Belief in an omnipotent, omniscinet God is delusional. I find that far more worrying than someone who tries and fails to get a couple of words removed from a pledge.

try to pay attention so I don't have to repeat.

That's your opinion based on no more fact than religions are based on and you're in the minute minority in your opinion whether you take the world view, country, state, or town. vast minority.


unstable people worry about far more things than necissary. Go ask a liberal in the mental health field.

Actually belief in God is not based on any fact. To believe you have to take a "leap of faith". It's the same logic as believing in ghosts, spirits, the Easter bunny.

the disbelief in god is also not based in fact.
what's your point?

You believe in ghosts, even though there is no evidence.
I don't believe in ghosts because there is no evidence.

simple enough for you?

yet still you're confused by it.

this is the dilema of the modern day ultra liberal nutcase.
to try win an argument based on common sense, they have to refer to believing in ghosts.

Son, the supreme court didn't mention ghosts when throwing out this case.
however, a couple of them did say something else.

Three court members -- Chief Justice William Rehnquist (news - web sites) and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites) and Clarence Thomas (news - web sites) -- said they would uphold the words "under God" as constitutional.


"Reciting the pledge, or listening to others recite it, is a patriotic exercise, not a religious one; participants promise fidelity to our flag and our nation, not to any particular God, faith or church," Rehnquist said.


O'Connor agreed. "Certain ceremonial references to God and religion in our nation are the inevitable consequence of the religious history that gave birth to our founding principles of liberty," she said.
------------------------------------------------
maybe thats why they're supreme court justices and your not.
They didn't need to talk about ghosts when ruling for common sense.:thumbsup

uh right. I think you're the confused one beliving in the supernatural and all.

you make the mistake of assuming I agree with the father who wanted it removed. Although I think it's a stupid thing to say, I appreciate it's a tradition.

I just thought you calling him a dope, and a moron is a bit rich.

sorry, son. YOU make the mistake of arguing the idiot side. forgive me for identifying you with your argument.
there's a lot of things you think that don't matter. again, what's your point?

Belief in a supreme being/creator...ie God...is just that...a belief. Non belief in a supreme being/creator...ie God...is just that...a belief. Niether position can be supported by empirical fact...thus either position carries equal weight...since either position cannot be proven or dis-proven.

where did I say I believed in the supernatural?


these liberal kids and their nonsensical arguments crack me up.:1orglaugh

I don't disagree that they are both beliefs.
You are right neither can be definitively proven.
However if you believe in God with absolutely no empirical evidence, then what else will you believe in.

BECAUSE of the lack of any empirical evidence I take the position that I believe he/she does not exist.

Do you believe in God? If so then you believe in the supernatural.

how silly.
do you understand that there has never been a president who was NOT affiliated with a religion?
http://www.adherents.com/adh_presidents.html
your "then what else will you believe in." argument is typical liberal clap trap.
believing in god NEVER increased your risk to do what's wrong. in fact, the exact opposite is true.
Imagining that only YOU the non believer are the only clear thinker, and all the religious people are suspect is just the kind of thinking that causes normal people to discount you as a lunatic trouble maker.

However if you do not believe in God with absolutely no empirical evidence that there is not a God, then what else might you not believe in.

BECAUSE of the lack of any empirical evidence that God does not exist...billions choose to believe that he/she does exist.

The non believer does not have a firmer or even a more sensible position than the beliver...though both will argue that they do.

believing in god is like believing in ghosts. there are no facts to support the existence, but you can't disprove because there's no way to do it.

I don't believe in God.

again, what's your point?

good try. incorrect.

disbelieving in god is like disbelieving in ghosts. there are no facts to disprove the existence , but you can't prove because there's no way to do it.

sorry, son. YOU make the mistake of arguing the idiot side. forgive me for identifying you with your argument.

I put my faith in evidence, not in fantasy.

hmmmm, lets see. the supreme court just ruled in my favor.
I understand it sucks being wrong and not understanding why but if you were smart enough to get back to the facts of this case, what happened, and what the justices said, your embarrassment wouldn't be so great.

personal attacks won't win the day for you here, son.:1orglaugh

produce your evidence.
we'll wait.:1orglaugh

'god' can take any form you want it to. Surely their exists some type of higher power than humans out there somewhere. We are basically two steps up from monkeys.

When I go to the Doctor I want medicine that has been tested thoroughly, and has gone through randomised controlled trials and passed FDA approval.

