Fair and faithful trade: 7-29-09
Family and faith: 7-31-09

In a motto we trust? 7-30-09

It may come as a shock to you, but I am older than our official national motto.


What is our national motto? "In God We Trust." And when did one of our presidents sign the bill passed by Congress to make it our national motto? On this date in 1956. Ike signed it. So Americans lived without a national motto for 180 years and now have lived with this one for 53 years. (For the record, America existed only 168.5 years without me -- and without much complaining about it, too.)

Now, that doesn't mean that "In God We Trust" wasn't widely used before 1956. Oh, indeed, it was. As this history of the motto from the U.S. Treasury Department reports, the motto first was used on U.S. coins in the 1860s -- right in the middle of our Civil War.

I raise all this to suggest there is a real and perhaps unresolvable tension today between wanting to honor our history and traditions and wanting to pay homage to our commitment to the First Amendment's inherent prohibition against government involvement in religion.

My guess is that if someone today introduced a bill to place "In God We Trust" on our money, Congress would not pass it. I would go further and suggest that Congress should not pass such a law today. It's now clear that we live in a religiously pluralistic society in which our government has no business either promoting or denigrating religion. It should be absolutely as neutral as possible. (In truth, this should have been clear in 1776, too, though it was more difficult to see then.)

Besides, I've always contended that government support of religion weakens religion. As a Christian, for instance, I don't want governments to display nativity scenes on courthouse lawns next to Santa and Frosty the Snowman. That devalues a sacred symbol.

So would I remove "In God We Trust" from our coins? If it were up to me alone, yes. But I'm not at all sure it's worth the inevitable political fight and radically uncivil discourse such a move would be likely to produce at this contentious moment in our society. Rather, I think it might be worth trying to create a public discussion about it (without the threat of immediate legislation) to see if we might come to some societal consensus first.

What would you do?

* * *


The pope jokes that his "guardian angel" did not prevent him from falling and breaking his wrist recently. His words do raise these questions: Do you have a guardian angel? Do you believe they exist? Any experience with one? Do they work 8-hour shifts? Other than to acknowledge that with God all things are possible, I have neither experience with guardian angels nor any opinions about them.

* * *

P.S.: You can follow me now on Twitter at http://twitter.com/BillTammeus.


adam harrison

Bill, you have suggested that there is a real and unresolvable tension here.

Actually, some day the Supreme Court will resolve it.

The Supreme Court rules your life. If the Supreme Court says that you are only three fifths of a man, it is so. (Dred Scott). If the Supreme Court says someone may be forcibly sterilized, it is so. (Buck v Bell) If the Supreme Court says you can be murdered before birth, it is so. (Roe v Wade) Etc.

So the Motto is false. The nation trusts in the Supreme Court, so it should be "In the Supreme Court We Trust".

Actually, Jesus already resolved this, "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and give unto God that which is God's."

IGGY - www.KCFreeThinkers.org


Still working through John... And found another "Three Little Piggies" equivalent...

Why did Jesus come?. To fulfill the Old Testament and god's will? Or to bring a sword? Or to divide families? Or show them he is the word and the way? To bring his father's kingdom? To pay for our sins (even those of atheists? - MARK says "ALL" will end up in heaven, so we can bitch all we want against god and jesus and even the holy spirit. BUT "blaspheming" against the holy spirit is the only unforgivable sin, but how about "all" going to heaven then?) Very very confusing...

Or has Jesus come for Judgment? (John 9:39) For judgment I am come into this world... Or was it in John 12:47 (3 chapters after) that he says And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

So, did he come to judge or not judge??? Think, Christians, think!

In the same John 9:39 that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.

What the hell is this goobledy gook? OK, I can see if they do not see god's will, he'll help them see. Fine. But why in the fricking god's name does he need to make those who see blind? Why waste a perfectly good pair of eyes and maybe a brain that can be used to do god's will? Or has he come to actually make people "medically" blind? Another metaphor? Like Jesus was saying he will go and seek your kidneys for god? If a son of god doesn't know that kidneys don't hold knowledge but our brains do, then apparently the son of god was ignorant of the human psysiology, also about botany, geography, paleontology, plate tektonics, etc, etc, etc.

