|
|
| "in god we trust" (1317757) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|
|
| (1317757) | |
"in god we trust" |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Mon Oct 5 09:34:57 2015 hah hah hah. I LOVE how the fact that sheriffs are putting this sentence on their patrol cars (and, surprise surprise, getting support for it from the majority of the local citizenry) is pissing off some folk. and i'm not even religious (since none of 'em can answer the most basic of questions: how did everything get here from nothing? not busting on religion per se, nobody can answer that one.) i simply like to see proverbial throwers-of-sand-into-the-national-gears crowd gettin' their comeuppance once in a while. |
|
|
| (1317759) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by mcorivervsaf on Mon Oct 5 09:49:41 2015, in response to "in god we trust", posted by ntrainride on Mon Oct 5 09:34:57 2015. Can't be any worse than Kern County, California: :) |
|
|
| (1317760) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Mon Oct 5 09:51:43 2015, in response to "in god we trust", posted by ntrainride on Mon Oct 5 09:34:57 2015. Actually the bottom line meaning of "In God we Trust" in the American context is that we look for our rights to God; i.e., that our most basic rights are conferred by a power higher than any person; so no human can rightly say "I am giving you these rights." Not by a King. Not by a President. Not by a Dictator.It is people who muck up the concept by pretending that THEY know what "God" has done and what "God" intends. |
|
|
| (1317762) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Oct 5 10:06:53 2015, in response to "in god we trust", posted by ntrainride on Mon Oct 5 09:34:57 2015. Who says that there was ever nothing? |
|
|
| (1317763) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Oct 5 10:06:53 2015, in response to "in god we trust", posted by ntrainride on Mon Oct 5 09:34:57 2015. Who says that there was ever nothing? |
|
|
| (1317764) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Oct 5 10:09:15 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by SLRT on Mon Oct 5 09:51:43 2015. I don't agree. This idea would have been most prominent during the revolutionary times and shortly thereafter. However, In God We Trust originates during the Civil War and was revived during the 1950s: times of increased religiosity or attempts to pretend that religion was important. |
|
|
| (1317768) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Mon Oct 5 10:16:39 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Oct 5 10:09:15 2015. It is the same basic sentiment that caused us to put only allegorical images of Liberty on our coinage from the beginning of the Republic until 1906, when we screwed it up to put dead people on the coins. |
|
|
| (1317769) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Mon Oct 5 10:18:05 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by mcorivervsaf on Mon Oct 5 09:49:41 2015. nice. |
|
|
| (1317770) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Mon Oct 5 10:20:54 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Oct 5 10:06:53 2015. Can we show that there was always something? And when did that something begin? Or did it not begin but was always there? And how can something always have been there? Including G-d, for that matter.These are more significant questions, actually, than exactly how humans came to be. |
|
|
| (1317772) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Mon Oct 5 10:22:33 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by SLRT on Mon Oct 5 10:16:39 2015. *1909 |
|
|
| (1317774) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Mon Oct 5 10:31:42 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Oct 5 10:06:53 2015. my brain cannot come up with any possible response to the notion. to assume that "everything" was "always existent" is not an answer if all our perception of the, ummm, plenum we exist in shows us that everything is made at some point, that every action has a starting point. and, ok, obviously, here we is, etc. it's alive. and so on. just stating that it makes no sense. |
|
|
| (1317779) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Oct 5 11:39:27 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by SLRT on Mon Oct 5 10:20:54 2015. We can’t show that there was always something, nor can we show that there was ever nothing. |
|
|
| (1317780) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Oct 5 11:39:42 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Oct 5 11:39:27 2015. Although perhaps we can, it’s just that we haven’t. |
|
|
| (1317782) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Oct 5 11:43:13 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by ntrainride on Mon Oct 5 10:31:42 2015. Why are you relying on your perceptions? Your perceptions are not complete. It used to be that scientists believed that the universe was static and that it always existed, but then it was discovered that it was expanding, so then the big bang theory came about. The uncertainty is what happened before the big bang theory.The perceptions of those who thought that steady state was accurate perceived a static universe is what I’m saying. |
|
|
