Question time with dominionists

5 Sep

Today I stumbled upon the following article, which tells us that one family from Massachusetts challenges the Pledge of Allegiance in the state’s Supreme Court in order to have the word „under God“ removed: Pledge of Allegiance challenged in Massachusetts Supreme Court. I’m going to write this article in english because, you never know, someone might want to reply.

In the comment section, a formidable battle emerged … my first time seeing a „discussion“ between American christians and atheists (also agnostics). Since I am a nice person, I will try to answer some of the questions or statements the christians left in the comments.

„FedupwithFed“ wants to know:

What about MY rights???

It is not your right to have your religious beliefs stated in any government text. It is your right to recite the Pledge however you please, but the official version will have to remain neutral.

„NoBSfromliberals“ tells us:

Seems like there is always some @!$%# that doesn’t like something about our country and our traditions and thinks millions of citizens should change their ways to suit the @!$%#. Well, fvck you @!$%#! MOVE!!!

So many things to say. No matter what the Founding Fathers‘ beliefs were – the US is a democratic republic. Favoring one single religion goes against the democratic values, everywhere in the world – countries which strongly favor one religion do not tend to be democratic, „with liberty and justice for all“, just look at Saudi Arabia, Iran, the Vatican. Also, you tell people to leave the country if they don’t like one particular thing und use the countries own legitimate means to change that one thing? Just tell me how you like every single aspect of the current US government, especially with Obama in charge, „NoBSfromliberals“ …

„speakthetruth-2459907“ says:

It is pointless to remove the verbiage from the pledge. Why?? Because our government already includes it on our currency, and thus it’s still the same God, so an Atheist who is using such currency has to believe in that God when he accepts the use of that currency. You have faith in the currency your spending and therefore you believe that while God is printed on it, it must be true.

So you mean by using money to buy something to eat you automatically have to agree to whatever is printed on it? You can’t be serious. Let’s print „there is no God“ and have you tell me the same. Or have you tell me you won’t use it and starve.

„wayne-3043511“ asks us:

I just wonder where all of you that don’t believe in God or a Heaven or Hell where you think your soul goes when you die

Well, everything seems to suggest you just stop existing, since there is no soul. For you, who believes so firmly that we are „in for a rude awakening“, there is no possibility at all to know or even prove that.

Here we have the agnostic point of view. „dr821“ wants to know:

How difficult would it be for people that oppose saying „under God“ leave it out when saying the pledge, while those that want to say it include it in their pledge. How difficult is that, really?

It’s not difficult. The problem is that in this pledge, there is no place for any religion, because there’s a separation of church and state for good reason. If peole who don’t want so say it leave it out, the version including „under God“ will still be the one people hear and therefore remain the version everyone will recognize. That’s not a very effective solution.

„Marmaduke49“ aks us to:

Please show where the First amendment says [freedom] FROM RELIGION ..

Even if it’s not explicitly stated, common sense is going to help in this case. Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion … or what do you think, that you’re free to choose religion, as long as you pick one? What kind of freedom is that supposed to be? Without knowing the US constitution too well … I’m pretty sure that everyone is entitled to have their own free will – that includes any religious opinions.

„Dan M-1100644“ is confused:

Just because we have individuals with a visceral hatred of all things religious does not mean that they have the right to take away ALL right to worship the way anyone else sees fit.

What does this have to do with hatred of any sort? God doesn’t belong in the government, and removing him from there is far from taking away ALL your rights. Let me make this clear: It is NOT a right of anyone to force their religion upon others. And mixing religion with government is just that. You are free to worship whatever you want, but that’s not what schools are for.

„arslp“ says:

The heavens declare the glory of God….. and you cannot prove He does not exist.

First, the heavens did not declare anything to me or anyone else. Second, a classical logical fallacy: proving nonexistence is not possible. Proving the nonexistence of Santa isn’t possible, and the Rudolph reindeer declared his glory … so what? Everyone can see how stupid this argument is … except when it comes to god.

„Dman-1432018“ thinks that:

Our basic laws are founded on the Ten Commandments.

