It’s on: Atheists want “In God We Trust” removed from Capitol visitor’s center
posted at 7:34 pm on July 17, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
We’re never going to have an atheist president, are we?
Besides the one we have now, I mean. OH YES.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Wisconsin-based church-state watchdog group, claimed the engravings are unconstitutional and would exclude the 15% of Americans who identify themselves as non-religious…
Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who sponsored the bill in the Senate, said historical references to God should not be censored for political correctness.
“The Founders based the Constitution and our laws on religious faith and principles that clear the way for individual freedom,” he said in a statement. “Our true motto, ‘In God We Trust,’ expresses this fact, and we cannot allow a whitewash of America’s religious heritage.”
However, Gaylor said the mottos are inaccurate since “In God We Trust” and the insertion of “under God” into the Pledge of Allegiance were adopted in the 1950s as anti-communist measures.
“They wanted this up there because they think God is the foundation of our government,” Gaylor said. “Boy, are they misinformed.”
Before anyone says something smart-assed, no, atheists aren’t pro-communist. (Not anymore, at least.) I would have let this one go given that (a) no one pays much attention to the “In God We Trust” stuff anyway and (b) the bad press derived from a lawsuit will outweigh the gain from shielding soft-headed believers from a motto engraved in rock except that, per the Establishment Clause, they do have a point. What’s a prudent atheist to do?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 Next »
So language stating there is no god is pointlessly insulting, but language asserting there is a god is “just words” ?
BryanS on July 18, 2009 at 1:07 AM
The constitution lays out specific rights for the people that are not to be infringed upon without amending the constitution. We may disagree about what establishment of religion means, but “majority rules” isn’t the right principle. It would be just as wrong to “change the sign”.
BryanS on July 18, 2009 at 1:10 AM
No, its just an act of historical revisionism… since the truth is just so darn unacceptable. Our nation was formed by those seeking the freedom to worship the Judeo-Christian God. Monuments are established to remember history so that when our children ask about them, we have the opportunity to tell the story of our land.
The Bible is the single largest source of quotes used in the writings of our Founding Fathers in arguing for our form of Government and the freedoms we enjoy (or used to enjoy). Whether atheists wish it or not, it has been the single largest influence on the founding of our country. It is part of our history.
If our rights and freedom come from God, no one can take them away, and their ideals will continue to flourish in the hearts of men.
If our rights and freedom come from Government, they can be taken away, for the power of the state, and the ideals will be forced to perish from the hearts of men.
In what world do you wish to live?
dominigan on July 18, 2009 at 1:13 AM
That’s because you haven’t been drinking with me. In my view, buzzed means you’ve long since lost the power of coherent speech.
Just wondering.
MadisonConservative on July 18, 2009 at 1:14 AM
Well, let the SC say so. The constitution also lays out the right of free exercise of religion. The trick you’d have is to demonstrate how “In God We Trust” is infringing upon your rights.
ddrintn on July 18, 2009 at 1:15 AM
No. No.
Our rights come from the people. Read the constitution–no god, no religion is the authority for the power the government has. That power comes from the people. Only the people have the authority to give government it’s power.
If nobody can take power away from the people if Natural Rights are god given, then please explain Hugo Chavez.
BryanS on July 18, 2009 at 1:18 AM
Pointlessly insulting is also “just words.”
Esthier on July 18, 2009 at 1:23 AM
I tend to react the opposite way. It’s kinda the way you can tell I’m buzzed, but only in person. Online I’m not much different.
Esthier on July 18, 2009 at 1:24 AM
If so they can still be taken away. People are fickle that way.
Esthier on July 18, 2009 at 1:25 AM
That’s the point of the lawsuits, right? The key portion of the first amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”, to me in plain language means that the government cannot pass any law that not only establishes, but supports a religion.
It doesn’t say that Congress shall not establish, it says it shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
BryanS on July 18, 2009 at 1:27 AM
So does the endurance of “In God We Trust”.
ddrintn on July 18, 2009 at 1:27 AM
So true…that is how those rights get lost over time. Explains liberalism.