| (1317785) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Mon Oct 5 12:11:14 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Oct 5 11:39:42 2015. That's not the point. The point is the question of eternity. Is it possible for something to have "always" existed? |
|
|
| (1317786) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Oct 5 12:21:06 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by SLRT on Mon Oct 5 12:11:14 2015. Yes. |
|
|
| (1317790) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Mon Oct 5 12:40:18 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Oct 5 12:21:06 2015. The only thing that's always existed and always will is 76th Street. |
|
|
| (1317793) | |
Re: arachnology of terror |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Oct 5 12:58:11 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by SLRT on Mon Oct 5 10:20:54 2015. You mean he hates science? |
|
|
| (1317795) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Oct 5 13:01:20 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by SLRT on Mon Oct 5 09:51:43 2015. Well said. But the totalitarian-mindset folk will argue against that. |
|
|
| (1317799) | |
Re: Ology of terror III.V |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Oct 5 13:05:54 2015, in response to Re: arachnology of terror, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Oct 5 12:58:11 2015. . . .says the person who denies basic science because it conflicts with his favorite book of fairy tales. |
|
|
| (1317800) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Oct 5 13:08:09 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by SLRT on Mon Oct 5 12:11:14 2015. Is it possible for something to have "always" existed?Sure. Minus infinity is a perfectly good number! |
|
|
| (1317801) | |
Re: "in god we trust" |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Oct 5 13:08:42 2015, in response to Re: Ology of terror III.V, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Oct 5 13:05:54 2015. LOL liar on two counts. No fairies are in that history book (look to the Prose Edda for stuff like that), and no real science conflicts with it—only pseudoscience. Thanks for proving that you hate science; not that you know too much about science anyway. |
|
|
| (1317804) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Oct 5 13:18:58 2015, in response to Re: "in god we trust", posted by Olog-hai on Mon Oct 5 13:08:42 2015. no real science conflicts with it—only pseudoscience.LOL. If one takes everything in the Bible as literal truth, lots of it conflicts with lots of science. |
|
|
| (1317813) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by Allan on Mon Oct 5 13:46:18 2015, in response to "in god we trust", posted by ntrainride on Mon Oct 5 09:34:57 2015. "All others pay cash" |
|
|
| (1317817) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Mon Oct 5 13:59:44 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Oct 5 11:43:13 2015. dude. first, relying on anything besides my perceptions is impossible. second, oK, you're still talking clockworks; i'm talking clockmaker. call it the big bang, call it genisis, doesn't matter. something from nothing. yep. |
|
|
| (1317818) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Mon Oct 5 14:01:32 2015, in response to "in god we trust", posted by ntrainride on Mon Oct 5 09:34:57 2015. police state religion ! |
|
|
| (1317819) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Mon Oct 5 14:02:20 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by mcorivervsaf on Mon Oct 5 09:49:41 2015. damnn |
|
|
| (1317820) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Mon Oct 5 14:07:40 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Mon Oct 5 14:01:32 2015. ca'llate, gringo |
|
|
| (1317822) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Mon Oct 5 14:13:50 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by ntrainride on Mon Oct 5 14:07:40 2015. religion by force ?enforced |
|
|
| (1317823) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Oct 5 14:13:54 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by ntrainride on Mon Oct 5 13:59:44 2015. There is no need for a clockmaker, because the laws of the universe work so well. Shoehorning one in causes more problems than it solves. |
|
|
| (1317824) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Oct 5 14:19:25 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by AlM on Mon Oct 5 13:08:09 2015. Yes, but in terms of time, minus infinity runs into some problems. It means that an infinite amount of "time" (however we understand that word) must have passed already up until the present moment. But can an infinite amount of time elapse? |
|
|
| (1317825) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by The Silence on Mon Oct 5 14:20:13 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Oct 5 10:09:15 2015. Um, actually not really."And this be our Motto-'In God is our Trust"... is one of the last lines of the full version of the Star Spangled Banner. So the idea of the phrase is actually older. |
|
|
| (1317826) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Oct 5 14:26:49 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Oct 5 14:13:54 2015. Something working well says nothing definitive about its source. In fact, the more intricate, the more likely "manufactured," wouldn't you say?At the same time, I agree with you that just making something up to answer a question isn't a good practice. |