No, they are not. About half of the commandments are just for religious purpose and not enforced today. Obviously you’re thinking about murder and theft prohibition, but look at non-christian countries: these basic laws are known everywhere in the world, and they existed long before the commandments are supposed to have been given to Moses.

He has yet another one:

For all those who like to pretend this great country wasn’t founded on Christian values I suggest you look at countries that really weren’t founded on Christian values; Iraq, Iran, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Palestine and tell me you and your wife would rather live there.

You’re confusing christian values with democratic and humanist ones. The values of the Enlightenment. Middle Ages countries were founded on christian values. The Vatican still is. Countries founded on values of any religion generally do not grant their people a lot of freedom. Of course, if you founded a country on what Jesus said, that would be a different case – but „christian“ has had a different meaning for a very long time. If the US were founded on christian values, there would be no need for a discussion because it would be perfectly clear and explicitly stated in the constitution. Founding Fathers don’t count, because one can found a secular nation even when they are believers. Not everyone wants to force their religion on others.

„ProFreedom-5130956“ says:

They pursue this while remaining anonymous which gives them no credibility form the start, cowards.

First, you’re anonymous on the internet as well. Second, just by judging from these comments, there is no possibility for them not to remain anonymous without have their house besieged or even getting killed by a mob of angry dominionists.

„The Imperial“ asks us:


I suggest you read a little about evolution. If that doesn’t convince you, rest assured that not knowing an answer to this question is no proof for anything. If you want to bring God in, show some evidence for it.

„Mystery Rhee“ says:

Atheists have to have a „God“ figure to not be in recognition of and to or it wouldn’t be possible for Atheism to exist.

A common misunderstanding about atheism. Atheism is not defined by rejecting god, but by not believing in one. If there were no religion at all, everyone would be an atheist.

„niece1964“ has a question:

Its funny how you keep saying sky fairy and saying God is not real! If he is not real than what are you worried about?

We’re not worried about anything god could do, but about the influence of his followers who want to force their values on everyone else.

„tylerscribble“ has the following issue:

I see Atheists use the most hateful, offensive, disrespectful language that their vocabulary allows against religious people, and then get upset when people retaliate to their offenses!

Just look at the first few replies on this thread. Randy calls God an „imaginary sky-daddy„, clearly belittling anyone who deeply honors and respects their God, and that is such an abomination to say to someone who does respect their God.

If you think calling god an „imaginary sky-daddy“ ist the MOST hateful, offensive, disrespectful language that the vocabulary allows … then your vocubulary is either very limited or you haven’t read your fellow christians‘ comments. Yes, some atheists in this thread did use insults, but as far as I can see, in almost all cases they didn’t until they were insulted or threatened by christians, being called „LEFT WING NUT JOB EXTREMISTS“ or the like. And just to be clear: making fun of god is definitely NOT in the same league as wishing god would kill someone.

„JimSpence“ wants to know:

Funny isn’t it? The atheists force THEIR religion on us and it’s OK, but they object to all other religions.

No, that’s not funny for two reasons. The first being that atheism is no religion but the lack of it. The second being that removing religious connotations from a phrase does not make it an atheist phrase. It wuld be atheist if we replaced it with „under no god“.

„intel247“ says:

The history that they teach in school suggesting that the founding fathers were Atheist etc is a lie

Conspiracy theories are always nice. So, who made up the lies? Fucking liberals, am I right? And no one noticed when they did it. Until you. And to repeat myself: If the US was indeed founded on christianity, this would be glaringly obvious. It would say so SOMEWHERE in the constitution. Instead, it grants religious freedom, which is not a christian value.

„T. C. 1950“ brings up Pascal’s wager:

I would much rather believe in God. If I’m right, I shall dwell in the house of the Lord after I die. On the other hand, if I don’t believe in God and I’m wrong, I’m in big trouble after I die…

This one is easy. You cannot simply choose to believe if in reality you don’t. And the sheer amount of possible gods to believe in makes it ridiculously unlikely to pick the right god.

„BigBucksFL“ wants to know:

So I guess, based on atheists non-beliefs we should have no laws against murder, theft, rape and so on. OH what a wonderful world the moron would have us live in. But hey, the OWS nutjobs would love that world too, do what you want to whomever you want, right???