Christians, stop telling and retelling "Three Little Piggies" story when you want to order a pork chop.

IGGY - www.KCFreeThinkers.org


I think only Catholics have guardian angels. The rest of us don't have it. There are also "demons" surrounding us according to Just Thinking...

I also read that Pope said that him breaking his arm is a "sign" from god to reminisc and contemplate his role.

I love it - if you have a negative incident, it's a challenge from god/gift from god for you to dwell on his intentions, but when nothing happens and you just plug along - what is it then? - things just happen?

Watch this 2 min video from Atheist Experience in Austin "The Best Caller Ever" - should be mandatory watching for "crazy" Christians in Spaghetti Gulag for 3 bln years when they will be producing pasta for us "the righeous" folks


Another one - "WHO" created the world - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nm7nNXdqyPM&feature=related

Christains, stop telling and retelling "Three Little Piggies" story when you want to order a pork chop.

Dolores Lear

"What is our national motto? "In God We Trust."

The USA was supposed to be a Country Free from a State Religion, like Europe, so Protestants, Catholics, Jews, and any other Religion had Freedom from a Government Religion.

The Christian Protestant Majority did work God into Government, and made Christian Holidays about Jesus, celebrated by Federal and State Governments.

All types of Icons are on Federal Buildings in the Capital, and in Capital Buildings in the States. The Ten Commandments were normal additions, and Christian Prayer was normal in Federal and State Ceremonies, with 'In Jesus' Name Amen'. God said 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' according to many Religious teachings. But Human Killing continues in the USA.

The Pledge of Allegiance was made a Government Pledge, and in late 40s or early 50s, during my daughter's time in Grade School, 'under God' was added.

This does not have any Protestant meaning for God, but it does put Love of Country above any God. And Human Killing continues.

Christians, and other Religious Citizens, and I imagine Atheists are 'proud' to put their hand over their heart when repeating this. This is supposed to Unite All Citizens to Love of Country. And Human Killing continues.

So ever since the USA was a Government, Equal for All Citizens, some way or another a Generic God was added to Government, for All Citizens, Religious or Atheists. And Human Killing continues.

So what is Beneficial for Humans in the USA or any Country on our Home Planet, to have a Religious Generic God in their Government? Humans still Kill Humans.

All Humans, Religious or Atheist, Kill Each Other and their Home Planet. Most Religions have a Killer God.

Is there also a Killer God that does not Care if Humans Kill Each Other, and All Life on their Home, that is the Ruler God of Earth?

Was there ever a Peace God on Earth? What happened to the Peace God/Us in Genesis, in our Human Image, that walked and talked with Adam and Eve?

It is Time to Search All Scripture and Myth, to find out how the Adam and Eve Peace Humans turned into Cain Killer Humans 'in the beginning' of Life as we Know it on our Home Planet Earth.


Jim, from yesterday -- you've obviously been on the inside of many divorce cases, and of course I agree that safeguards for children probably do look a whole lot better on paper than they do in real life. And they're not some magic cure-all for all the hurts of divorce. But is it possible that at least one reason for part of the the increase in divorces, is that there are now enough safeguards that some women in really bad situations, who might have felt stuck in a previous time of history and just suffered through it, are now feeling empowered enough to get themselves and their children out of toxic situations?

Bill, my thinking about the "In God We Trust" situation is pretty similar to yours. Going from having a motto to NOT having a motto, kind of makes it look like we're going from being something to being nothing. That's why I think that rather than being without a motto entirely, it would be better to switch to "E pluribus unum" -- "Out of Many, One." (It was actually Lynne who told me about E pluribus unum.)

Guardian Angels -- yes, I actually think I have at least one. Or else it's just the Holy Spirit who's protected me from ignorantly getting myself into some dangerous situations. For example, when I was 12 we went to a beach in New Orleans, where I was getting really bored as the water was too shallow to swim in. So I started wading out to see what was written on some crosses in the distance. As I got really close, I heard my mom, brother and nephew screaming for me.