|
|
| (1317827) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Mon Oct 5 14:31:37 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Oct 5 14:13:54 2015. "laws of the universe"well... "laws" "universe" something. from nothing. yep. |
|
|
| (1317829) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Oct 5 14:33:21 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Oct 5 14:26:49 2015. In fact, the more intricate, the more likely "manufactured," wouldn't you say?I do not agree. One of the important tenets of engineering is to keep things as simple as possible. Simpler construction means fewer things that are apt to fail. |
|
|
| (1317830) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Mon Oct 5 14:33:50 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Oct 5 14:26:49 2015. On the other hand, assuming that everything fell in place by accident isn't good theory either.And I've run into a distressing number of people who "don't believe in God" but imagine that Space Aliens may have done it. |
|
|
| (1317831) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Oct 5 14:34:18 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by ntrainride on Mon Oct 5 14:31:37 2015. I never claimed to know the answer for where the laws of the universe come from or why they are what they are. |
|
|
| (1317832) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Mon Oct 5 14:35:48 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Oct 5 14:33:21 2015. This isn't about good engineering principles. New Flyer seems to be saying that a complex, "well ordered" system suggests manufacture. |
|
|
| (1317833) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Oct 5 14:36:34 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by SLRT on Mon Oct 5 14:33:50 2015. Only if you consider it an “accident.” |
|
|
| (1317834) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Oct 5 14:37:11 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by SLRT on Mon Oct 5 14:35:48 2015. Manufacture suggests more simplicity than reality. So complexity suggests natural development. |
|
|
| (1317835) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Mon Oct 5 14:37:13 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Oct 5 14:34:18 2015. That's a better answer than I usually expect from an atheist. |
|
|
| (1317836) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Oct 5 14:37:42 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by SLRT on Mon Oct 5 14:37:13 2015. Why? |
|
|
| (1317837) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Oct 5 14:38:19 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by SLRT on Mon Oct 5 14:37:13 2015. ??? |
|
|
| (1317838) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Mon Oct 5 14:40:12 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Oct 5 14:36:34 2015. Are you agreeing with me that there could be a "natural" ordering process that need not come from a diety? Random changes over l-o-o-n-n-g periods of time through mutation seems to be the Holy Grail of modern Darwinists. |
|
|
| (1317839) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Oct 5 14:42:07 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by SLRT on Mon Oct 5 14:40:12 2015. What do you mean? |
|
|
| (1317840) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon Oct 5 14:42:46 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Oct 5 14:26:49 2015. The complexities of good engineering and manufacturing implies an up-to-date understanding of the laws of physics, chemistry, etc.The more humans understood Science and what is possible with that understanding, manufacturing and engineering became more advanced in every field. The embrace of Science starts with the rejection of Superstition. |
|
|
| (1317841) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Mon Oct 5 14:43:06 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Oct 5 14:37:42 2015. Because many atheists I've known (including having gone to an atheist convention) will not admit that there are natural forces that are truly unknown; for example that evolution theory is a complete science that can explain everything. |
|
|
| (1317842) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon Oct 5 14:44:32 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by SLRT on Mon Oct 5 14:33:50 2015. On the other hand, assuming that everything fell in place by accident isn't good theory either.So making up The Great Invisible Wizard is a better one? |
|
|
| (1317843) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Oct 5 14:45:10 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Oct 5 14:37:11 2015. But again, manner of development tells me nothing about the source.Possibility: a simple source establishes a universe that starts off simple but becomes complex via development. |
|
|
| (1317844) | |
Re: ''in god we trust'' |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Mon Oct 5 14:47:15 2015, in response to Re: ''in god we trust'', posted by SMAZ on Mon Oct 5 14:44:32 2015. Who said that? Do you believe that simply rejecting one stupid theory make any other one right? |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|