BryanS on July 18, 2009 at 1:28 AM
Want to make a bet on how this lawsuit would turn out?
ddrintn on July 18, 2009 at 1:29 AM
They treat it like currency that can be traded for something better for themselves. It’s repulsive.
Esthier on July 18, 2009 at 1:29 AM
If that’s the case, we’d better never be left alone.
Be very clear on this. I realize some will immediately dismiss me as a kook when I say this.
Our rights come from the people willing and determined to exercise our right to bear arms in order to protect the rest of our rights. That means resistance.
When Jefferson said the Tree of Liberty needed to be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants, he wasn’t weaving luxurious prose. He was stating the fact that reminders need to be given to those in whom we trust the power to direct this nation’s course.
MadisonConservative on July 18, 2009 at 1:30 AM
If you’re betting the atheists lose, then yes :)
BryanS on July 18, 2009 at 1:30 AM
What has atheism contributed to the modern day civil society? Do we see atheist sponsored homeless shelters? Atheist organizations that rebuild states in the aftermath of a Katrina like disaster? Are there atheist orginizations that go to worst parts of Africa to introduce civility to uncivilized?
No, we don’t see any of this kind of athiest organizations. We know of Christian churches that do those things that go way back.
Now I’m not bashing athiests who don’t care about public display of “God” motto’s but the ones who wish our nation to slip into a secular one I have a problem with.
Can I say the fruits of atheism in it’s completed mutation is Communism? We have to look no furhter then the 20th century with the fruits of Lenin, Stalin, Moa tes sung, Pol Pot, Casto.
Were any of these individuals Christians? No. With the deaths of 80 million people from these few tyrants, history explains to us what these dictators were because of no moral compass.
Had all these individuals be God fearing men or have some sort of moral compass then the 20th century wouldn’t be stained as the bloodiest century to date. Can a atheist blame this on the religious person? Atheists always accuses the person of faith of being a blind follower to a made up philosphy. However, when an atheist such as Stalin, Lenin takes the reins of a nation with all it’s military force at their disposal then the alleged blind follower are the ones who perish by the sword of tyranny.
Again, I ask, what has atheism contributed to the modern day civil society?
b1jetmech on July 18, 2009 at 1:33 AM
The Declaration holds certain rights to be “unalienable”. Endowed by “the Creator”, no less. Such offensive language must be removed.
ddrintn on July 18, 2009 at 1:33 AM
No need. The Declaration contains no provisions of law. It was a rally cry–for the time and people for whom it was written.
BryanS on July 18, 2009 at 1:36 AM
It’s not law, but it gives insight into what the Founders thought the basis of law is.
ddrintn on July 18, 2009 at 1:38 AM
Force against the jihadis? Sure. We (still) have a system of governance that allows us to challenge the status quo and enact change. There are enough rights to roll back government encroachment. But unfortunately much damage has been done. Let’s hope Obamacare doesn’t pass and take over health care.
BryanS on July 18, 2009 at 1:40 AM
That goes without saying.
If I ever do make it up there, you’re toasting Obama’s demise with me, but in a crowed bar.
Those people already think you’re nuts.
Esthier on July 18, 2009 at 1:42 AM
I honestly don’t know how those bringing forth this suit are able to reconcile that with their desire that mentions of God be moved entirely from government.
Esthier on July 18, 2009 at 1:44 AM
Yes, it gives us insight into who the people were who formed our government. But the constitution in no way addresses any kind of external authority, god, or religion in order to justify where those rights come from–that is, the people.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident” within the Declaration means what is says–the rights we have are self-evident and not in need of proof. That they were “endowed by our creator” is immaterial because they are self-evident. That phrase is simply an appeal to authority. Kings appealed to religious authority when they ruled by divine right. They were supposedly given authority by god as well.
BryanS on July 18, 2009 at 1:45 AM
No. No.
Our rights come from the people. Read the constitution–no god, no religion is the authority for the power the government has. That power comes from the people. Only the people have the authority to give government it’s power.
If nobody can take power away from the people if Natural Rights are god given, then please explain Hugo Chavez.
BryanS on July 18, 2009 at 1:18 AM
You are wrong.
You are getting the Declaration of Independence and the Constituion mixed up by your confusion.