You know, non-christian societies have these laws too. Murder is prohibited in India, Japan, China, etc. etc. It was also prohibited in societies before Christianity and even Judaism, it was illegal in Babylon or Egypt, or in the Aztec empire. Everywhere, really, because a society doesn’t remain stable any other way. Sure, we don’t believe there is anything that would keep us from making murder legal … but humans think very alike, and a concensus on these basic values can always be found. Well, most of them, since people like you seem as if they would start murdering and raping as soon as god doesn’t watch …

Well, so far for now. Maybe I will continue answering your questions in another post. Let me conclude with a response to the conclusion for the last question I answered:

POOR, POOR FOOLS. Don’t worry, I won’t waste a prayer on or for you.

Thanks a lot. I would be disgusted if someone like you prayed for me.


16 Antworten to “Question time with dominionists”

  1. Triffels 6. September 2013 um 19:32 #

    Da hast Du wohl recht. Mit beidem.

  2. Triffels 6. September 2013 um 15:52 #

    1. Ein 100kg schweres Rentier hat ein Gewicht von knapp 1000N. Bei einem Auftrieb von ca. 10N pro 1m³ Helium bräuchte es 100m³ Helium. Dein Rentier würde platzen.
    2. Es tut mir Leid, wenn ich Deine Träume zerstöre, aber Rentiere können nicht fliegen. Nicht einmal theoretisch.
    3. Jetzt komme ich nicht mehr mit. Gott gehorcht doch nicht den Naturgesetzen.
    3.b) Da hast Du recht. Deshalb das hier.

    • Hardcore Tristesse 6. September 2013 um 16:04 #

      Okay, meinetwegen ist es unmöglich, dass sie fliegen können. Einigen wir uns darauf. Aber natürlich ist das z.B. für lila Kühe nicht ohne weiteres möglich. Oder Rentiere mit Flügeln?

      Allmacht schließt Naturgesetze nicht aus, weil sie durch die Allmacht verursacht werden (zumindest möglicherweise). Unsere Naturgesetzte lassen aber eh keine Allmacht zu, soweit ich weiß …

      Mir wird grad wieder so richtig klar, was für ein ausgemachter Unsinn die Gotteshypothese eigentlich ist. Auf die Frage nach dem Wie bei übernatürlichen Dingen hab ich noch nie eine zumindest sinnvoll klingende Antwort gehört.

      • Triffels 6. September 2013 um 16:41 #

        Allmacht schließt Naturgesetze nicht aus.

        Doch. Weil Naturgesetze nämlich ohne Ausnahme gelten und weil Allmacht die Abwesenheit jeder Beschränkung bedeutet.

      • Hardcore Tristesse 6. September 2013 um 17:44 #

        Naja, ich glaub wir reden aneinander vorbei. Was ich meinte ist, dass wir keinen Unterschied bemerken würden, ob die Gesetze nun wegen so sind, wie sie sind, oder eben nicht.

  3. Muriel 6. September 2013 um 07:42 #

    Nonetheless, it does seem questionable to fight a specific part of the pledge.
    The pledge itself is unacceptable.

  4. Triffels 5. September 2013 um 23:15 #

    1. Rentiere definieren sich über ihre Anatomie. Anderer Körperbau –> andere Tierart.
    2. Das wäre nicht fliegen, sondern springen.
    3. Wenn wir davon ausgehen, dass die Naturgesetze so stimmen, ja. Aber ein theistisches Weltbild setzt (i. d. R.) einen Gott als festen Bezugspunkt vorraus, und nicht die Naturgesetze.
    4. Gerne gesehen. Bekomme ich einen Keks?

    • Triffels 5. September 2013 um 23:16 #

      geschehen, nicht gesehen.