You might go to the witch doctor. Who knows, the witch doctor might have the miracle cure, but I choose to believe in that which has been tested.

My position is the more rational position, though not necessarily the correct position.

you just twisted what i said and said the same thing.

personally i don't believe in supreme beings. everything in the world has its place, supreme beings don't. and if this is the best that 'god' could come up with, what kind of 'god' is this? surely a 'god' could create something much, much better.

we're not a step up from anything, even an insect. in fact, after we kill ourselves with nuclear weapons, the roaches will come out of the woodwork and wonder what took us so long.

exactly. meaning your point has as much going for it as the other side.

Two steps?

I'm the one waiting for evidence, try to keep up.

ahahahaha, I love liberals with an agenda who grasp at straws to try to win an argument.

lets forget what the justices said on the matter and lets talk about witch doctors instead.
:1orglaugh

but my point doesn't cause people to shove tnt up their ass to kill people in the name of some higher power...

Now that may be the most accurate quote I've ever heard.

:1orglaugh The naked girl is a god...

dementia must be setting in. I already posted and you acknowledged that I agree with the Justices.

blaming all religion for the acts of one works for liberals yet turn it around and blame all members of a race for the acts of a % and they get their panties in a bunch.

one thing you'll never get from a liberal is consistancy.:1orglaugh

what is my agenda?

really?
I think you better quote it then for the 99% of us that don't see it.:1orglaugh

not to confuse yourself?

it would be a good start.:1orglaugh

The court didnt rule in your favor, 12clicks. The court ruled on a technicality, then some of them expressed opinions that will allow them to recuse themselves when it comes back up.
Just like Scalia did before it even came to trial this time around. (yet Scalia refuses to recuse himself when he clearly is tainted in the cheney case; much bigger issue IMO)

The justices take the same view of "under god" in the pledge(which were added in the 50's to distinguish the USA. from communist USSR), that they do with references to god on USA currency and public buildings (including the US Supreme Courthouse itself). They dont endorse it as a religious reference. They dont argue against it as a religious reference. They take it as something that is simply there and has no actual religious significance.

The mans argument is a valid argument. He believes that even a passive reference is an offhand "endorsement" that *ANY* god exists, which is contrary to the values he wishes to instill in his child.


I know you'll call me names, and post laughing faces at me. Maybe call me a "moron" or an "asshat". Thats your style evidently.

Enjoy :winkwink:

and you assume"""sorry, son. YOU make the mistake of arguing the idiot side. forgive me for identifying you with your argument. """"

is acknowledgement of you agreeing with the justices?

its acknowledgement that I think you're an idiot. nothing more.:1orglaugh

I thought it was acknowledgement you had some basic comprehension skills. Apparently you do not.

aaah so you must be a liberal troublemaking moron.

incorrect. their opinions in no way taint them next time around.

exactly. which is why he's wasting the court's time.

that argument is irrelevant because there is no basis in the constitution to honor a lunatics wishes.
his *belief* of an endorsement might be honest but as there is no religion called atheism, no religion is being established over his own. (just one of 10 arguments to be made here)


you must be new to the adult internet. my style is to identify morons and asshats for what they are. Your argument has merit, your attitude makes you an asshat.:1orglaugh

am I all of the sudden a TGP submitter named sacx?
I think not.:1orglaugh

:1orglaugh

wild stabs in the dark just prove your stupidity.

oh wait, I almost missed this!:1orglaugh

Date registered: june 10 2004

So you've been a member for 5 days and know all about my style? not likely.

what lying, cheating, thief where you last month?
come on, what name did you steal under last month?:1orglaugh

no, they prove your irrelevance.
does it matter to anyone who you are or what you do?




sadly, no.:1orglaugh

There is plenty in the constitution to honor a "lunatics" wishes. Assuming you're using lunatic in place of citizen.

And you're also right, theres no religion called atheism. That is precisely why his argument is valid.
This isnt a case where we argue "Under Buddha" versus "Under God". It's a case where we argue "Under God" versus "there is no god".

And I do believe their opinions taint them. If not in a legal sense, certainly in a real-world sense.

Personally, I was fine with the option that the school system gave. Say them if you want to. Dont say them if you dont want to.

But I do applaud this man for standing up for his beliefs in the face of overwhelming opposition. Truly what the founders of this country wanted to allow for.

In my book, any time you can go toe-to-toe and argue passionately for your position based on your beliefs, you've got my respect.