The Declaration of Indpendence is the foundation of our freedom. It establishes our freedoms come from GOD…not man. If our freedoms come from man just as you said then they can be taken away. But, because tehy come from GOD then they cannot be taken away. Notice the DOE state “We Hold these truth’s to be self evident”… that there is no debate about this. Our rights are natural by default, God given and man plays no part in allocating freedom.
The Constitution establishes the federal government with rules and limitations and that’s it. It limits the federal governments power not ours.
The Constituion was written because of the fear resulted from a government that would grow too powerful like today. So the Framers set up restrictions and firewalls with in the constitution to prevent the federal government from evolving beyond the boundries fo the constitution.
b1jetmech on July 18, 2009 at 1:46 AM
Don’t worry. There will be plenty of people around. Jack, Jim, Jose, Jameson…
Seriously…bitches don’t know.
MadisonConservative on July 18, 2009 at 1:50 AM
Yet, there are those on this very thread who insist that Atheism is a religion. If Atheism is, so is Theism
OldEnglish on July 18, 2009 at 1:54 AM
True, but many say that it is based upon Judeo-Christian tenets.
OldEnglish on July 18, 2009 at 1:56 AM
Wow, why would people who need more than blind faith be repulsed, threatened and angered by that?
Speakup on July 18, 2009 at 1:57 AM
Because their faith is shallow. They have doubts, and lashing out is a way to make them feel more secure that their faith is real.
BryanS on July 18, 2009 at 1:59 AM
You have to really stretch to use this argument as a basis for banning “In God We Trust,” which is only a motto.
And if you’re going to stretch that far, then wouldn’t the banning of “In God We Trust” also be a law which respects the establishment of atheism (which is also a religion)?
landlines on July 18, 2009 at 1:59 AM
I think it can be based on both.
Esthier on July 18, 2009 at 2:01 AM
We should make bets NOW!
If Atheists lose, then Allahpundit has to ________________________________________________________________
:]
JaqobJackson on July 18, 2009 at 2:04 AM
I don’t think that automatically follows. The pendulum has three positions of rest. The middle/neutral position could be taken.
OldEnglish on July 18, 2009 at 2:12 AM
It’s not much of a stretch considering the court’s general acceptance of the concept of separation of church and state.
A law which respects the establishment of atheism would be something like a law directing the treasury to print on its coins “there is no god”, or maybe a more positive sounding “united we are stronger than any god” (a kind of atheist e pluribus unim). Because acts of Congress are behind every decision to use mention of god on any federal asset–currency, buildings, etc.
BryanS on July 18, 2009 at 2:12 AM
Good points!–
It’s freedom of Religion not Freedom FROM Religion. Our laws are based on the 10 commandments. Atheism is not a Religion.
Ed Laskie on July 18, 2009 at 2:14 AM
True, religion attracts insecure people but then perception is 9/10 of belief.
We just need to decide on belief in self perception or belief in others perception.
Speakup on July 18, 2009 at 2:14 AM
Sorry, I don’t believe atheism exists, therefore, I reject the premise of the article.
long_cat on July 18, 2009 at 2:23 AM
Really? What law is there that there is only one god, that you cannot ridicule her, that remembering the sabbath is mandatory, that one must always honor one’s father and mother, that you cannot commit adultery, that you cannot lie (unless under oath), that you cannot covet your neighbor’s wife or your neighbor’s possessions?
Murder, stealing, and lying under oath are about all that our laws actually cover.
BryanS on July 18, 2009 at 2:23 AM
I’ll worry about that right after we reinstate the 10th amendment.
Guardian on July 18, 2009 at 3:41 AM
BryanS on July 18, 2009 at 2:23 AM
I said based on-
In many states adultery is against the law.
Before your 18 by law you have to follow your parents.
So you think the founding fathers were atheist?
What is your point, how come your so upset about religion?
Ed Laskie on July 18, 2009 at 4:30 AM
By the way communist always say they get their authority form the people. “The people are confenscating your house” The peoples republic of china. If it is God who gives us rights, then the people cannot take it away from the individual.