I figured they were telling me it was time to go -- but I just wanted to see what was on the crosses -- and I got close enough to see it said, "Danger Deep Water" -- which I figured was a warning for people who couldn't swim. I really wanted to swim, and was about to just head out there -- but suddenly had a new thought that my swim would be more fun if my mom wasn't screaming at me, so I decided to go back and talk with her, and let her know it was okay for everyone else to go back to the hotel, but I wanted to stay and swim longer. (Continued)

Chuck Lunney

It's interesting to read the history of how "In God We Trust" and "Under God" were pushed into our national heritage. Both times "In God We Trust" was placed on the money, it was during a war in which the enemy was portrayed as being on the side of evil (the South in the Civil War, the Communists in Korea).

In the 50's, the enemy was the "godless Commies", so it was patriotic to proclaim that we were on "God's side". Of course, now our enemies are the hyper-religious Islamic terrorists, and I have to question whether we could ever claim to be more religious or fanatical about being on "God's side" (or Allah's) than the terrorists. If anything, promoting our plurality and inclusiveness would generate far more good will and benefit than trying to "out-religion" the other side.

If more people were educated in the history of the phrases and the lack of actual connection to our nation's founding, I think there would be a greater push to get rid of them altogether.


(Continued) So I went back and that's when I learned about drop-off's, and how if I'd gone much farther I would have been sucked under by a current way stronger than I could have coped with, stong swimmer though I was. So I swam in the motel pool after that, and have always been thankful for God's (or the angel's) prompting which saved me from my brush with death. And of course I'm thankful to my family for screaming to stop me.

I think my post that got lost from yesterday contained an answer to Will's or adamh's question, as to whether I believe we have any of the words of Jesus. In that post I explained that since I believe Jesus is both fully God and fully human, when I said I definitely believe the Bible contains some of the words of God, I was including Jesus in God. Sorry I didn't make it more clear.

In that post I also responded to adamh's or Will's comments about Jesus' explanation that Moses permitted men to divorce their wives because of the hardness of their hearts. I pointed out that when discussing this, Jesus (being fully human as well as fully God) still seemed somewhat influenced by the sexist attitudes of His times. I.e. he said that if men divorce their wives, they cause them and any man who later marries them to be guilty of adultery.

Jesus says nothing to indicate that a man who divorces his wife and remarries is ALSO guilty of adultery against his first wife. This is a reflection of ancient sexist attitudes about adultery. In modern times we see it as wrong for either spouse, because of the breaking of the trust between two people who have made vows together. Whereas in ancient times, adultery was seen simply as one man tampering with another man's property.

Please note: I definitely believe Jesus was/is without sin. I see a difference between willful sin and human error. As a human, Jesus was subject to the same errors in perception that we all are.

IGGY - www.KCFreeThinkers.org

Chuck wrote>>>>>>>>>>>>>If more people were educated in the history of the phrases and the lack of actual connection to our nation's founding, I think there would be a greater push to get rid of them altogether.


How do you propose this is done? The all powerful "salivation" for "salvation" through "public school education" lobby of "crazy Christians" never sleeps, pushes its agenda on every level and demands special treatment in the secular society we live in. The only way to prevent "theocratic" rule of a religously based law is to have a strong secular society and "fight" the crazies and "talk" to normal Christains.

I wonder sometimes what if Muslims began multiplying like rabbits in America and in 30 years there are more of them (80% of the population) that "god fearing righteous" Ameircans as there are today :o)

The Judeo-Christian "heritage" of the founding fathers is going to be a non issue then. The poltiical and cultural Zeitgeist will shift and people woudl not even think about "honoring" the "myth of the Bronze Age" perpetrated by the crazy Christians today.

What arguments will there be then? today "the crazies" claim "most of americans" are christians, the history needs to be preserved, and the majority rules. OK, what happens in 30,50, 100,200 years when "muslim" rabbit like families take over? - what is to prevent them from "claiming" not "past" but "present" and "future?"

I believe that we can only "argue" and "debate" with "moderate" - "non Christian Christians" in the "normal" sense of the world, secular Christians. "Crazy" Christains will not change their mind - they need to die to let the new generation take place.

This has all been supported through recent psychological research where "cognitive dissonance" news(completely true but conflicting with the views of the subject) is rejected in 70-90% of "conservative" subjects while a similar number of "liberals" will consider it and review it for validity and will not be afraid to change their mind.

