I’ve written some pretty poorly crafted comments before, but those two are a testament to typos.

Anyway, here’s a correction for clarity.

“Thus, if you have concluded that the Dictates of our scholastic sources of literacy, then you have confirmed your position as on merely founded in belief.

“

should read;
—
“Thus, if you have concluded that the dictates of our scholastic sources of literacy take a back seat to metaphysics then you have confirmed your position as being based on merely a belief.”

—

Also Jill, it’s important to point out once more, that I am not “condemning” Atheism as many atheists wrongly presume.

I am merely correctly identifying it for what it is. A belief system that like Theism, cannot prove its founding tenet.

The doctrines of A-THEISM define it, as does reason, logic and fact.

The dictionaries of our written language merely supports those defintions.

Wittgenstein says language isn’t a metaphysical map. He means you can’t read metaphysical truths out of language. Any attempt to do so is a reading INTO language of metaphysics

Jill, the very suggestion of the statement, “metaphysicial truths”, if that were a position taken by an atheist in this debate, would conclude the matter in my favor.

“Metaphysics” is a “Philosophy”, not a science.

Hence, defining A-THEISM as a Philosophy concludes the question as to whether or not it merely represents the beliefs of its followers, in the affirmative.

To even make a statement that the dictates of language take second place to the dictates of what “metaphysical truths” is to project the same level of doctrinal zealousness as the Theist does in presenting their arguments.

Thus, if you have concluded that the Dictates of our scholastic sources of literacy, then you have confirmed your position as on merely founded in belief.

Metaphysical Truths are the bastion of the “believer” and not the scientist.

Thus is “Metaphysical truths” are your defense for the Dictionaries of our language not concurring with your personal defintions of the word A-THEIST as something more than a belief system, then you’ve already lost the debate.

Because you just defined A-THEISM as a philisophical argument, like THEISM, and NOT I”m afraid, a science.

An excellent point.

In fact, it is suprising how many Christians, particularly those of the “Evangelical” kind, are painfully not aware of the onset of the canon, the role of Constantine, James, and nature of the books assembled and translated, the Hampton court, etc.

Understanding that the Bible is a compilation of books selected by religious leaders from among a wide compilation of books, is a concept that is often unknown to the evangelicals.

Please stop poking the bear

Simply because you are unable to produce a coherent defense is no reason to insult me, nor speak of me openly in the third person with some perceived haughty superiority.

Being unable to present your position in a coherent manner does not merit such smuggery.

Most evangelical Christians misinterpret most of Revelations to be solely about the last days of the earth, whereas it does discuss the overall plan, most of it was allagorical to events happening at the time.”

CroMM,
Right on point. Rapt believers in many religions assume that the texts they use come to them whole, translated properly into their own language and are unedited revelations. Scholarship has shown this not to be true, without necessarily denigrating the faith.

“Brooks: “Did you ever hear of Billy Martin? Oh, he was just a guy who George Steinbrenner kept firing until he died …”

Mojo,
Didn’t see the movie, but love the quote. Billy Martin was at the head of the list of Steinbrenner’s sadism, although Bob Lemon, Bob Watson and various unknown office help complete the picture.

There is a philospher, Ludwig Wittgenstein, who may shed some light on this discussion. I don’t want to be involved in this issue past this post and I am not urging the adoption of Wittgenstein’s point of view. I bring him up because I think his views may be of interest.

Wittgenstein says language isn’t a metaphysical map. He means you can’t read metaphysical truths out of language. Any attempt to do so is a reading INTO language of metaphysics.

Please stop poking the bear. It’s pretty obvious that CroMM isn’t ever going to agree with you on this. All that your bringing it up accomplishes is making the rest of us (who probably agreed with you the first time you made the point) scroll past 4 or 5 posts (one of yours to three of his is about the average) that don’t have anything to do with the subject at hand.

People just have intellectual blind spots, you probably have one or two yourself, I’m sure that I have some. Once you figure out that there’s no way to get someone to listen to an opposing view point, it’s ussually best just to let them sit there with their fingers in their ears. That way they look ridiculous, not you.

Until someone actually discovers the disease, the creation, or even contemplation of that specific vaccine, would be pointless, as would any remote concept of the ingredients for the vaccine, as no concept of the disease had yet been realized.