Ed Laskie on July 18, 2009 at 4:39 AM
If I have a gun and plenty of ammo, then the people cannot take it away from the individual either.
MadisonConservative on July 18, 2009 at 5:03 AM
A sufficient number of “the people” can do as they damn well please – witness the now.
OldEnglish on July 18, 2009 at 5:17 AM
You’ve got it ass-backwards, which isn’t a surprise.
Conservatives by definition don’t believe in fairy tales or anything else without real evidence.
DarkCurrent on July 18, 2009 at 5:39 AM
People need to get a life….it’s just that simple. Jesus, I wish I had time to worry and pursue such trivial endevors as to remove a statement from a statue. Losers!
dartagnansblade on July 18, 2009 at 7:50 AM
Both very true..
The constitution is only paper it seems right now.
The OldEnglish Mob (not You), of communist Acorn death squad goes to MadisonConservatives house. God is with you Madison and at least if worst comes to pass, at least you fought for your God given rights, instead of appeasement or surrender.
Ed Laskie on July 18, 2009 at 8:00 AM
thats why I don’t believe in that atheist fairy tale called evolution.
given that there is nothing in the fossil record to support evolution, nor the lab, the ‘tree of life’ has been falsified, the failed darwinian concepts like ‘junk dna’ and ‘vestigial’ organs….why would anyone believe it?
add to that the implicit racism and eugenics in evolution…and you have a theory only a liberal could love.
right4life on July 18, 2009 at 8:04 AM
GREAT NEWS FOR THE USA!
After all, I live in the ONLY country which had declared atheism as its official religion. It is the poorest & most polluted country in Europe. The vast majority of government is run through bribes. If you have a surgery, and the doctor finds the cause of your ailment halfway through the surgery, he’ll demand more money to complete it. No money, you will not have the problem fixed. These are not exagerrations.
Over time, we could all become poor, corrupt, and “dog eat dog” — looking out only for ourselves. What a lovely place the US could be.
balkanmom2 on July 18, 2009 at 8:05 AM
we’re still plagued by 2 pernicious ideas from the 19th century, both of which have grown out of atheism, communism, and darwinism.
they have cost the lives of over 100 million people, and caused great misery and suffering for untold millions more….
right4life on July 18, 2009 at 8:18 AM
If our leaders are not humbled and guided by a higher power, they will become tyrants.
The existence of a higher power is commonsense and obvious for all to see.
The fact that professional wrestlers are actors is also commonsense and obvious for all to see. 15% of people believe that wrestlers are “for real”. They have the right to their fantasy just like atheists have the right to their fantasies. However, we can not build our nation on a lie.
http://garyganu.blogspot.com
garyganu on July 18, 2009 at 8:29 AM
Claim to be “spiritual but not religious”.
Lehosh on July 18, 2009 at 8:35 AM
Just for fun, name and fully explain just one instance of this vision.
OldEnglish on July 18, 2009 at 8:41 AM
simple, look around. if you can’t see God in what He has made, then you will never see Him…until you’re face to face…
right4life on July 18, 2009 at 8:44 AM
I never understood how so many atheists and/or liberals could read so damn much into the First Amendment (then again, many of them see a right to abortion but do not see my right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution).
“Congress shall pass no law…”
End of story. Using “In God We Trust” as a motto involves no law being passed, so the establishment clause argument doesn’t even remotely belong, AP.
Even if they passed legislation to the effect, it in no way a bill with the intention to establish a religion.
Sure, lawsuits of greater stupidity have been heard by the courts, but this one shouldn’t even land on a judge’s desk for consideration.
ynot4tony2 on July 18, 2009 at 8:45 AM
I see. No other explanation possible. Subject closed.
OldEnglish on July 18, 2009 at 8:51 AM
Maybe the government could RE-ENGRAVE the statement to read something like: “The Chickens Are Comin’ Home To Roost”.
bradley11 on July 18, 2009 at 8:54 AM
I’ve never understood how someone can watch the birth of their child and not see and feel the influence of God.
Or just ponder your own being for a bit…how bone and muscle support an upright frame with versatile appendages ending with dexterous fingers plus opposable thumbs sustained by intricate digestive and circulatory system all controlled by an extremely complex nervous system and ultimately given autonomy by a highly functioning brain capable of thought and the ability to create well beyond the mere survival instincts common to animals.
