu scriptures. Your minister does hold that Hindus are all going to hell?

Faith in Devil is faith in Devil? Don't you think?

It takes a great deal of faith to believe in eternal universes that came from branes that just happen to bump into each other or universes that came from nothing only to return to nothing, such as they supposedly will. They seem intent intent on disproving the existence of God, yet accepting these beliefs. Always blaming religion for the worlds troubles yet have no solutions of their own. I think, perhaps they may have some great guilt, that if they believed in God, God would judge them harshly, they think that if their was a God that God would prevent all the worlds troubles, but that would deny our free will and our responsibility and our role in salvation history. Not to believe in a divine being only leads to despair, because without God everything becomes meaningless.

I have glanced at most of the comments- And do not find direct quotes from THE BIBLE. Amazing!!
I believe in the Bible as the Divinely inspired inerrant Word of God
I believe in one God,the creator of all,eternally existing in three persons
I believe in the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, that he is true God and true man begotten of the Holy Spirit-----
I believe in the sacrifice and finished work of Christ on the Cross of Calvary
This godman said"I am the way and the truth"

I'll do my best here on a borrowed computer and far from home, please bear with me.
Unlike my comadre Mary Cunningham, I am not offended by atheists qua atheism (I'm not sure that's what she meant either). What many of us have been tiring of is the lengthy, recurrant posts on every thread and in reference to every question. No more cutting and pasting, OK?
The only reasonable answers to this question are no religion or any relgion. Pick your poison. Christianity only is not an option.

Absolutely Islamist, I believe in God. The Bible says Moses had a conversation with a supernatural being living in a ball of fire, (technically a burning bush that didn't burn up). Hoaxbuster says that story is a hoax, never happened. To that I say hogwash. That was the biggest Devil of them all, Lucifer in that fire.

Bottom line: All three great faiths faith their God to be the supernatural being in that fire there in the burning bush. Draw your own conclusion. Your expression of faith in God is faith in what, the being Moses made the deal with?

I say you are calling the biggest Devil of them all God. Note that calling Devil God does not make Devil God but surely makes Devil happy. With 93% of Americans doing that Lucifer must be one happy Devil. Don't you agree? Hoaxbuster is wrong and that was Lucifer you're calling God, Allah, Jehovah, Trinity, whatever you name Him. When you call to God Lucifer pops right up.

That explains why young Americans MUST be sent to head Lucifer off in Muslim land as well as all the lying, cheating and stealing going on in governments of great faith, the US government being no exception, I might add. It's a shame they don't have any Pagan chaplains. Do they have Hindu chaplains? Pagans and Hindus don't faith IT in the fire to be the only true God, I think.

Same to you mate. Have a good one and may the REAL God bless and keep you. Blessings from Lucifer are actually curses so beware of those usual "God bless yous."

Hello BGone

Almost miss your post. Thanks for the clarification on Hoaxbuster. Lucifer? Ball of fire? Foreigners don't know about God and Lucifer in the US Congress. Most unlikely there be blood sacrifices in Congress except when decisions are made there to send young men and women to war. Do you really believe that God is really the Devil when you don't believe in God? Very confusing.

Cheers mate and good day.

Paganplace

Thanks for your post. I've been reading On Faith for less than three weeks and must read more to really understand what is going on here. So this is also a place where trolls do come in to keep the pot boiling. Human 'gods" of totalitarian states like Kim Jong Il of North Korea are more dangerous than unseen Gods. God don't literally put a gun to your head for disagreeing. There are many human "gods" deciding on life and death of their people by the gun. The worst after World War II are by those who don't believe in God but act like one in totalitarian states which happens to be atheistic as part of their ideology. That may be what Mary Cunningham is arguing about, that atheists are also capable of committing murder and inhumane acts in the name of their ideology, unless I completely misunderstood her posts here. Most Muslims still equates atheism with communism due to the expressed ideology of communists on god. My friend Jihadist seem to be pushing back, a bit unkindly for her, a few rigid atheists co-opting secularism and secular humanism as specific only to them in Susan Jacoby's thread. It makes it very hard to persuade Muslims that being secularist don't have to mean being personally godless, only to minimise state interference on personal beliefs, no one faith to dominate public affairs, and seperation of church and state in national and international policies. I don't think all that is possible, but my friend J thinks yes.

