Notice how many gods you reject.

[Branden Albert's Huge Balls]

Proof #28 - Notice how many gods you reject

There are literally thousands of religions being practiced today. Here are 20 of the most popular, along with an estimate of the number of followers:

Christianity: 2.1 billion
Islam: 1.3 billion
Hinduism: 900 million
Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
Buddhism: 376 million
African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
Sikhism: 23 million
Juche: 19 million
Spiritism: 15 million
Judaism: 14 million
Baha'i: 7 million
Jainism: 4.2 million
Shinto: 4 million
Cao Dai: 4 million
Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
Tenrikyo: 2 million
Neo-Paganism: 1 million
Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
Scientology: 500 thousand

[Source: Encyclopedia Britannica]

If you believe in God, you have chosen to reject Allah, Vishnu, Budda, Waheguru and all of the thousands of other gods that other people worship today. It is quite likely that you rejected these other gods without ever looking into their religions or reading their books. You simply absorbed the dominant faith in your home or in the society you grew up in.

In the same way, the followers of all these other religions have chosen to reject God. You think their gods are imaginary, and they think your God is imaginary.

In other words, each religious person on earth today arbitrarily rejects thousands of gods as imaginary, many of which he/she has never even heard of, and arbitrarily chooses to "believe" in one of them.

The following quote from Stephen F. Roberts sums up the situation very nicely:

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

A rational person rejects all human gods equally, because all of them are equally imaginary.

How do we know that they are imaginary? Simply imagine that one of them is real.

If one of these thousands of gods were actually real, then his followers would be experiencing real, undeniable benefits. These benefits would be obvious to everyone. The followers of a true god would pray, and their prayers would be answered. The followers of a true god would therefore live longer, have fewer diseases, have lots more money, etc.

There would be thousands of statistical markers surrounding the followers of a true god.

Everyone would notice all of these benefits, and they would gravitate toward this true god. And thus, over the course of several centuries, everyone would be aligned on the one true god. All the other false gods would have fallen by the wayside long ago, and there would be only one religion under the one true god.

When we look at our world today, we see nothing like that. There are two billion Christians AND there are more than one billion Muslims, and their religions are mutually exclusive. There are thousands of other religions. When you analyze any of them, they all show a remarkable similarity -- there is zero evidence that any of these gods exist.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by stevieray

ahhh. my context was here on the board...therefore our miscommunication!

It all good bro talk to you later~

[BucEyedPea]

The original and the many amended versions:

The original Virginia Constitution of 1776 was enacted in conjunction with the Declaration of Independence by the first thirteen states of the United States of America. Virginia was the first state to adopt its own constitution, and the document was widely influential both in the United States and abroad.[1] In addition to frequent amendments, there have been six major subsequent revisions of the constitution (in 1830, 1851, 1864, 1870, 1902, and the one currently in effect, in 1971). These new constitutions have been part of, and in reaction to, periods of major regional or social upheaval in Virginia.

Seems like it evolved and added amendments to handle things. Some of the evolutions paralleled things that our national Constitution evolved out of such as property owners being able to vote. I don't see that it was "deeply flawed " since it was amended as needed. It's around 1902 when the people brought Jim Crow laws into the state. But Woodrow Wilson also brought Jim Crow to Washington D.C. and segregated bathrooms in the WH etc.

The original one had the Virginia Declaration of Rights. Later expanded to include more from the national BoRs such as due process.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Virginia

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Were they "deeply flawed?" If so how.

Off the top of my head, voting was limited to men who owned land or had wealth.

I think asking: "What does this mean?" would be a good starting point.

When people say this is a Christian "nation" it applies generally to the people of this country as well as the people who founded it—not the federal govt.

As in our law, the foundation of our society, isn't Christian in nature. Sure, any group of like minded people can affect local law. If that law becomes bothersome to the minority there are actions that the minority can take. That law can even be brought all the way to the Supreme Court and rendered invalid if it is deemed unconstitutional.

I don't see how anyone can really make this claim as an absolute, which is just not obtainable.
Why should secular humanists have the right to impose their beliefs via policy or law?
Or atheists their atheism? It don't see how it is any different.