If you can look at yourself in such a way and still think you’re a product of organic carbon compounds multiplied by random chance, then no…you’ll never see God until it’s too late.
ynot4tony2 on July 18, 2009 at 8:55 AM
So if Christians want atheists removed from their country do they get what they want? People dislike atheists not because they don’t believe in God but because they’re often whiney crybabies who demand that everyone agree with them.
A freaking motto over the door doesn’t hurt you – Get the f**k over it and go back to your non-belief.
katiejane on July 18, 2009 at 9:13 AM
Your post is born of emotion, not rationale. The presence of suitable components, bound by suitable natural laws, over a sufficient period of time, is all that is required for the chance of self-aware life to form.
I have an interest in Astronomy, and through my telescopes I have seen some marvellous sights, but I know what those sights are basically composed of – just as I know what the Mona Lisa is composed of.
OldEnglish on July 18, 2009 at 9:14 AM
Addendum:
I presume that we are all aware of the Rorschach Test. They are ink blots – nothing more.
OldEnglish on July 18, 2009 at 9:16 AM
No atheist believes in such a glib caricature of evolution. If you don’t make any effort to understand what atheists actually believe, naturally it’s not going to make a lot of sense.
RightOFLeft on July 18, 2009 at 9:23 AM
Just curious,,, could one of you atheists give an example of a atheist nation that achieved greatness?? Any nation anywhere in recorded history that records show was a great free nation and largely atheist???
How about just great people??? Where are all the great atheist artists?? Atheist movies? Atheist inventors? I am talking people here that inspired nations and changed for the better a people. There might be 2-3 here and there,,, but would they surpass in number those who were inspired by their religion??
It’s easy enough to find atheist murderers and tyrants. Just wondering about all the great atheist achievers, inventors, artists and great nations.
JellyToast on July 18, 2009 at 9:27 AM
Nice try at being dismissive, but it won’t fly. It’s not emotion that made me arrive at such a notion, but mathematics. That, and a rigid adherence to the scientific method, which has a much higher standard of proof than those who glibly say “Evolution is proven”.
Darwin’s theory, as it stands, is crap. The fact that Darwinism demands these evolutionary changes be minute means that his “survival of the fittest” notion wouldn’t have any preference between a creature with a budding new organ and one that didn’t, so natural selection wouldn’t actually come into effect many, many generations later until the organ was actually useful.
Darwin also demands these mutations be random. Minute plus random means that it would not only take dozens and dozens of generations to evolve something as simple as a finger, but that the odds of being able to do something even that simple are too ludicrous to even consider a possibility, let alone the complexity of the human brain.
Don’t be an ass and assume that anyone who disagrees with evolution is some emotional, faith driven rube.
ynot4tony2 on July 18, 2009 at 9:50 AM
A lot of scientists are atheists. Someone who cared enough could come up with plenty of counter-examples to contradict you.
Truth be told, I’m not willing to entertain the notion that faith, or lack thereof, can be a litmus test to determine one’s intelligence or worth in a society. I’ve known brilliant Christians, and stupid Christians. I’ve known brilliant atheists, and stupid atheists. To discount one groups contributions entirely is a waste of our time.
But, you are right about atheist nations. I am on-board with the argument that religion as been a civilizing and motivating factor in making the world, and America in particular, the great places they are today.
ynot4tony2 on July 18, 2009 at 10:02 AM
That you are unwilling to consider time and chance being the driver of evolution, is the main stumbling block. The theory of evolution is just that – a theory. It is not yet proven, and may undergo modification somewhat, as we learn more about it.
As for budding new organs, for example, all that would be required is a sufficiently long transitional period, where chance allowed it. We can have no idea as to how many species died out because chance did not favour them.
OldEnglish on July 18, 2009 at 10:08 AM
mind closed, I see.
right4life on July 18, 2009 at 10:13 AM
yeah that works so well in building complexity…I threw a few pieces of metal and plastic together some years ago…and voila, a computer!!