It’s like the old George Carlin routine from his newscaster character; “doctors today reported discovering a new disease. This disease has no cause or symptoms and so far no one has contracted the disease”

If you have no concept or even acceptance of the existence of a disease, then you have no reason,nor methods, to produce a cure for it.

Since it, never existed.

Consider it like the paradox associate with time travel, like in the “Back to the Future” movies we are all so familiar with. The paradox facing Michael J Foxes character was that his presence deterred his father from ever marrying his mother, thus, he could not have been born. And if he could not have been born, then how could have have traveled back in time to disturb the events that led to his birth?

So to with Atheism. There is no reason, nor methods for disbelief in something that never was purported to ever exist.

Hence without Theism, there would be no catalyst for the creation of a doctrine that denied the tenets of Theism.

No Theism, no need or even concept, of Atheism.

Atheism therefore was the natural result and development, of Theism. Without the former, the latter would have had no need, nor catalyst, to come exist.

No. The two statements are nothing alike.

Rocks are not a belief system. Rocks are rocks.
Atheism is a system of belief, that first emerged as an accepted doctrine around the 5th Century BCE. Theism existed prior to that.

Atheism is not a rock. Although its followers can sometimes be as dense as one.

No one here of course…

I don’t see how sometimes you can be so eloquent, well spoken, and thoughtful, yet you tell me that atheists didn’t exist before the word atheism. That’s like saying rocks didn’t exist before the word rock. I don’t understand you at all.

If Diana actually believed that Christians are given a loving heart by God, how can Bush call himself a Christian and still decide to torture prisoners? Or kill hundred of thousands in Iraq? And, Diana, if you are really a believer in Christ, how can you tell another of God’s children to “go back where you came from?”

Thats right. Its a psuedo Christianity at best.

One doesn’t have to be a Christian or profess belief in Christianity to understand the basics tenets of Christianity, as provided in the 4 gospels by the head of Christianity, Jesus Christ. His commandments are published throughout the 4 gospels, and are written in easy to understand terms, even going as far to use parables such as parents use fairy tales to explain concepts to children.

Anyone claiming to be Christian, then advocating war, or torture, has obviously never read the words of the man whose name they claim to bear. And if they did read them, then they are just not very bright.

you are a tool. sorry.

you say go back to where you came from. i know plenty of “americans” as you see them who have generations of family here that feel the same way as the rest of us. where do they go? back to brooklyn?

i am both a fairly faithful christian, have slightly moderate to conservative views, and a taxpaying citizen. i have to say that what the yankees are doing is despicable. the whole auroa of “freedom fries” and “war on terror” was just a joke and a figurative crook to just control the sheep. i don;t like how people are either liberal or conservative i just think people should think for themselves. there are things i believe that are liberal and things that are conservative. i don’t subscribe myself to any preset group of beliefs of labels because i pick and choose what i personally believe and follow not because its the “conservative” or “christian” or “patriotic thing to do”

think about it hard diana, how can you force someone and chain them in to have to stand god bless america.

this is the scariest article i’ve ever read: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/sports/baseball/10stadium.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=sports&adxnnlx=1219860152-DlFgZe0c8R6kU6s8jv3o2A&oref=slogin

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20080702_private_contractors_in_iraq_to_lose_immunity/

With a performance like the one during this series, the Yankees had best be strong-arming people back into the stadium.

*****
Clearly, this is a case of Red ‘Soxism’.
They may be bums, but they are my bums!

Did you ever see the movie, “The Scout” with Albert Brooks? He plays a former scout for the Yankees who finds a ringer and attempts to manage the kid. I was reminded of a line from the movie when you laid out some of Steinbrenner’s ‘finer’ points.

Brooks: “Did you ever hear of Billy Martin? Oh, he was just a guy who George Steinbrenner kept firing until he died …”

“Christ is neither taught nor known in it.”

Martin Luther

As a good Christian don’t you recognize that Revelations doesn’t show Jesus as he was in the gospels?

In fact, Revelations isn’t even about Jesus, or his ministry, but deals mostly with persecutions of the Christian’s by the Romans.

Most evangelical Christians misinterpret most of Revelations to be solely about the last days of the earth, whereas it does discuss the overall plan, most of it was allagorical to events happening at the time.

A prime example is the Evangelical Christians common mistake of concluding that the numbers “666″ are some sort of sign of some predicted “Anti-Christ”, when in actuality, they are merely the numerical equivalent of the name of Nero in the Aramaic, using the Hebrew “Gematria”. The early Christian’s did this, to avoid further persecution by openly naming leaders who were antagonistic to the Christian religion.

The fact is, Revelations does not predict the events as they are occuring necessarily, but Christians use a common technique known as “matrixing”, which allows them to find correlation between unrelated events.

Of course, none of this would be a problem if Christian’s who believe this stuff weren’t “trying” to make it come true.

There is a school of thought in Evangelical Christianity that believes in the last days, the United States and Israel will stand alone, against the rest of the world.

And no doubt that the current Christian government we have in Bush, Cheney, Rice and the rest, have been and are actively seeking to make this a reality, by siding with Israel on practically everything to the chagrin of the rest of the world.

Self fulfilled prophecies are unfortunately, the norm.

Diana,
Whoever taught you that was ignorant of American History. The Founding Fathers particularly put in an amendment to separate religion from the government. They believed and stated that the involvement of government and religion was bad for each.

“If you choose not to believe or respect what this country was founded on….GO BACK WHERE YOU CAME FROM!!!!”

I’m not going anywhere because I do respect what this country was founded on and that is separation of church and state. It is a little harsh and certainly un-Christian of you to want to throw people out of the country, who don’t believe as you do, especially since you don’t understand the rules that govern us.

“Everything that Revelations says is happening just as God said.”

Literally dozens of times in the last 2,000 years people have made that statement and yet each time the Armageddon did not come. Most biblical scholars (Christians)feel that Revelations sould never have been in the Christian Canon since it is so unlike the teachings and writings of the Gospels and Paul. It was added to the Christian Canon in the 4th Century BCE at the Council of Nicea, by the Emperor Constantine, who wasn’t even a Christian. As a good Christian don’t you recognize that Revelations doesn’t show Jesus as he was in the gospels? The Romans were a warlike people. Political reasons dictated that Constantine embrace Christianity.
Revelations, probably written about 150 to 200 years after Jesus, presented him in a warlike manner to appeal to Roman sentiments. Those are just my beliefs, however, and if it comforts you to feel otherwise you are entitled to as an American and I would never interfere with your right to feel that way.

“I have a great love for you because I know the despair that you must be in.”

I am not in despair, nor am I a Christian. I am comfortable in my spiritual beliefs. One of which is that if God exists, the Deity has many ways to present a message of hope to the world. I truly hope that you find comfort in your religion and I wish you peace.
However, please let others be comfortable in their personal beliefs about life and the meaning of the Universe. The saintly people I have encountered in life, were never judgmental about the beliefs of others, nor would they try to make others adhere to their beliefs.

I don’t know you, I have a great love for you

AFTER saying this;

If you choose not to believe or respect what this country was founded on….
GO BACK WHERE YOU CAME FROM!!!!

Yes Diana.

Your “love” is apparent.

I forgot to mention. In all sincerity, thank you for your concern for my well being. Even though I disagree with you, I will take it on faith that your declaration of concern is sincere. I hope that you are as happy and free from despair as you would like me to be.

At what point does somewhere stop being your homeland? Is it after X number of generations? Maybe it’s after you now longer have X percent of genes in common with the populace. Or is it whenever you stop being tied culturally to that area? I like to cook some foods from my ancestral roots (there are a few), but culturally that’s about my only link. I don’t speak the languages, I don’t celebrate the holidays, I know some of history, but not much more then I know of most other European countries.

Actually the Constitution wasn’t “based” on a single idea. It’s a list of rules for the how the federal government works. A large chunk of it is what branch gets to do what, and how they get to go about doing it. If anything it was designed to try and keep the sort of things the founders didn’t like about other forms of government from happening. Part of what they didn’t like was the tying of religion and government that was so prevalent in the “old world.” Thus the First Amendment ban on the establishment of an official religion.