To me this is an interesting intellectual excercise. If anyone is interested to continue with it - e-mail iggykc@gmail.com for instructions on the Monday evening Bible study where Kansas City atheists will show up and participate.

Chuck Lunney

If the Pope wants to believe in guardian angels, that's his perogative. I had a similar injury a couple months ago, but it wasn't because of a lack of any angels but simply a loss of balance on my part.

I don't give credit to impossible entities for good fortune, and I don't place blame on them for the bad things that happen. I accept that this world is a chaotic, ever challenging place to live. I don't need to add in concerns of an unseen, unknown, and unevidenced supernatural to justify or excuse what happens.

Angels (guardian or otherwise) are simply ad hoc explanations for the outcomes of unpredicted -- and unpredictable -- events. Just because we don't have a definitive explanation for why something happens doesn't mean we should fantasize about imaginary supernatural entities doing strange things for unknown reasons to fulfill some mysterious predestined "plan".

Dolores Lear

"The age of reason: part 1" By Thomas Paine. 1794

"Any person who has made observations on the state and progress of the human mind, observing his own cannot but have observed that there are two distinct classes of what are called thoughts - those that we produce in ourselves by reflection and the act of thinking, and those that bolt into the mind of their own accord. - ... it is from them that I have acquired almost all the knowledge that I have. -

...but I well remember, when about seven or eight years of age, hearing a sermon read by a relation of mine who was a great devotee of the Church, upon the subject of what is called "redemption by the death of the Son of God". -

After the sermon..., I revolted at the recollection of what I had heard, and thought to myself that it was making God Almighty act like a passionate man that killed his son when he could not revenge himself in any other way, and as I was sure a man would be hanged that did such a thing. ,,,and I moreover believe that any system of religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child cannot be a true system. -

How different tis this to the pure and simple profession of Deism? The true Deist has but one Deity. -

Though the belief of a plurality of worlds was familiar to the ancients, it is only within the last three centuries that the extent and dimensions of this globe that we inhabit have been ascertained. - ...no part of our earth is left unoccupied, why is it to be supposed that the immensity of space is a naked void lying in eternal waste? There is room for millions of worlds as large or larger than ours, and each of them millions of miles apart from each other. -

It is this leaning of the earth (23 1/2 degrees) that occasions summer and winter, and the different length of days and nights. If the earth turned round itself in a position perpendicular to the plane or level of the circle it moves in around the sun, as a top - the days and nights would be always of the same length, twelve hours day and twelve hours night, and the seasons would be uniformly the same throughout the year.

That is what I say happened during the Noah/Atlantis Planetary Flood, the Axis was changed, the seasons began, rain began and a rainbow appeared. Before the Flood Earth's land mass was an even temperature, with no rain; a mist watered the ground in Genesis 2.


Dolores Lear


I am so impressed with what Paine knew about the Planet, the Religious Lifestyles, and Science at that time, without all the Planetwide information we have today. He recorded all this information in a small 59 page paperback book. His comments sound like Comments on Bill's Blog.

"By this easy progression of ideas, the immensity of space will appear to us to be filled with systems of worlds, and that no part of space lies at waste any more than any post of the globe of earth and water is left unoccupied. -

The inhabitants of each of the worlds of which our system is composed enjoy the same opportunities of knowledge as we do. They behold the revolutionary motions of our earth, as we behold theirs. All the planets revolve in sight of each other, and, therefore, the same universal school of science presents itself to all. -

But the fraud, being once established, could not afterward be explained, for it is with a pious fraud as with a bad action - it begets a calamitous necessity of going on. The persons who first preached the Christian system of faith and in some measure combined it with the morality preached by Jesus Christ might persuade themselves that it was better than the heathen mythology that then prevailed. -

From the first preachers the fraud went on to the second, etc, till the idea of its being a pious fraud became lost in the belief of its being true: ... it is next to impossible to account for the continual persecution carried on the the Church, for several hundred years, against the sciences and against the professors of science - or did not foresee that it could not be maintained against the evidence that the structure of the universe afforded. -

Those three means are Mystery, Miracle, and Prophecy. The two first are incompatible with true religion, and the third aught always to be suspected. - Religion therefore, being the belief of a God and the practice of moral truth, cannot have connection with mystery. -

The ascension of a man several miles high in the air would have everything in it that constitutes the idea of a miracle, (balloon). Also sleight-of-hand, ghosts and specters, etc. - ...we know not the extent to which either nature or art can go.