The fact is all law, save for procedural, is based on someone's values whether they come from humanism or religion. It's hard to absolutely perfectly neutral in policy or law. Fact is some personal behaviors do wind up on other people's plates—especially in a welfare state.

See, that's the thing. It has nothing to do with secular humanism or atheism either. It simply means that religious beliefs aren't going to dictate law. "Because God said so" isn't a good enough reason. Neither is "Because I think that's what God really meant" or "Because I hate Christmas." If your religious beliefs cause you to want to vote in a certain way you already have a voice. Your religious beliefs are irrelevant to the law itself, the legislators just need your input regardless of why you feel the way you do.

[listopencil]

BEP- I'm not meaning to ignore you but I have a busy night around the house tonight. Dad's Taxi Service is in full swing. I'll try to come back to this thread when I have more time.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Off the top of my head, voting was limited to men who owned land or had wealth.


As in our law, the foundation of our society, isn't Christian in nature. Sure, any group of like minded people can affect local law. If that law becomes bothersome to the minority there are actions that the minority can take. That law can even be brought all the way to the Supreme Court and rendered invalid if it is deemed unconstitutional.



See, that's the thing. It has nothing to do with secular humanism or atheism either. It simply means that religious beliefs aren't going to dictate law. "Because God said so" isn't a good enough reason. Neither is "Because I think that's what God really meant" or "Because I hate Christmas." If your religious beliefs cause you to want to vote in a certain way you already have a voice. Your religious beliefs are irrelevant to the law itself, the legislators just need your input regardless of why you feel the way you do.

I was going to reply to this babbling nonsense but was too lazy. Now if she wants to talk uncounted votes and a election being lost over it, or the pending peace between Jews and Iran I am in! Sadly she is not responding to those threads~

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Off the top of my head, voting was limited to men who owned land or had wealth.

That's no different than the national level in the early days. Nor could women vote.
I have to say at this point in time, keeping some property ties may have prevented some of the crimes against property that we have today by govt from the Progressive era and Marxism creeping in. It's one of the few natural rights that never seems to be protected by the incorporation doctrine.

As in our law, the foundation of our society, isn't Christian in nature. Sure, any group of like minded people can affect local law.

Sorry, I'm gonna have to disagree with this part.The foundations of our society were Christian in nature because that's who originally populated the New World, due to many of coming here for religious freedom. The Puritans persecuted the Quakers because they thought they were heretics...in fact anyone who wasn't Anglican but that eventually ended. Six of the American colonies were founded for religious reasons. Eventually the colonies were a patchwork of diverse religious communities. These colonies are the early foundations of our states and society including at the time of the ratification and early Republic. Your claim took root in the modern era and I say it's stems from the influence of the cultural Marxists.

If that law becomes bothersome to the minority there are actions that the minority can take. That law can even be brought all the way to the Supreme Court and rendered invalid if it is deemed unconstitutional.

No it wasn't always that way. Before then it had to be natural right...not just something that was or is bothersome to some minority. No law pleases everyone. The Framers and even courts have always held that areas of crime and morality were to be left to the states per other Amendments.

Another reason I say it wasn't always this way is because the 14th Amendment was not adopted until 80 years after the ratification of the Constitution. Even then that was narrowly construed at first ( it was written for black people not for privacy) but slowly was usurped in the modern era, expanding it under liberal construction... then using the incorporation doctrine with the BoRs. I'd argue at this point it's been abused because it's destroying federalism. Yet, it's more accepted but it's bogus.

It seems you have bought into the left's idea of a living constitution where anything bothersome is some natural right and/or that the incorporation doctrine is bonafide. Many original constructionists argue this is bogus, per the notes from the original convention, and the expressed fear that the states would not being left alone. It's part of the centralization of power that the Framers warned against and the Federalists assured would not happen—but has.

There are libertarian centralizers though. Like Roger Pilon and Randy Barnett. Constitutionalists, who are also libertarians, like Woods and Paul disagree with them.

See, that's the thing. It has nothing to do with secular humanism or atheism either. It simply means that religious beliefs aren't going to dictate law.

I disagree because there's no such thing as perfect neutrality. There's no such thing as saying beliefs can't dictate, no matter their origin, won't ever dictate law. They always do to some degree. You can't separate it as if it's two-valued logic. There are always going to be overlaps.