This is the United States of America. Therefore everyone in this country should know that the Constitution and the Amendments were based on One Nation Under God! It is on our U.S. currency. If you choose not to believe or respect what this country was founded on….
GO BACK WHERE YOU CAME FROM

Well Diana, it is true everyone should know the Constitution and the Amendments.

And we can start with you.

The Constitution was not based on “One Nation Under God”.

That statement, is an add on in the 1950’s by Zealot Christians much like yourself, to our Pledge of Allegiance.

The Constitution however makes it clear that religious belief has no place in governing the people, in the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

What’s further noteworthy, is not only your apparent ignorance of the Constitution which you claim to support, but your apparent ignorance of your own religion, which you claim to support.

If you are indeed a “Christian” as you so proudly profess, then you are no doubt aware that Jesus made it clear that civil government was seperate and distinct from his religion, or “gospel”.

Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s

Thus we see, that not only the Constitution, but the religion you profess to embrace, both admonish you to keep religion out of matters of state.

Can I get an “amen” from the congregation?

Where do the Native Americans go back to?

Yeah!

Good thing the Founding Fathers had a time machine and were able to look ahead to the 1950’s when they put “In God We Trust” on the currency; eh?

Etc.

Guthrie’s response to “God Bless America.”

If he was acting in no offical capacity, his actions as far as I can tell, constitute kidnapping.

As Mike Spindell pointed out;

To me this is as much an issue of assault and battery, as it is a violation of free speech. The man had to go to the bathroom. Was he supposed to urinate in his pants, so as not to disturb the solemnity of the song?

Indeed the person was assaulted if the officer was acting in no official capacity. But further, he physically restricted this persons movement and effectively “kidnapped” him for the duration of the song.

It would seem to me that incredible civil liability is evident if the officer was acting for and on behalf of the city or stadium, and if not, then criminal charges should be forthcoming.
It is a sad day indeed in America, when songs about America take precedence over the freedoms they are designed to herald.

I don’t even join in on the pledge. I refuse to take part in those 20 seconds of self brain washing. I stand quietly with my hands behind my back, and if I’m wearing one I take off my hat, But that’s out of respect for the etiquette of the situation. I understand that for some people it’s an important and I respect their right to make that sort of gesture, so I don’t disturb them. To me however, the idea that I should pledge my support anything, no matter what happens, is just wrong.

FYI: I don’t sing along with God Bless America at Fenway, and I may or may not stand up for it – depending on the amount of crap sent my way by other God Fearing Americans(tm), but I will never crack wise at someone else singing or standing for it. It boils down to personal choice and personal freedom. It is NOT the National Anthem. It is NOT the Pledge of Allegiance. It is just a song, and unless Ethel Merman is coming back to sing it – I’m not joining in.

I personally do not stand for the national anthem and refuse to recite the pledge of allegiance, at public events. This is precisely because I am a patriot and a person who loves this country. America should not be about phony symbolism and jingoism. It should be about a country, that despite falling far short of its’ ideals, is in the process of a unique experiment in human history. This gives me a further reason to stay out of Yankee Stadium.

Truth be told, as a lifelong baseball fan and New Yorker, I hate the Yankees. Beyond the team, I loathe George Steinbrenner, who is the quintessential example of being born on third base and thinking he hit a triple. This is the man who was guilty of giving illegal campaign contributions to Richard Nixon. A man who delights in humiliating his employees, firing and then rehiring them, only to fire them again. A man who inherited the largest shipbuilding company in the world and bankrupted it with his incompetence.

He bought the most valuable baseball team in the world for $10 million, a bargain price, from CBS. The real buyer, deal maker and president of the ballclub was to be his friend Michael Burke, who he then dumped. Burke was the one who convinced him to buy the club.
Steinbrenner is a thoroughly loathsome man, whose son Hank now carries on his father’s excess. That this team is Rudy Giulani’s favorite, says all that needs to be said about it.

And what the fuck, that’s not even the national anthem. Next thing you know they’ll be man-handling people for farting during some stupid redneck song at a NASCAR race.

nothing.

Again, it’s time/manner/place. Shouting down the guy on the street corner who’s rallying people to sign a recall petition is one thing. Shutting down the guys with bullhorns standing outside of a funeral is another.