Cheers and good day.

Islamist:

Just a quick reminder. Hoaxbuster is not an atheist organization. There might be a God. Hoaxbuster simply says your sacred scriptures are phony, bogus, the work of con men. I say your God is really the Devil. Hoaxbuster is wrong. That was Lucifer in that ball of fire making your God the biggest Devil of them all, Lucifer. See. We agree on something, hoaxbuster is wrong.

Go ahead with the blood sacrifices in the senate, can't be any more unconstitutional or ridiculous than using a hoax calling it the word of God. Some God if ya ask me. Americans deserve a better class of Gods.

Well, Islamist, the kind of atheists who hang out *here* are no more representative of what American atheists are about than are the smears about Stalinism and the like: *totalitarian* states may call themselves atheist, but this is in the sense of trying to refocus that attention on obeying the *state.*

If you look at Kim Jong Il in North Korea, he's pretty much treated just as any other authoritarian God.

But atheism itself isn't really an ideology. Those who enjoy coming here and being abusive day in and day out may be cheesed off at being treated like second-class citizens in society, or just trolling...

But it's not really like they share a common belief system in terms of religion, even if they sometimes take their idea of what religion *is in the first place* from the dominant one that disenfranchised them.

Mary Cunningham - "I thought athies, agno's, secku's &tc. had their own site at "Secularists Corner. Why are you here?"

Because Prof. Arroyo came up with terms like "militant atheism" and now "Politburo atheism" that upset "athies, agnos and seckus." If they can dish it out with colourful all encompassing terms for believers, they should be able to accept generalised terms for athiests, agnostics and secularists. Atheists deserve a slap now and then too, not just believers, for reality checks.

Mary Cunningham do have a point. Atheism is part of the ideologies of Leninism/Stalinism of the Soviet Union and the Maoism of China. These regimes are the most repressive in controlling thoughts and beliefs. Atheists in democracies are part of freedom of thought guaranteed by the democratic countries. They can be equally militant as believers in insisting on their belief. Should we thank God atheists are not in charge of democracies and repress all religions?

Who can tell the difference between militant atheists in democratic America from militant atheists in the former Soviet Union? American militant atheists have not shot anyone, or to send anyone to the Gulag for believing in God, but would love to do so if they can from what I've read in some of the atheists' posts. Humanists? My foot! Anyone who don't think as they do is irrelevant, stupid or primitives.

My friend J is tolerant of many atheists' spiel about believers, religion and God, but I am less inclined to take some of their posts even with a barrel of salt. Logical, rational people? Hah! Let them be more into the devil than believers are.

Mary Cunningham, if you come across one of those silly posts by atheists, agnostics or secularists on believers, just give it a pass. They are not worth it. Like my friend J, I do read books by John Gray too which almost all atheists here have never heard of nor read before. Most limit their readings to Dawkins, Hitchens and Hoaxbuster.

Cheers

Hey Yo-Yo,

Those who like to pray should do so on their own time and on their own dime! They should either pray quietly (amongst themselves) in the chamber or in the cafeteria or cloakroom as you suggest.

This is about honoring the spirit of Constitution's establishment clause not adhering to some silly, outdated, meaningless pledge from the 1950's. If Congress can't honor the Constitution, their prayers should at least be inclusive of all religions.

I think you might "see the light" if Congress started opening with some good old-fashioned, fire-breathing Satanic verses. By your standard, a ritual blood-sacrifice ceremony (using fake blood of course) would be harmless also. Come on Yo-Yo, let's give equal time to all the gods!

... and Medusa calls "next game".

Mary Mary quiet contrary where do atheists go if not here? Should they all just go to hell now and get if over?

Yes, faith must be spread else it will die. Now we can't have that can we?

The atheists and those who faith Moses sold his soul to Devil, just faiths is all they are must also be spread else they will die.

So it boils down to, Is WP and NW spreading faith? Are they ministries of a sorts or are they entertainment publications that make a profit sized by popularity?

Faith that was Devil in the ball of fire is catching on. Jay is almost convinced. Won't the angels sing out the praises of the Lord God when Jay finally comes around?

When it comes to chicken parts, parts is parts. When it comes to faith, faith is faith. We must respect other's chicken parts and faiths too else there'll be trouble.

The object here is entertainment else I would never come and I would never buy a copy of either owner/publisher's publications. Getting informed is secondary although sensational headlines have moved me on occasion.

I have a very open mind. All you need do is show some believable evidence that was God in the ball of fire and I will change my mind. Do you have an open mind? Is there a financial reason to never change your mind?

Sale of soul to Devil closes minds, cements them over eliminating the possibility of ever changing them. Does sale of soul to Devil really deliver the wealth of earth to the seller, or is that limited to those leading the multitudes to hell?

Mary, why so contrary?

No one is trying to convert. It's an open forum. A place to speak your mind. If I see something that I think is wrong or misleading or has been overlooked, I'll add a comment. You don't have to read it. I won't be offended.

The good professor actually delivered an off-handed slap at atheism. If he had not, I probably would not have bothered commenting on his article.

Come on ... where's your tolerance?

Mary:

Many of the questions involve the intersection of government and religion. Guess what - this country and its government belong to the atheists every bit as much as to the theists. Like it or not, EVERYONE has a pony in the church/state race.

Y'know anon...to me you're just another atheist troll..and sometimes you sound like a Ranting Atheist Troll, a real rat, an annonny athie.

The place is infested with them.

Prof. SA wrote about about polytheism and Hinduism. And atheists responded. Then they responded to all the other panalists.

Atheists are all over this particular site--I count 13/23 and it doesn't even concern them! There is plenty of room here to proselytize the atheist worldview but not everywhere--show some discretion for God's sake (or not for God's sake, for nihilism's sake, as you please). Why can't you just proselytize amongst yourselves? Do I try to convince or convert you? I don't.

IMO this whole WaPo facility should be called
"On NO faith"
not "On Faith. And I don't see *every* question as a place for no-theists or not-sure-about-theism-but-sure-don't-like-Jesusfreaks. It's supposed to be about belief in God (or maybe the Goddess) but you would never know it!

Mary Cunningham:, It's all about faith. The fact that Moses sold his soul to Devil is faith too. Are you claiming either a patent on sacred scriptures or demanding your very limited short sited view be accepted as the only faith.

I FAITH that Devil was in the ball of fire. OK This is still a free country where Devil worship complete with praying to Devil before opening sessions of the senate is in vogue. Probably because "we are all sinners" as our president says.

If that was God in the ball of fire we have no choice but to do as IT demands.

It that was Devil in the ball of fire only the very stupid will do what IT demands but they will get the big money for so doing.

I FAITH Devil was in the ball of fire Moses made the deal with. What do you FAITH that allows me to not declare you to be what you declare me to be?

What's your evidence to say IT was God? Want to see some of the evidence that says IT was Devil? Try hoax buster. And respect other people's faith.

While you're about it try respecting Jay who has no faith at all. Faith that there was nothing in that ball of fire is faith too. That's known as ZERO FAITH which is the special case of faith making Jay and his group special. You're not a primitive that hasn't discovered zero yet are you?

Oh, please, BF Knew the Truth - kindly fact check before spewing erroneous propaganda. Those that have fact-checked fictitious Franklinism found as follows:

The late Charles A. Beard reported, "I cannot find a single original source that gives the slightest justification for believing that the Prophecy is anything more than a barefaced forgery. Not a word have I discovered in Franklin’s letters and papers expressing any such sentiments against the Jews as are ascribed to him by the Nazis.

His well-known liberality in matters of religious opinion would, in fact, have precluded the kind of utterances put in his mouth by this palpable forgery . . . In his writings on immigration, Franklin made no mention of discrimination against Jews."

The speech against the Jews which Benjamin Franklin is alleged to have made the Constitutional Convention of 1787 is a forgery, produced within the past five years [1933-38].

Beard also showed "positive evidence" that Franklin held Jews in high regard, citing the instance when the Hebrew Society of Philadelphia sought to raise money for a synagogue in Philadelphia. Franklin signed the petition of appeal for contributions to "citizens of every religious denomination" and gave 5 pounds himself to the fund.