2nd law…but of course evolutionists say the power of the sun overcomes that…sure it does…in this world of decay and death….complexity just happens…sure…
right4life on July 18, 2009 at 10:14 AM
Due respect, Jesus Christ is Lord. No matter what is posted where can do anything to change the fact. So, yes, I really wouldn’t be bent out of shape about it, so long as my right to worship as I please is upheld and respected.
jimmy2shoes on July 18, 2009 at 10:23 AM
America is a constitutional republic founded on the Judeo-Christian worldview.
jimmy2shoes on July 18, 2009 at 10:25 AM
Not that old error, again! Entropy applies to an isolated system only. Nothing on this planet is isolated from its surroundings.
OldEnglish on July 18, 2009 at 10:26 AM
Seems to me that suitable natural laws such as thermodynamics argue against evolution.
jimmy2shoes on July 18, 2009 at 10:29 AM
of course its an error..it HAS to be…but the universe is an isolated system..and entropy applies to the entire universe….nice try.
right4life on July 18, 2009 at 10:29 AM
Again, stop with the assumptions. I’ve pondered plenty about time and chance, and have the education to assure I’m not just theorizing blindly.
Even with the most generous probability assumptions and the longest accepted estimates of the age of the earth I cannot fathom how it could have been random and without purpose. You could extend the age of the earth out to several quadrillion years, and the odds of human existence via blind luck is just outside the realms of considering.
I am not positing my own theory on how we got here, nor am I claiming what I have said in any way proves the existence of a God (what I had actually said is, if you genuinely believe we are here purely by random chance, then you are not the type of person who will be able to see the wonders of God in creation). I’m just saying, Darwin’s theory, as it stands now, is crap. The math demands it.
ynot4tony2 on July 18, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Dispense with the nice sounding phrases, and consider the question. Is America run under the auspices of a God? Or, is America entirely managed by the dictates of man?
OldEnglish on July 18, 2009 at 10:31 AM
oh I did throw that pile of metal and platic in sunlight a couple of decades ago…still just a pile of metal and plastic…where is that AWESOME POWER OF EVOLUTION when you need it??
right4life on July 18, 2009 at 10:31 AM
we are under the auspices of God, whether you believe it, like it or not. thats why Israel is a nation again, after God said it would be, 2,500 years ago….oh I know its just an ‘interpretation’…sure…and Iran just happens to lead the opposition to Israel…again its just an ‘interpretation’
right4life on July 18, 2009 at 10:33 AM
I’m not referring to the universe, but what is within it. The fact that the universe may reach equilibrium in time doesn’t prevent interactions within it, before time runs out.
OldEnglish on July 18, 2009 at 10:35 AM
of course I know you’ll scoff at my pile of metal and plastic…and say its not living…but of course somehow a molecule had to become self-replicating…and then ‘alive’ somehow or the other…how did that happen again??
oh I know, evolution SAYS its not concerned with that…but someone forgot to mention it to this guy…
right4life on July 18, 2009 at 10:35 AM
Are atheists so bored that they must run around trying to remove the word GOD from things?
Hey…atheists…walk down the street further. I’m sure you’ll run into someone who needs help, or needs a friend, or needs directions. Put yourself to some good use, huh? sheesh
bridgetown on July 18, 2009 at 10:36 AM
its like everything else in evolution, you have to deny common sense to think that complexity can just happen. and somehow this force, that is not a force, called evolution, can ‘make things happen’
right4life on July 18, 2009 at 10:37 AM
If, by that, you are referring to probability, that can be countered by the fact that the chance of any, possible, random event taking place at a certain point in time is always even. It either will, or it won’t. The likelihood, on the other hand, is often more remote – but not impossible.
OldEnglish on July 18, 2009 at 10:41 AM
Or deja vu.
OldEnglish on July 18, 2009 at 10:42 AM
Fruit flies have a very short lifespan. They give quite a large playground for evolutionists to play with.
In spite of decades of focused research attempting to find proof of evolution, all we get are some minor color and behavior changes. No new species, ever. Furthermore, it’s not even clear that such change mechanisms are truly random and not some sort of pre-programmed survival mechanism.