"Because God said so" isn't a good enough reason. Neither is "Because I think that's what God really meant" or "Because I hate Christmas." If your religious beliefs cause you to want to vote in a certain way you already have a voice. Your religious beliefs are irrelevant to the law itself, the legislators just need your input regardless of why you feel the way you do.

Which can come from religious beliefs or anti-religious sentiments. Religious people are capable of using reason to defend some of those positions instead of just saying "God said so." It's not black and white there either. What is good or bad; right or wrong are opinions though.

I think it has to be excessive entanglement with religion like a theological denominational point. Like Prostestant Dispensationalists wanting armageddon in the ME so they can convert and perfect Jews. That to me is excessive entanglement.

Not "In God We Trust", chaplains, the frieze in the Supreme Court building, Thanksgiving originally being a national day of prayer and thanks, Christmas being a national holiday or religious creches on local town property.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by listopencil

BEP- I'm not meaning to ignore you but I have a busy night around the house tonight. Dad's Taxi Service is in full swing. I'll try to come back to this thread when I have more time.

That's okay I'm supposed to be packing for a long drive to Charlotte NC and I am goofy off here instead.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by stevieray

...proves nothing about being in a relationship with God.

It proves how Muslims view their relationship with God. It is personal.

[La literatura]

Yeah, I would like to know what you think the "unveiling" that will happen soon is, stevieray.

[stevieray]

Originally Posted by Literature

It proves how Muslims view their relationship with God. It is personal.

that's great...there are plenty of Christians who think they have a relationship with Christ and God..but don't..also doesn't prove that allah is in a personal relationship with
them...do muslims consider him Father? do they consider themselves his children? does allah tell them he loves them? or is allahs "love" based on their works?

[Brock]

Originally Posted by stevieray

that's great...there are plenty of Christians who think they have a relationship with Christ and God..but don't..also doesn't prove that allah is in a personal relationship with
them...do muslims consider him Father? do they consider themselves his children? does allah tell them he loves them? or is allahs "love" based on their works?

Do they have to prove it to you beyond what's stated in the Koran? Can such a thing be proven by anyone? Because you started this facet of your argument saying that Muslims cannot have a personal relationship with their god, when clearly they can and do. Can you simply not admit you were wrong about what Islam teaches?

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by stevieray

that's great...there are plenty of Christians who think they have a relationship with Christ and God..but don't..also doesn't prove that allah is in a personal relationship with
them...do muslims consider him Father? do they consider themselves his children? does allah tell them he loves them? or is allahs "love" based on their works?

Muslims believe God loves them, is compassionate and merciful towards them. (As a valid point of contention, however, there seems to be much less love from God in the Koran towards non-Muslims than the love God is said to have for everyone from a traditional Christian perspective).

For the reasons Jews consider God a "Father," and them His children, Muslims hold similar beliefs. However, calling God "Father" as you do is particularly Christian, being that the religion holds Jesus Christ as a second person of God, the Son of God.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by Literature

Muslims believe God loves them, is compassionate and merciful towards them. (As a valid point of contention, however, there seems to be much less love from God in the Koran towards non-Muslims than the love God is said to have for everyone from a traditional Christian perspective).

For the reasons Jews consider God a "Father," and them His children, Muslims hold similar beliefs. However, calling God "Father" as you do is particularly Christian, being that the religion holds Jesus Christ as a second person of God, the Son of God.

So what is your take on the trinity? This is not a setup question, just curious. I know you are catholic although I have read open minded posts by you. Not necessarily taking those stances but giving acknowledgement to the other beliefs~

[stevieray]

Originally Posted by Literature

Muslims believe God loves them, is compassionate and merciful towards them.

For the reasons Jews consider God a "Father," and them His children, Muslims hold similar beliefs.

There is nothing to back this up, other than "works". Which God sees as filthy rags.

...this is just your personal opinion, and only recently coming to the forefront.

btw.... do you still believe Jesus is the Son of God?

[Fish]

Originally Posted by stevieray

There is nothing to back this up, other than "works". Which God sees as filthy rags.

...this is just your personal opinion, and only recently coming to the forefront.

No offense, but how is it different than what you wrote?