J. Henry Smythe, Jr., compiler of The Amazing Benjamin Franklin, has characterized the Prophecy as "a counterfeit," adding it was a "libel of the Jewish race, unjust both to Jews and to the name and fame of Benjamin Franklin. I have investigated this calumny and find no historical basis."

*sigh*

Whoever's spamming the boards with the forged Franklin speech... It's a well-known forgery from the 1930s: Franklin was well known as by no means anti-Semitic, and the modern vampire myth he addresses is 19th century. Not 1787.

Gods.

Are you sure, "invoking divine protection BEFORE going to work seems harmless enough."??

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul is warning enough for the astute. Seeking divine protection from Devil is harmless???

Make sure it's God before you commence praying to IT. That's not to belittle the power of Devil and Devil's readiness to help out as best He can.

The big money goes to those who lead the multitudes to hell while Jesus said, "sell all your earthly possessions and give to the poor." Jesus is the son of the supernatural being in the ball of fire that Moses made the deal with to become the biggest shot that ever lived?

Around and around the vinegar jug the hound dog chased the skunk. Around and around the vinegar jug 'till squirt went the skunk. That's why the call the seats pews.

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN
This prediction was made during the intermission of the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1787, and was recorded by Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, a South Carolina delegate.):
(“I fully agree with General Washington, that we must protect this young nation from an insidious influence and impenetration. That menace, gentlemen, is the Jews. In whatever country Jews have settled in any great number, they have lowered its moral tone; depreciated its commercial integrity; have segregated themselves and have not been assimilated; have sneered at and tried to undermine the Christian religion upon which that nation is founded, by objecting to its restrictions; have built up a state within the state; and when opposed have tried to strangle that country to death financially, as in the case of Spain and Portugal. For over 1,700 years, the Jews have been bewailing their sad fate in that they have been exiled from their homeland, as they call Palestine. But, gentlemen, did the world give it to them in fee simple, they would at once find some reason for not returning.
Why? Because they are vampires, and vampires do not live on vampires. They cannot live only among themselves. They must subsist on Christians and other peoples not of their race. If you do not exclude them from these United States, in this Constitution, in less than 200 years they will have swarmed here in such great numbers that they will dominate and devour the land and change our form of government, for which we Americans have shed our blood, given our lives, our substance and jeopardized our liberty. If you do not exclude them, in less than 200 years our descendants will be working in the fields to furnish them substance, while they will be in the counting houses rubbing their hands.
I warn you, gentlemen, if you do not exclude Jews for all time, your children will curse you in your graves… A leopard cannot change its spots. Jews are Asiatics, are a menace to this country if permitted entrance, and should be excluded by this Constitutional Convention.”

Why are the non-believers and secularists here?

Rather than, say, in the cloakroom?

We're here because we want to be. Because you theists need us to provide a necessary counterpoint to your god-only arguments (you're welcome).

Because the columnists refer to atheists and agnostics in their writings, which means we have as much right to comment as the theist.

Okay?

I thought athies, agno's, secku's &tc. had their own site at "Secularists Corner."

Why are you here?

Well, lessee...two points. 1. looking at the government, I guess it should be very clear that 'prayer' does not work. 2. How about having those so disposed to assuage some invisible being, remove themselves to the cloak room, or the hallway. Or better yet, why not have them subjected to 'atheist' speeches for a month or so, you know, suggesting that rationality rather than wishful thinking should be the starting place for any legislation. Of course, have the praying members relocate themselves to the cloak room might well be a decent object lesson in civility.

"And consider how much more interesting all the deities are than the boring Politburo atheism of no god at all!"

Way to be inclusive. I guess as long as you are worshipping something, anything, that is absolutely lacking in evidence, you are still way ahead of those communist atheists.

For the record, I and the many people I know who have a naturalistic worldview are about as far from being communist or authoritarian as you can get. We are skeptics of dogma and authority (especially where evidence is lacking); we promote free thought and inquiry, and the use of rational thinking and science to address the many problems in this world. We also promote the idea that the rights of the individual are the most important consideration in law-making, because it is the best and possibly only way to maintain a healthy democracy.

I guess those godless ideas would be too radical for a legislative body to hear at the start of a day of law-making, eh?

Norrie wrote: "Do you really want to turn non-praying individuals, whether children or legislators, into second-class citizens and pariahs?"

