 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: Bill D Date: 25 Jan 09 - 07:21 PM hmmmm...I missed that, Ebbie. I dunno.... it's more than a 'simple' typo would be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Jan 09 - 08:05 PM Ebbie, here are the answers to your questions. Yes, Canadian ministers and prime ministers do each take an oath of office. It can be stated 2 ways, it seems. You can "swear" or you can "declare" that you will do thus and so and be loyal to thus and so. If you swear, then you can end it with "so help me God". If you declare, however, then you don't bother with the "so help me God", so it's your choice whether to put God in the equation or not. Here are the details of the various oaths: Canadian Oaths of office Oath of Allegiance I, __________, do swear (declare) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors. So help me God. The Oath of the Members of the Privy Council I, __________, do solemnly and sincerely swear (declare) that I shall be a true and faithful servant to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, as a member of Her Majesty's Privy Council for Canada. I will in all things to be treated, debated and resolved in Privy Council, faithfully, honestly and truly declare my mind and my opinion. I shall keep secret all matters committed and revealed to me in this capacity, or that shall be secretly treated of in Council. Generally, in all things I shall do as a faithful and true servant ought to do for Her Majesty. So help me God. Oath of Office (of a minister or prime minister) I, _________, do solemnly and sincerely promise and swear (declare) that I will truly and faithfully, and to the best of my skill and knowledge, execute the powers and trusts reposed in me as ........... So help me God. Note: Individuals may choose to affirm their oath. In those cases, the word "swear" is replaced by the word "declare" and the expression "So help me God." is omitted. **** So, if the prime minister wanted to and it was Bill Shatner, he could, for example, say, "I, William Shatner, do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will truly and faithfully, and to the best of my skill and knowledge, execute the powers and trusts reposed in me as Prime Minister." Period. That would be if he chose to declare it, and not mention God in any way. But the really big difference from the USA is this: 1. It's not a great big huge public event (I have no recollection of ever seeing any Canadian prime minister take an oath of office...it just happens quietly the day after the election, and it happens in some government setting or in the governor-general's office or something like that. 2. It doesn't cost anything to do it. ;-) It's just a legal formality that involves very few people and takes about half a minute. As you can see, the English Queen (or King) is considered the titular head of state. She never does anything here, though. She doesn't affect anything here. She doesn't tell our Canadian government what to do or anything like that...she is just a symbolic head of state...like a living crest or flag or something symbolic like that which is a leftover from an ancient tradition. When I was a kid, I thought it was neat having a Queen. Kids are more openhearted and less cynical when it comes to stuff like that. They haven't developed pet political grudges to chew on yet, generally speaking, the way you find later when they have become adults. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: Riginslinger Date: 25 Jan 09 - 08:05 PM It says a lot for the day that Eisenhower had to "look around" for a church to cling to prior to running for president. Today a candidate would have to have those ducks lined up way before the event, and if he/she happened to belong to something out of mainstream like Mormon Romney, there will be a lot of trouble over it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp Date: 25 Jan 09 - 08:30 PM You got that right, Rig. We are livin' in pretty crummy times, I hafta say that. You can't leave nothin' to chance no more cos some muckraker will dig it up and turn it into front page news. I been havin' troubles like that too. Somethin' about various offhand remarks I made about women or gorillas in the past that didn't mean nothin' at the time, but you know how people are. Everyone's got a chip on their shoulder these days. - Chongo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: Ebbie Date: 25 Jan 09 - 08:55 PM Evidently Canada has not always been as lackadaisical about the significance of an oath. 'Twas Not Always Thus And another: "MICHAEL McATEER would really like to become a Canadian citizen. The 75-year-old retired journalist was born and raised in Whitehall in Dublin, but has lived in Canada since 1964. He has resisted taking citizenship, citing the 45-word ceremonial oath that includes a pledge "to be faithful and bear true allegiance to her majesty queen Elizabeth the second, queen of Canada, her heirs and successors". "The self-described republican explains that it is a matter of conscience for him. "I know a lot of Irish people would mumble over the oath or cross their fingers while saying it," said McAteer, who says the idea of a monarchy is "anathema" to him. "But if I am forced to take an oath, it's binding. I can't take an oath I don't believe in." "McAteer is one of four permanent residents of Canada who yesterday asked the province of Ontario's Superior Court of Justice to certify a class-action lawsuit. They allege that Canada's citizenship oath violates their freedom of conscience, a fundamental right under the nation's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, by compelling would-be citizens to "express allegiance and faithfulness to a royal family and/or a monarchical form of government". For Country- But Not for Queen |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Jan 09 - 09:52 PM It clearly has significance in a legal sense, Ebbie. What I'm saying is that it is not a huge public ceremonial event in Canada that engages the interest of the ordinary public. It's just a technical formality that has to be done within the government itself, that's all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: Ron Davies Date: 25 Jan 09 - 11:08 PM LH-- I note with interest that "So help me, God" seems to be in the oaths taken by Canadian PM's etc. It seems this would be a serious problem for any avowed atheist. And implies pretty strongly that there has never been an atheist PM in Canada--unsurprisingly. Nor is there ever likely to be. Unless they were willing to do a Henri IV. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: Ron Davies Date: 25 Jan 09 - 11:11 PM Or do you know of any who have taken the "declare" not "swear" route? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: Ron Davies Date: 25 Jan 09 - 11:23 PM And there is also a huge difference between the aggressive atheism of some Mudcatters and and a certain skepticism on religious matters. It would be eminently sensible for people to say they are not sure about the existence of God--agnosticism, it seems, is the reasonable stance for anybody who thinks about this sort of question and wants to rely on empirical knowledge. But atheism--saying there is proof there is no God--is just as unsupportable as a literal interpretation of the Bible. Because in fact there is no proof, nor could there ever be--of either extreme. And I suspect thinking people in Canada as much as in the US have reached this conclusion----and Canadians, since they do not identify with extremists of any stripe, have never and would never elect somebody who is an avowed atheist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Jan 09 - 12:37 AM There are all sorts of atheists, Ron. Some are extreme, some are not. To be an atheist does not necessarily mean you think you can PROVE there is no God...it just means you think there isn't one. You have that opinion. It doesn't presuppose empirical proof. You are quite right, though, that the Canadian population is very unlikely to vote in someone they view as an extremist, and an aggressively outspoken atheist would appear so. People tend to go for the moderate center here if they possibly can, and the politicians are usually quite willing to provide a semblance of exactly that. ;-) It is entirely optional whether or not one says "so help me God" in those oaths. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if some have not said it, but you wouldn't hear about it much, because most people here wouldn't even be interested to know. It wouldn't be a big deal, and most people wouldn't care. The number of people who would care is not large enough to intimidate our politicians. The majority of the Canadian public seems to much prefer NOT to be told what a politician's religious views are. They figure that's a private matter (and in my opinion it is). They'd rather hear about his views on fiscal policy, foreign policy, employment issues, national unity, and other practical stuff like that. Thus we presently have the amusing situation here of a Conservative Prime Minister who is apparently an evangelical Christian, but he is doing everthing he can to avoid drawing attention to it...because it would just lose him votes if he drew attention to it! I think the contrast to the situation in the USA could hardly be more dramatic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 26 Jan 09 - 09:26 AM Ron Davies said, in part: But atheism--saying there is proof there is no God--is just as unsupportable as a literal interpretation of the Bible. Ron, as a person who has to describe himself as an atheist I have to quarrel with that statement, or at least the part before the second dash. As phrased, it comes across as being a definition of atheism, and as such is defective. Atheism is merely saying, "I'm convinced (or 'of the opinion') that there is no god." Note lower case g. It's certainly true that there are a lot of atheists who make the assertion that "there is proof there is no God", which I agree with you is insupportable, but such an extreme position is not a sine qua non of atheism. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: DMcG Date: 26 Jan 09 - 10:02 AM In passing, it is worth remarking the in the UK the oath of allegiance exists in a form with and without reference to God ... (but natually is about loyalty to the Queen, not abou the best interests of the country or anything like that!) And generally politicians do not like to be linked to religion ... its one of the few thing that ever embarrassed Tony Blair. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Jan 09 - 01:04 PM Whereas in the USA they seem to have to be linked to religion to be electable. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: Riginslinger Date: 26 Jan 09 - 01:20 PM Which would explain why the US is bogged down in Iraq, and Canada is not! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: Stringsinger Date: 26 Jan 09 - 02:09 PM Ebbie, it's interesting to note that Warren is a true man of Fraud. And a homophobe. Fraud blessed America with the recent bailout. A-women! Dave, the notion that there is a specific or unspecific god is equally unsupportable. Ron Davies, the problem is that unbelievers are not given the credibility that is proffered to the sanctimonious. The other aspect is that science is now coming around to test the validity of the theory that there is a god. So far, it looks like science is showing that the notion of traditional "gods" may not hold empirically. You also can't prove inconclusively that there is no Santa Claus. (The logical fallacy here is that you can't prove a negative.) Dave O, I think that atheists pretty much disagree on everything and it's like herding cats. For example, I believe the Communism was a religion under Stalin and in today in China. I think any political "cult" can be interpreted as religious with fanatical followers defining it. Reason's Greetings to all. Ssngr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Jan 09 - 04:43 PM Of course Communism was a religion...just not a God-based religion, that's all. It was (and is) a political religion. The same can be said of Naziism, Fascism, and that nebulous set of grand expectations called "the American Way". ;-) They are all political religions, complete with a set of sacred historical figures for inspiration, some sacred documents, and some sacred symbols for the worshipful masses to focus upon and defend with their lives. Whether or not "God" enters into the picture can vary. You can base a political religion on "God"...or on atheism...or on the profit motive...or on sheer pragmatism...or on anything else that provides a powerful motivator. The notion that there is...or is not...a god cannot be proven or disproven, it is a matter of subjective opinion. The same is true of the notion of romantic love. Does it exist? Or is it a fantasy? The answer is a purely subjective matter and cannot be proven or disproven in any empirical fashion. Why? Because the idea of god and the idea of romantic love both concern inner perceptions...not outwardly objective phenomena that can be measured. One man's inner perception may be another man's sheer fantasy, but that doesn't mean the inner perception isn't real....it's just not a physically observable phenomenon, that's all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: GUEST,Slag Date: 26 Jan 09 - 04:45 PM Well, I was going to be flip and just post "No atheists, so help me God!" But then read Virginia Tam's message near the beginning and it prompted me to add this from a Christian perspective: Atheist and agnostics take the same position that human reason is superior to all things. If God cannot be "proved" either He doesn't exist or the jury is still out on the question. If God can be attained to or discovered via reason, via human logic, then only the brilliant minded, the "rational", the elite, would know God. The average Joe would be tough out of luck. The knowledge of God comes after "faith" in God. It is antecedent. It is revelation and NOT perception. Most folks who do come to a knowledge of God do so only after they have exhausted all human resources in their desperate quest. They find Him because they have come to understand their NEED for Him. We Christians are a needy lot. We have sought relief from sin and guilt, from futility and death. We have come to the end of ourselves and turned in the aforementioned desperation, to the One whom we hope will be able to save us. And joy of all joys, He didn't strike us down but lifted us up, cleaned us off and gave us new life that will never end. The Christian faith and experience goes far beyond what simple, inadequate logic can do for us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: Riginslinger Date: 26 Jan 09 - 05:03 PM When we suffer from lack of intellect and abandon logic we turn to other things, opiates, alcohol, religion... The list is endless. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 26 Jan 09 - 05:03 PM Stringsinger said, Dave, the notion that there is a specific or unspecific god is equally unsupportable. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the above assertion, but Jupiter was a god (whether one thinks he actually existed as an entity or not), Thor was a god on the same basis, Baal was a god ditto, and Jehovah was (or "is", if that's what you want to think) a god ditto. (Lower case g, a member of the class "god"). Thus the Greeks and Romans and Norse had gods, even though I don't believe there is/was a referent entity for any of those god-names. And YHWH is a god on that same basis, I think. In our culture, generally when one uses that monosyllable one is referring in short form to that god in Judaeo-Christian belief, Jehovah or Yahweh or YHWH, both for brevity and because our tradition commands the avoidance of pronouncing or writing the sacred name, and the ordinary class-noun "god" becomes in effect a name-substitute, a proper noun, and is rendered as "God", capitalized to show that we're referring to THAT god. But God, capitalized, is not a name, it's proper noun, though we habitually handle it as if it were a name. It's conventionally capitalized, just as the words "Him" and "He" are capitalized in referring to that putative deity, for the same reason. If I, as an avowed atheist, have reason to refer in print to the Judaeo-Christian deity with that monosyllable, I will capitalize it, "God", not subscribing to "His" existence, but so that you and I and Charlie's Uncle know that I'm referring to that specific (though unbelieved-in) deity. If I refer to "a god", lower case, you are given to know that I'm referring to a member of the general class. An atheist is one who doesn't believe in the actual existence of a god--ANY god, whether Zeus, Thor, Mazda, Krishna, Bella, Friga, or Jehovah, et al. On a somewhat related subject, the Islamic reference to their believed-in one-and-only deity, "Allah", is etymologically "the god", as I understand it--thus, "The one and only member of the class, god", but it's a reference or description, not a name as such. Can't remember where I learned that. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Jan 09 - 05:10 PM You're quite right, Slag, that the basic error most "rationalists" make is that they assume that human reason is superior to all things. Their faith in that concept is adamant and unshakeable. The god they worship is rationality itself, their god is the human mind....themselves, in effect, at the level of their own mind. That's the most common error made by human beings, and it is the crux of how the ego functions (the ego being that which says: "I am separate from everything else around me.") (It also implicitly says: "I'm the most important one here, and my needs come first." although it may not always openly admit to that. It may pretend to be quite impartial.) The objective of most Eastern religions is to free human beings finally from the tyrranny of their own separated ego, the self-ruling endlessly chattering mind, and to attain oneness with something much greater, something that can be termed "the One" or "God" or "Life" or "existence" or "pure being" or "enlightenment" or "Self-realization". In that state one loves others as oneself and without prejudice...one does not engage in egotistical preferences or competitive ego games...and a careful study of the New Testament reveals that that is what Jesus was demonstrating and teaching. It is, however, totally futile talking about this with anyone who still believes in the power of the mind above all else and wants to work only on the level of his mind...because he'll think you are talking complete nonsense about something unreal...and you'll think the same of him! ;-) Therefore, why worry about it? Let those who wish to work on the level of their mind only enjoy themselves doing so, and don't dispute with them about it. It only leads to a lot of arguing, ego jousting, and verbal battles for supremacy, not to mention hurt feelings...and no one ends up thinking any differently than they did when it started. They just end up hating each other. ;-) Bill D and I have been going through that for years on this forum, and I know how profitless it is to fall into the temptation of beating the old dead horse one more time...just to "prove" that you're right and someone else is "wrong". They'll never believe you. You'll never believe them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: GUEST,Slag Date: 26 Jan 09 - 05:38 PM And speaking of oaths: In the Torah there are at least three main types of oaths. There was one known as the "Salt Covenant". Salt was a scarce commodity in that day and one can not live without it. Those folks carried their salt in a little leather pouch usually worn like a necklace. If a salt covenant was made the two men (only men could make an oath) would take and mingle their salt together and then reapportion it and say something like "until you can separate your salt from mine our pact stays in effect". Pretty neat, eh? Another most solemn and irreversible oath was the "Blood Covenant" which involved the sacrifice of an animal and halving it and passing between the halves. It is rather involved and heavy with symbolism and theology which I'd rather not get involved with at this point. Needless to say it was very permanently binding. There are others but the third one I wanted to mention can be seen in Jacob's final blessing of his children. The KJV has it that they grasped each others thighs but what it really involved was each participant would take hold of each others scrotum and swear by the "sack of life". You may laugh but the practice was quite widespread in the day and for most of history in Greece and the Middle Eastern environs. It is where we get our word "testimony" from, the testicles. Why couldn't the presidential oath of office involve something like that? Attendance would be WAY up! In the Book of Mathew, chapter 5, verse 33 and on Jesus is saying, "Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, 'Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths' But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be 'Yea,yea; Nay,nay' for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." So there! I agree with the atheists. Skip the "...so help me God." Unless the person is truly seeking God's help. And if that IS the case, she or he doesn't need to make a public spectacle of it. They can seek out God in the privacy of their own hearts, away from the camera and the crowds. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: GUEST,Slag Date: 26 Jan 09 - 05:48 PM Right on LH. You have to get outside yourself to see or even begin to see yourself. Unfortunately a lot that goes by the name "Christian" does not see this. To me, that goes under the heading "...in name only." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Jan 09 - 06:03 PM Yes indeed. Your description of the oaths in the Torah is fascinating...and in the case of the scrotum-grabbing oath...amusing! To simply give one's word (a simple "yes" or "no") should be enough among honest people....and if one is not honest, then what possible good can it do to go through the outer exercise of a ritualized oath of some kind? (It will only end up being broken regardless, in all probability.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: Stringsinger Date: 27 Jan 09 - 11:13 AM Dave O, none of these gods really existed. They were myths. Well, OK myths exist but they are not reality-based or scientifically verifiable. They were stories, parables, metaphors but not physical entities. Of course what I meant is that these myths are unsupportable by science as being real entities as in flesh and blood or physical properties. Myths do serve a function in society as Joseph Campbell has pointed out. But they are not physically real entities and as a result function as ideas, metaphors, instructions, parables etc. I also understand Campbell when he says that society needs "our myths". I can go along with the need for some of them. Religion per se has come to mean an institutional body that supports churches, synagogues, mosques etc. I personally see no difference between any of the major religions and the "cults" that are often mentioned. There is a cultural aspect to religion and this may be separate from actual belief in any religion. Atheism mean no belief in a god. That's all it means in spite of some attempts to define it as a fundamentalist belief system. There is no belief system at all in atheism. Agnosticism is an attempt to not come to grips with the issue. There is a growing branch of what I would call Anti-theism which characterizes the criticism by Christopher Hitchens. I think Anti-theism is not supportable by the nature of the US Constitution which allows flat-earth societies and moon-made-of-green-cheese cults. Anti-theism goes aggressively after religion and arises from it's dictates which attempts to make non-believers "wrong". Atheism in my opinion is consistent with the First Amendment. It's fine for me if people want to have a personal belief in whatever as long as 1. They don't insist on cramming it down other's throats and 2. It's their personal thing like their sex lives. Personally, I am not interested in other people's religion or their sex lives unless it enters the realm of scientific or historical study. I don't care to capitalize on Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: Little Hawk Date: 27 Jan 09 - 12:12 PM Sensible comments, Strinsinger. I would disagree on one point, though, where you say: "There is no belief system at all in atheism." To the contrary, everyone holds a great variety of their own unique belief systems...regarding almost every aspect of their own lives, their cultural makeup, their family, their emotional life, their philosophical viewpoints, etc. That is to say, life isn't just a question of what you know on a factual basis. That's part of life, to be sure, but life is also a great deal more than that for any living being which can think, and experience emotion. In addition to the known and verifiable facts which can be physically proven, everyone holds a vast number of implicit beliefs and assumptions about themselves, others, and life, assumptions which cannot be...or at least have not yet been...physically proven. This is also true of atheists. Atheists, like other people, assume a great deal, they do not simply catalog verifiable facts (as a machine would), they also then extrapolate further assumptions and beliefs on top of those facts. They all, in my opinion, are wedded to their own mythologies...those which support their general attitude...but they often take those mythologies to be entirely real. Freudian or Jungian psychology could shed some light on that, I'm sure. Atheists also can and do fantasize about a great variety of things, but their fantasies will not allow or accept the premise of a "god", that's all. ;-) Consider, for example, the political/social fantasies that Pol Pot's administration engaged in, or Stalin's, or Mao Tse-Tung's...and they were all diehard atheists. Heh! "I flippin' rest my case!" (to quote my old buddy Shane...) Mythology is NOT limited to god-based religions. Furthermore, agnosticism is NOT "an attempt to not come to grips with the issue", it is an indication that a person has enough humility to admit that he doesn't know for sure... I think such humility is very commendable, because most people definitely do not know enough to know for sure about the greater questions of existence itself or even the burning practical issues of their own time. There's a great deal they don't know for sure and they ought to just admit it for a change, instead of pretending they do know. I think it is their own insecurity that makes so many people dogmatically pretend to have absolute certainty about this or that great subject when in fact they usually know only a few fragments of what there is to know about it. They are the largely ignorant yet apparently confident, those with just enough superficial knowledge and experience to give them the confidence to be arrogant and lofty, pretending desperately to be "in the know" in order to convince themselves and others that their position is unassailable and they are fully in control of it...when it's actually anything but. ;-) This is true of a great many atheists, it's also true of a great many religious people, and the more insecure they are the less tolerant they will be of anyone holding a differing view... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 27 Jan 09 - 02:10 PM Stringsinger said: Dave O, none of these gods really existed. They were myths. Exactly. You and I can agree that they never "physically" (or metaphysically) existed, and I didn't say that Mazda, Jupiter, Krishna, Friga, YHWH, and their ilk actually exist(ed). But the ideas represented by those names were and in some cases are real enough to those who believe(d); their belief and influence exist(ed). And that's what a god is. They had their own sort of reality in the cultures involved. And that's what my recent post was mainly about: I find it meaningful to go along with our culture in capitalizing "God" when it is used in our culture to refer to the Judaeo-Christian god as a name substitute, and not when that three-letter word refers merely to one of the class of ideational "objects". Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: gnu Date: 27 Jan 09 - 02:13 PM 226 posts? Good God! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: GUEST,Blind DRunk in Blind River Date: 27 Jan 09 - 02:52 PM Holy FLIP! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: Riginslinger Date: 27 Jan 09 - 09:41 PM I'll be ready to back the candidate that repeats after the cheif justice, "So Help Me Flying Spaghetti Monster." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: Bill D Date: 27 Jan 09 - 10:26 PM ??? That makes as much sense as "Holy FLIP! " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: Riginslinger Date: 28 Jan 09 - 12:14 PM Or as "so help me god!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: Stringsinger Date: 28 Jan 09 - 02:39 PM Dave, I take your point which is for the purposes of communication. I choose, however, not to refer to the capitalization because it gives the concept too much weight. I also have a problem calling people reverend because I don't revere them personally or what they may believe. To the issue of "so help me god", I believe that it is a recent addition along with the 1954 "in god we trust" on coins and "under god" in the pledge of allegiance. There is too much "goddy stuff" in the government today and in speeches that are intended for the general public by sycophantic politicians. Stsngr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: Little Hawk Date: 28 Jan 09 - 03:46 PM I think that all the phrase "so help me God" means in common usage when most people us it is this: "I want to particularly stress and emphasize in the deepest seriousness that I DID mean what I just said." So lighten up, guys. It's not a big deal. If I was taking the presidential oath, I'd deliberately say it just to bug the lot of you! ;-) (but not because I am one bit worried about God's part in the whole thing) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: Riginslinger Date: 28 Jan 09 - 06:38 PM "I'd deliberately say it just to bug the lot of you! ;-)" Which is exactly why Roberts and Obama did it! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: Georgiansilver Date: 28 Jan 09 - 06:41 PM God made you!!!! prove otherwise..... no good saying your parents made you because He made them too....... Procreation was Gods invention.......... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: Georgiansilver Date: 28 Jan 09 - 06:45 PM So who got wound up by that then????? eh????? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: Little Hawk Date: 28 Jan 09 - 06:59 PM Not me. ;-) I'm going to leave it to Rig and a couple of others here to get wound up about it....so help me God! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 28 Jan 09 - 08:02 PM Quoth Georgiansilver: God made you!!!! prove otherwise..... Georgiansilver, I don't have to prove otherwise, because I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. You, on the other hand, appear to be trying to convince others here (including me) of your first three words. Actually, even if I were trying to do that, I know I couldn't prove it, because it's not a "Real Question". That is, no "Real" or practical results would flow from either answer, yea or nay. I have my opinion, just as you have yours, and that's fine. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: Little Hawk Date: 28 Jan 09 - 08:17 PM True, Dave, there is no way of proving something like that or disproving it. You cannot prove the actions of the Unmanifest upon the manifest...nor of the Infinite upon the finite. Nor can you disprove them. The Infinite cannot be objectively observed at all, because the observer himself cannot get outside of it in order to take a look at it! ;-) We can only observe the many other things which are, like ourselves, finite....in other words, they have a perceivable beginning and a perceivable end. This is true of another person, a plant, an animal, a planet, a sun, even a galaxy or a succession of galaxies. We can observe all of them in themselves, but we cannot observe that which contains all of them...and is implicit within all of them. We can experience it in some way, perhaps, by feeling that we are in a state of conscious unity with it...but we cannot objectively observe it, because to do so we would have to establish that it is either separate from us...or one separate part of us that is within us...or limited to certain defined paramaters...and it isn't. ;-) It is, I think, unmanifest and unlimited, but by the same token it is implicit within everything that is manifest. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: Bill D Date: 28 Jan 09 - 08:42 PM The point is, Georgiansilver and others: we skeptics are not making any claims...YOU are, when you say "God made you". We are just saying we don't accept such claims on the evidence usually presented. The burden of proof is on those who MAKE assertions. There is a reason why we say "believe in a God." Belief is what is required when no 'proof' is possible. Otherwise, we just agree to disagree. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: Riginslinger Date: 28 Jan 09 - 08:48 PM It's not worth the wear & tear on my blood pressure to get wound up! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: Little Hawk Date: 28 Jan 09 - 09:23 PM If only my Dachshund could reach that realization! It would be so much quieter around here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: Riginslinger Date: 28 Jan 09 - 10:56 PM My old Dachshund died and I got a Weimerwaner. It's like jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: Little Hawk Date: 28 Jan 09 - 11:05 PM I bet. Heh! I'm sad to say that one of the little guys here died too, early this month. He is missed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: Bill D Date: 29 Jan 09 - 11:10 AM Our last cat died several years ago. It was 'interesting' to realize that one of my considerations about getting a kitten was the possibility it might outlive ME! I do miss the purring at the foot of the bed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: GUEST,Slag Date: 29 Jan 09 - 03:00 PM At least you aren't blaming God for their demise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: Little Hawk Date: 29 Jan 09 - 03:46 PM That would be just downright silly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: Ron Davies Date: 30 Jan 09 - 07:49 AM LH-- You say the question of religious belief does not come up in Canadian campaigns. My point exactly. Canadians are quite tolerant--if you don't flaunt your religious beliefs--or lack thereof--in their faces. Your 2006 survey alleges a majority of Canadians say they "would be quite happy to vote for an atheist." Interesting, then, that it has never happened. You have provided no names of atheist PM's. So, regarding your survey: in the words of my favorite political analyst, Shania Twain--surely you're familiar with her work?---that don't impress me much. It seems that as long as the subject doesn't come up, everybody is happy. If the candidate were to declare it, the outcome might well be different. Some of the atheists on Mudcat, as PM candidates, would prove the point. And I'm sure you know people can--and do--tell a pollster anything. There are also many questions regarding such a poll. How many refused to answer the question? Lies, damned lies, and...... I think the vaunted Canadian tolerance on this issue has never been tested. Or perhaps has been tested--and that's why there has never been an atheist PM. Perhaps an avowed atheist would never collect enough support to even be a plausible candidate. If I'm incorrect, I'm sure you can supply the names of some atheist PM's. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: Little Hawk Date: 30 Jan 09 - 01:54 PM Ron....I haven't looked it up because I simply am not that motivated or interested in proving you either right or wrong about this that I would bother to! ;-) I basically don't care. The mere chance of scoring some kind of tiny argumentative point vis a vis your argument vs mine is simply not enough motivation to get me to do it. Do you follow? Look, man, I need some kind of actual motivation here. If you really want me to devote some of my personal time to overcoming my total ennui and lack of interest in the fact that you appear to disagree with me and verbally sparring with you over things that don't matter to me anyway...then send me some money, and I might do it. Maybe. If it's enough money. Heh! Heh! Heh! Man, I just shake my head in wonder at it all, I really do... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God' From: GUEST,Sslag Date: 30 Jan 09 - 02:55 PM I'm in favor of the ennui myself. Don't forget the anchovies. |