To teach Darwin’s theory in school, and to not stress that it is purely a theory with legitimate questions to it’s legitimacy, is to truly engage in anti-scientific behavior…behavior that is driven by religious considerations.
Hey Galileo, can I get an A-men?
ynot4tony2 on July 18, 2009 at 10:44 AM
if you’re interested in an exploration of the 2nd law….
A Second Look at the Second Law
from a mathematician’s viewpoint…
right4life on July 18, 2009 at 10:45 AM
yeah that happens all the time…its why we now have an assyrian empire….
right4life on July 18, 2009 at 10:47 AM
America, like every other nation, is run by rebellious men under the influence of Satan. Believers are foreign agents in enemy territory. Spies, if you will, seeking out dissidents of the powers of darkness ruling the planet. Invasion plans have been made and D-day is scheduled, biblically known as the Second Coming.
jimmy2shoes on July 18, 2009 at 10:48 AM
Any theory that requires acceptance that an insurmountable amount of events each broke insurmountable odds requires almost as much blind faith as it would believing in an all powerful creator…maybe even more.
ynot4tony2 on July 18, 2009 at 10:51 AM
That quote is partially correct. Atoms can form nuclear reactors – they are called stars. The comment about atoms forming machines is just plain silly.
OldEnglish on July 18, 2009 at 10:52 AM
Putting aside Biblical connotations, I have to agree with your statement.
OldEnglish on July 18, 2009 at 10:54 AM
You are all so off track but you look like you are having fun
In reality this does not establish religion and the court will agree.
Atheists lose
No and forever : ) kidding
CWforFreedom on July 18, 2009 at 10:56 AM
You are all so off track but you look like you are having fun
In reality this does not establish religion and the court will agree.
Atheists lose
Now and forever : ) kidding
CWforFreedom on July 18, 2009 at 10:56 AM
I don’t view it as blind faith, more a realization that “stuff” happens, and we may not be able, yet, to explain why.
OldEnglish on July 18, 2009 at 10:56 AM
Correct on that. It was a silly, spiteful suit.
OldEnglish on July 18, 2009 at 10:57 AM
The existence of God is obvious. A higher power had to have created us. Some people say that life was created in a mud puddle of compounds that got hit by lightening. But that is not believable because with all of our modern science, we can not create life, from something that has never lived.
Also, look how complicated even the simplest forms of life are. A one celled animal contains hundreds of thousands of working parts, all arranged in the perfect way so that it can find food, ingest food, break it down, build the machinery of the cell that transports vital elements to the right places, excrete waste, do whatever it takes to sustain its life, reproduce, etc.
It’s no accident. It would be more likely that a Boeing 747 jumbo-jet, fueled up and ready to go, to emerge from that mud puddle, that was struck by lightening, than a single living cell. And of course, the human body is made up of trillions of cells that are arranged perfectly to suit us.
Look at the iris in your eye, or the veins on a leaf, or the birthing of a guppy. These things are not the product of luck and happenstance. We are the product of Divine creation. There is no other possibility.
Of course we understand so little about God and his creation. But to deny the existence of the creator, is to deny the obvious.
garyganu on July 18, 2009 at 10:59 AM
If you still can’t understand the relatively simple 2nd law of thermodynamics, it makes sense that you can’t understand the more complex theory of biological evolution either.
Thought experiment: if the 2nd law prevents order from ever emerging from chaos, how do you explain the formation of crystals without invoking the supernatural?
DarkCurrent on July 18, 2009 at 11:00 AM
this brings up an interesting point…you think its silly to think that atoms could form machines….without intelligence behind them of course, since we form machines…but you don’t find it amazing or ’silly’ at all to think that atoms could just form life…which if far more complex than any machine we can make ourselves.
right4life on July 18, 2009 at 11:00 AM
so you equate order ie crystals..with organized complexity, ie life?
right4life on July 18, 2009 at 11:04 AM
The Fool has said in his heart “There is no God”.
Wisdom from The Book.
Any thinking person doubts, but firm denial indicates something amiss. Ms. Gaylor has a right to her opinion but madness cannot remove Providence from a primary place in human history.
rcl on July 18, 2009 at 11:05 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 Next »