Given this guy's consistent message of bigotry, intolerance and general mush-headed Christian hatred I'd say yeah, that is probably exactly what he would like to see.

Stevem2d

What is your source for the casuality figures for Christianity you posted:

1) hoaxbusters' atheist website
2) the Al-Acqa Martyrs Jihadi's website
3) Josef Stalin lives! His words.
4) I don't need a source, I just know.

Right on Lowell. Oh for those days of the original Pledge of Allegiance before 1954 when it was one nation indivisible!

Religion has been over all its history a jealous thing that brooks little or no acceptance of other points of view. We need only look at the history of Christianity, when corrupt popes allied with corrupt kings gave the world a thousand years of the dark ages, the murder of tens of millions of Muslims during the 600 years of the crusades, the inquisition where countless tens of thousands were tortured and burned at the stake for daring to question such total ignorance and the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. Then there was the Witch trials, where a neighbor would denounce another, and the denounced would be tossed into a vermin filled cage, where if the rats and bugs went for her, she was guilty. Of course, the church and the accuser shared in the deceased's estate.

The worst slippery slope ever is to let the church get involved in government. Perhaps it is because the right wing absolutist churches realize they are losing their power, which equates to money. Science and particularly the science of communications, be it electronic, the web, jet planes etc, are exposing people to other points of view in a pluralistic world. Right wing control religions cannot stand this, for they realize once their falsehoods and even lies are exposed, the whole house of cards of 'faith' will come tumbling down. As my parents said in I think 1954, when "under God" was put into the pledge of allegence, we are in trouble.

If you want a good example of what happens when religion and govt get intertwined, just look at Islam. If you care about this country at all, if you care about right wing control freak religions (people of the same mentality as Hitler, Stalin, and most other despots, and even Bush to some extent) then the war against terrorism begins here at home, making sure that religion does not have a voice in our legal / social policies.

Time to represent the heathen-american viewpoint, here, the 'under god' part was added in 1954
after the Knights Of Columbus people harped at Congress until they relented.

Organized religious bodies, such as the one you belong to, have been given blanket license by BushCo to propagate their propaganda. I suggest you return this gem to the props department. It's defective, seams are showing, looks like it could fall apart there, just any minute now. Sorry! LOL

Jesus is reputed to have lost one of his leather sandals in the process of removing the moneychangers from the temple. Who bought your lunch today, sir? Who, indeed...

I don't hold any great attachment to there being those invocations, myself. And I'm sure there are some prayers said there that I would find offensive to myself and not participate in.

The simple fact is, though, that when it comes down to a Christian/Jewish monopoly forcing the choice "Our God or No God," then we're playing into the game that excludes people of other beliefs from the process in the first place.

The practice needs to be for all... Then they can abolish it or not, ...it's funny how often Christian theocrats start backing off when *other people* start trying to use the 'Religious Freedom' they want to claim to be officially-promoted by the government.

But, really, in the meantime, the *assumption* people get is that this *is* 'A Christian Nation' mostly because it's presented as such.

No invocations at all might only serve to reinforce that impression. At least till the practice really looks like America.

You had me until "boring Politburo atheism."

Well the Senate can vote every day whether to have a prayer that day- majority rules. Then those who want to pray can pray and those who don't can stay too or they can leave and have a smoke break or go to the bathroom. But seriously I believe the gods all have a conspiracy to destroy the planet at present. That shows how much they really care about us humans.

"Politburo atheism"

An example of reasoned tolerance?

It's not about "one nation under God", it's "one nation, indivisible". The McCarthyist paranoiacs vandalized the Pledge by inserting "God" in the 1950s, and when Eisenhower signed it into law, he made absolutely clear that the Judeo-Christian god was SPECIFICALLY the "god" intended. Downplaying its religious significance is dishonest and reveals your true agenda.

It's a great achievement for Islamic leaders and scholars as well as Newsweek and the Washington post to present this imperative opportunity for inter cultural and global philosophical dialogue. What's important is that by exchanging our ideas and comments regarding inter religious relations and world events that affect our views of each other as fellow human beings. Since the advent of humanity, We strove to make sense of the world we live in and the lives we've experienced. Worldwide curiosities to learn the true nature of life and our universe is an exceptionally rare virtue upon life on Earth. In other words, we're the only known species on the planet who've pursued to unravel these great mysteries and developed written philosophies based upon our understanding of the world around us.
One such philosophy that lasted throughout the ages of humanity is commonly known as religion and spirituality. Ever since our early belief in the Sky God and the God Mother from ancient Pagan times, we vigorously pursued to unravel the truth about our most profound questions. As any educated person would know that religion and their core beliefs or faith have evolved over time. Paganism, Monotheism and Polytheism have been influenced by humanity as these great philosophies have influenced our perceptions and decisions in life over the ages. Over time humanity has embraced diverse religious faiths and spiritual convictions that continue to influence our behavior in our times and most likely beyond.
What's vital for humanity's progress and even survival is to know the true nature of faith itself. To understand the true origins of faith. But most of all, is to accept the truth for whatever it may be. Each one of us will learn the absolute truth once we die. But until that time comes for anyone of us to depart this world, we really don't know the answer to God's existence nor do we have the absolute truth in regards to the true nature of God. Besides if we did possess the truth, there would've been only one religion on Earth with no diversification of any way, shape of form. There would only be one holy scripture written throughout human history.
Considering one's religious faith to be absolute, while considering others to be false would be ethnocentric at best. While collectively searching to unravel the mysteries on nature, life and the universe through sincere reasoning and serious research would be enlightening at its worst. Most importantly, we must accept the fact is that none of us have conclusive evidence to confirm our core beliefs and there's always an immanent change that our most cherished beliefs could be wrong. Our greatest challenge would be to tolerate the truth no matter what it may ultimately be. With such an open mind, we would be able to overcome any future discovery that would contradict our faith regarding the true nature of life, spirituality and divinity.
Humanity does have the ability to achieve such a social achievement. However, it's solely up to humanity and not any other entity or groups of entities to decide our destinies. Each one of us has a choice to make; either hopelessly engaging into meaningless inter cultural conflicts or combine our scientific and cultural gifts to thrive into an enlightened global civilization that could ultimately expand beyond our solar system. The choice is yours, and the time to make it is now!

PaganPlace,

Hi! I think the only reasonable and decent thing is to have no prayers at all in legislative assemblies.

When I was in the legislature I did what Professor Stevens-Arroyo suggested: I stayed outside the House Chamber until the prayer was over.

So there I was, chased out of the legislative assembly to which I'd been elected by the citizens of my district.

Insulting as that was, it wasn't as bad as it would have been if I'd stayed inside, and had my intelligence and beliefs insulted by a bible-thumper praying to the Abrahamic sadistic Ignorant Demiurge, who thought he was God but wasn't.

An elected representative shouldn't be forced to that choice.

Regards.

I would definitely say, Norrie, that in order to have these prayers, there certainly must be a dignified and non-exclusionary way to not-participate.

Likewise, I think something falls on the chaplain-of-the-day to make the invocation polite, and non-insulting to whoever might be present, where possible. Ie, not to speak inappropriately for others or to denigrate their non-belief in your thing or to act like you're trying to invoke your God to compel their actions:

The Christian view of prayer tend to see it like *who the prayer is to* is the defining, perhaps only characteristic.

To my religious view, there are really two different kinds, that correspond to 'black' and 'white' magic: if someone says 'God bless you,' well, that's very nice of you, thanks, ...if they're praying that their God'll like, convert me or something, that's an attempt at compulsion, and disrespectful.

...Which is something any clergy should take into account when performing a public function like that: not to be saying things that take advantage of politeness to offend a captive audience, say.

The thing that makes me think having these prayers might well be worth the trouble is in fact because Christians have a tendency to assume they're the only ones *in* America, and I think the potential benefits of the practice in that regard, given a modicum of diversity and civility about it could be considerable. And, yes, atheists should speak, too.

Professor Stevens-Arroyo,

You wrote:

"If someone chooses not to pray, they can stay in the cafeteria or cloak room."

As applied to public school students, the U.S. Supreme Court held that this opt-out of prayer alternative was unacceptable and therefore school prayer was found to be unconstitutional.

Do you really want to turn non-praying individuals, whether children or legislators, into second-class citizens and pariahs?