Dolores Lear


"... to suppose that the Almighty would make use of means such as are called miracles, that would subject the person who performed them to the suspicion of being an impostor, and the person who related them to be suspected of lying, and the doctrine intended to be supported thereby to be suspected as a fabulous invention. -

,,, for the purpose of procuring that belief (for a miracle) it implies a lameness or weakness in the doctrine that is preached. ... it is degrading the Almighty into the character of a showman.

... for the belief is not to depend upon the thing called a miracle, but upon the credit of the reporter who say that he saw it, and, therefor, the thing, were it true, would have no better chance of being believed than if it were a lie. -

...to suppose a miracle to be something so entirely out of the course of what is called nature that she must go out of that course to accomplish it, and we see an account given of such miracle by the person who said he saw it, it raises a question in the mind very easily - that a man should tell a lie? -

As mystery and miracle took charge of the past and the present, prophecy took charge of the future and rounded the tenses of faith. -

If by a prophet we are to suppose a man to whom the Almighty communicated some event that would take place in the future, either there were such men or there were not. -
The success of one impostor gave encouragement to another, and the quieting salvo of doing 'some good' by keeping up a 'pious fraud' protected them from remorse. -

... all believe in a God; the things in which they disagree are the redundancies annexed to that belief, and, therefore, if ever a universal religion should prevail, it will not be by believing anything new, but in getting rid of redundancies and believing as man believed at first.

Adam, if ever there were such a man, was created a deist, but in the meantime, let every man follow, as he has a right to do, the religion and the worship he prefers." End

IGGY - www.KCFreeThinkers.org

Chuck wrote>>>>>>> If the Pope wants to believe in guardian angels, that's his perogative. I had a similar injury a couple months ago, but it wasn't because of a lack of any angels but simply a loss of balance on my part.......Just because we don't have a definitive explanation for why something happens doesn't mean we should fantasize about imaginary supernatural entities doing strange things for unknown reasons to fulfill some mysterious predestined "plan".
Religion has been in my opinion (and seems like it's being supported by psychological, anthropological, and nurological studies) nothing but a "natural" defence against "hostile" chaotic world where the sense of "belonging" to a "herd" "flock" is just natural. Animals (including humans) feel "secure" in a flock - no wonder Jesus was talkign about "sheep", the concept of "emergence" (intelligent appearance of "uniformed" movement of a school of fish in response to danger, or scattering and then cathering together a heard of deer while flickering their white tails to distract the wolves or koyotes) can be easily extrapolated onto religion.

Animals of another species are always rejected and are a threat. Religion subconsciously does the same.

Religion needs to die, it should die, it ought to die (at least in the form of a "personal" god like Christianity has it - "militant" "Crazy" Christinaity - space alien Yahweh aka god, father of Jesus - in order to have a normal secular society).

Crazies like Phelps, Falwell, 700 Club and countless other Evangelicals on TV must die to let new seeds of "liberal" christians sprout.


Iggy, I think when you make comments about religious crazies needing to die out -- this may be where Will and adamh are getting the impression that if you could, you'd have "gulags" over here to kill off all the religious crazies who are getting in the way of your "Atheistic agenda."

I, however, take your comments to be similar to something I heard Phyllis Shlafly say, when I attended a debate between her and Sarah Weddington back in college. Both women stuck around for questions after the debate, and I heard one woman ask Shlafly what she thought it would take to get Roe vs. Wade overturned, and Shlafly replied that it would take a couple of people dying. I didn't take it that Shlafly was saying, "And if I could, I'd murder them myself" -- but then again I don't know her, so is it possible she would have killed them if she could?

I like the way Cole keeps making it clear that he's NOT in favor of an Atheistic government -- and he just wants to keep the secular government we have and wants everyone to live in freedom. Of course, I realize it gets tiring to him to have to keep explaining this. I've also noticed that you (Iggy) one one recent occasion made a plug for religious freedom.

I know it's annoying to hear some people repeatedly saying, "I know what you Atheists would do to us Christians if you had the chance!" I don't blame you guys for sometimes just ignoring it and not bothering to expain your views for the umpteenth time.

But do you think some of these misunderstandings might be avoided if you dropped your rhetoric about religious crazies just needing to die off? I realize that adamh and Will G will probably keep dredging it all up for a while anyway, but in time the way might be cleared for some real inter-philosophical dialog that's free from the old hostility.


This is just the point, Bill. People only know what they are told. Most people don’t have a clue to religious history. When their bible was created, for eample. Our country was never intended to be a “Mob to vote rules” society. This is not nice. Our fore fathers, whether god fearing or X or none of the above, wanted us to be secular. Fair to all. As far as our civil liberties go, a group, bigger or smaller, should not control our personal pleasures. We should promote science to find answers to extend our life, so we can have more fun. I live in the real world.

Bill asks, “ What would you do?”

I think I will have to agree with you. Bill Now is not the time. Making a lot of trouble over what? God is not there? God isn’t there. I would like to make an issue of it if I was in control. But I am not. As is: nobody reading this. Only our elected officials get to tell ‘us’ what to do.

Bill, this is a great subject. I am for things you do – helping peole and all- I feel freethought only happens to a certain amount of people. I just wish it happened to more people.

Does anybody on this site have an opinion on “Why are we in this financial mess?

I am curious what you think.

Adamh said, “actually, Jesus already resolved this, "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and give unto God that which is God's." Jesus didn’t say anything. People in the bible wrote what they ‘think’ jesus said. How convenient to write stories in the new to prove the old stories.




Bill asks, again, “Do you have a guardian angel? Do you believe they exist? Any experience with one? Do they work 8-hour shifts? Other than to acknowledge that with God all things are possible, I have neither experience with guardian angels nor any opinions about them.

I’ll answer in the order you said it…

1. No. 2. No 3. No 4. No

All sorts of things are possible, Bill. But are they likely? Will the IHOP group (international hose of prayer) win and the second coming will happen? They will pray us nonblevers to an enteranl hell? Are they happy (now) about this? They want the end of the world as we know it to come to an end? Does anybody see anything wrong with this?

Just tjinking, I mean Jim C, had a lot to say yesterday. His opinion on the atheist community I sure is of great value to all of us.

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to undersatand the bible is myth. It only takes common sense. Only jesus and his god and holy spirit are the correct gods out of millions of others. Only miracles happen to certain people and only they can tell you about these but can not proof anything. Please stop with the falsification magic trick, Jim C. A doggie chasing his tale….

Pork chops, anyone?

Peace For the sake of Goodness Cole

Jim Christensen

Susan, I think I understand where you are coming from, but I don't think that one reason there are more devorces is that there are the better "safeguards" you mention.

For one thing, I don't think the safeguards exist in the way you seem to think they do, altough I understand how you could think they do. Further, I would say that 75 to 80 per cent of the divorces I have seen have involved basically "fooling around". It used to me primarily the men doing the "fooling around" (and that I admit is an old time phrase) but now I think its pretty equally the men and women.

Jim Christensen

Cole, I appeciate your reasoned response; it is about what I expected.

Jim Christensen

Iggy, I could not help but notice that you say the "crazies" (and of course different atheists at different times have defined who the crazies are) "MUST DIE". Many "crazies" have already died at the hands of atheists.

Could you elaborate on "die"?

Take note, Susan, he did not say DIE OFF, he said, MUST DIE. So, yes, I think that should keep being "dredged up" if he continues to use that language.

By the way, I for one would love to come to your atheist bible study Monday nite. You could even bring you trusty laptop reoorder and camers. Of course, YOU WOULD HAVE TO SAY WHERE IT IS FOR ONCE.

Dolores Lear

How many Man-Made Gods are there on Earth? What does the Name of God, mean?


Thomas Paine wrote, 'The age of reason: Part 1', in 1794. Today on Bill's Blog we are still using our 'age of reason' to say the same things he said. Why?

We have 'Evolve' up to High Tech Science for the past 100 years, and are still discussing the same things about God, that he wrote about, 200 years ago.

We seldom hear the word Deist today, which is what Paine was, and which is what some of the founding Fathers were, that founded the USA. Paine was raised Quaker and then became a Deist.

So how did this One God of the Universes, not a Person, became so many Man-Made Gods on Planet Earth? And become a Trinity One God in Three Persons?

Were the Holy Writings about the One God, that Created Life on earth, also about the same God that made the Elements of Life of the Universe? Or was Science Knowledge lost?

How could a God in our image Image, make the Life Elements to make the Universe, and make Humans and Life Species as we Know them, on Planets? A human cannot make the Elements they are made from.

Did Fallen Humans lose this High Tech Universe Knowledge? What was Original Sin? Disobeying the Peace God/Us, in our Human Image, that Created Life on Earth as we Know it, and made Humans in their Image?

Today this should be Translated as High Tech Humans Colonizing Planet Earth, and Reproducing Equal Male and Females in a High Tech Lab. High Tech Science, 'is' Religious 'Super'Natural.

But Humans may never Know the Source that made the Elements that make All Life in the Universe as we Know it.

"And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?"

What is Free and Brave about Humans Killing our Home Planet?

Will Humans continue like we have for 6000 years, of Killing each other and our Home Planet, until we completely destroy our Earth Home, with our Toxic Pollution and Nuclear Bombs?


My beloved grandmother Charlotte -- who died a few years ago -- was a firm believer in guardian angels.

Red Biddy

I certainly agree with you Bill that "In God We Trust" should be removed from the Almighty Dollar but I don't agree with your hesitancy in regard to action on this due to our being in a "contentious moment in our society." When was our country ever NOT being contentious about something ?? IF NOT NOW WHEN ?

The Freedom From Religion Foundation have filed a lawsuit to try prevent further additions of "In God We Trust" and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Capitol Visitors Center at an estimated cost of $150,000 to tax payers, so they have already sprung into action on this matter.

I'm sending them a check in support of this action.

Red Biddy

In regard to Cole's response to James Christensen's falsification question and his "challenge" to atheists yesterday, it is really hard to answer an UNreasonable and very silly question with good reason I would have thought ! Cole's response was simply answering kind with like kind.
I noted that JC thinks atheism is irrational. And belief in angels and super spooks isn't ?
As for trying to apply the scientific method of verification and falsifiabilty to non belief JC should try applying the same technique to religion and see how that works out.

It's people who can be irrational not the "isms" they believe or don't believe in, and yes, atheiSTS, can be as irrational as religionISTS and often are !

Having said that, atheism and atheists don't have to prove or disprove anything. It's up to those who created the Gods in their image to prove their existence.

adam harrison

JC, glad you responded! I thought you were caving and pulling a "Neville Chamberlain" on us!

But FORGET about IGGY'S Bible study, no way he is ever going to tell you where it is, because either ONE, it does not exist, or TWO he is afraid of being refuted in open debate.

And Red Biddy, you obviously don't even understand the point about the scientific method. Atheism is in no way a science, and relies on unverifiable and unfalsifiable claims.

So, yes, atheists do have something to prove. For their position to be rational, it must be demonstrable that all existence can be explained by mindless procesess.

They can not, of course, do this.

So, yes, atheism is irrational. Not to say that many other claims may also be irrational, but that doesn't save the atheist's position.

I mean, look at the atheist discussions here...not much argument, mainly insults and ridicule and made up stories.

No cigar.

Red Biddy

You said "....it must be demonstrable that all existence can be explained by mindless processes."
So if this cannot be demonstrated does this mean, in your view, that all existence could be explained if it is proved there is a mindful process, i.e. God ?

As I said before the onus of proving that God exists is ENTIRELY in your court.

Atheism simply means no God - it doesn't have to rely on any claims, for or against. Why should it ? Atheists didn't come up with the idea that there is a supernatural cause for existence -you did......so you prove it !

Now if we are talking about agnosticism (the usual philosophical position) then that's a whole different ball game because if one says one doesn't KNOW, it implies that there is no proof for the existence of God, one way or the other - so we can have fun examining the various proofs offered by believers !

I agree with you about the insults and ridicule coming from some posters here, I wish they'd cut it out, it doesn't contribute to any sensible discussion.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)