    • Hardcore Tristesse 6. September 2013 um 00:22 #

      1. Sie würden aber genauso aussehen wie Rentiere. Wir würden keinen Unterschied bemerken.

      2. Wieso denn? Auf Titan kann man schon richtig fliegen, wenn man sich Flügel an die Arme pappt.

      3. Das versteh ich jetzt nicht so recht. Die Naturgesetze gelten ja trotzdem. Theisten leugnen normalerweise nicht die Naturgesetze, sondern nur einige ihrer Auswirkungen.
      Dass Nichtexistenz nicht beweisbar ist, meinte ich auch eher von der Logik her. Man kann z.B. fliegende Rentiere für unmöglich halten und sie als so unwahrscheinlich deklarieren, dass es sie wahrscheinlich nicht gibt. Aber absolut sicher gehen könnte man nur, wenn man zu jeder Zeit jeden Winkel des Universums im Blick hätte.

      4. Wenn du Kekse magst, dann nimm dir einen aus der Dose. *Dose aufn Tisch stell*

      • Triffels 6. September 2013 um 10:14 #

        1. Dann könnten sie auch nicht fliegen.
        2. Hilfsmittel hatten die Rentiere in meinen Kinderbüchern aber nicht.
        3. Für einen allmächtigen Gott gelten die Naturgesetze quasi per Definition nicht. Allmacht und Naturgesetze schließen sich gegenseitig aus.
        3.b)Doch, man kann sich absolut sicher sein, wenn ihre Existenz physikalisch nicht möglich ist. Das ist nur logisch.
        4. Danke. *mampf*

      • Hardcore Tristesse 6. September 2013 um 12:50 #

        1. Natürlich können sie, sie haben eine Flugblase voller Helium.
        2. Das war ein nur Beispiel. Wenn die Konditionen noch besser sind, können vielleicht auch Rentiere fliegen (wird schwierig, aber wenn sie zusätzlich noch die Flugblase haben …).
        3. Stimmt auch wieder, aber nur, wenn wir davon ausgehen, dass Gott den Naturgesetzen unterworfen wäre. Wenn er sie macht, dann widerspricht sich das nicht (eventuell müsste man dann einen anderen Namen finden).
        3.b) Hm. Hm. Ja, das klingt tatsächlich sinnvoll. Allerdings: wenn wir nicht beweisen können, dass es keinen Gott gibt, können wir auch nicht beweisen, dass er nicht mit seiner Allmacht irgendwo Rentiere fliegen lässt, oder?

  5. Triffels 5. September 2013 um 21:58 #

    proving nonexistence is not possible

    Natürlich kann man Nichtexistenz beweisen. Nur nicht von Gott. Weil Gott (ebenso wie die Naturgesetze) die/eine Grundsäule des jeweiligen Weltbildes ist, und ohne nicht argumentiert werden kann. Fliegende Rentiere zu wiederlegen ist dagegen ein leichtes.

    • Hardcore Tristesse 5. September 2013 um 22:09 #

      Nun, das würde ich gerne hören. Ich halte es nicht für möglich.

      • Triffels 5. September 2013 um 22:21 #

        Wir müssten uns zuerst auf die notwendigen Grundthesen einigen, sagen wir, auf die Richtigkeit der Naturgesetze. Dann bräuchten wir noch die Anatomie eines Rentieres zu erforschen und festzustellen, dass sie physikalisch nicht ind der Lage sin zu fliegen und – tadaa – Beweis erbracht.

      • Hardcore Tristesse 5. September 2013 um 22:51 #

        1. Wer sagt, dass fliegende Rentiere nicht eine ganz andere Anatomie haben als die, die wir kennen?

        2. Vielleicht leben fliegende Rentiere auch auf einem Planeten mit wenig Schwerkraft und dichter Atmosphäre, wo man ganz leicht fliegen kann.

        3. Mit deiner Argumentation hättest du Gott genauso widerlegt, der ist nach unserem Wissen über die Naturgesetze auch unmöglich. Da seh ich jetzt den Unterschied nicht.

        Übrigens, danke für die Kommentare, das freut mich riesig 🙂

  6. Triffels 5. September 2013 um 21:48 #

    ein Kampf gegen Windmühlen, mein Lieber, ein Kampf gegen Windmühlen..

Kommentar verfassen

Trage deine Daten unten ein oder klicke ein Icon um dich einzuloggen:

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Abmelden / Ändern )


Du kommentierst mit Deinem Twitter-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )


Du kommentierst mit Deinem Facebook-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Google+ Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Google+-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Verbinde mit %s

%d Bloggern gefällt das: