Reply #22: His response, my response [View All]

planecap wrote:

Once again concerning the constitution I will deal not just with the constitution itself but the other documents that help lay the foundation for the constitution. Do you understand what I am saying here? Lets hope so because what I am saying is not that hard or difficult.

Now religion. Your definition:

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.



By your own definition atheism is a religion. Look at the qoute: A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. .............

Now take note of that abbreviation. ESP. That means especially but is does not mean exclusively. Atheism does in fact have beliefs about the cause, nature and purpose of the universe and is promoted through the theory of evolution. Therefore for you to say you have no religious beliefs is a lie. Atheism by even your own definition is a religion.

Now do I need to give you Websters definition, which by the way will back up what I am saying?


Sboatcar said:
I think you're missing the point and trying to change the topic of discussion here. I believe we were discussing the separation of church and state. So please, do go on with that discussion, as you have started another thread on exactly what you're talking bout.

I understand what you're doing here, the idea is to obfuscate and to try to find a way to attack me personally instead of talk about the actual issues at hand. I would like to also add that I do not appreciate being called a liar, as I have not lied about anything in this thread. I would suggest that you either return to the original topic of discussion, I am curious as to how you can use these other documents to show how there is no separation of church and state in this country, despite the high court ruling over and over again that there is, or that you stop this discussion altogether.

Lastly, if I were forced to put a name behind my lack of beliefs, then I guess atheism would be the closest fit, but simply not believing doesn't mean that I subscribe to any set of beliefs. If you say that believing in facts makes one an atheist, then anyone who ever believes in anything that is a fact is an atheist. Is the sky blue? Does gravity hold you in your chair? Does blood flow through your veins? If you said yes to any of these, you are agreeing with facts, and based on your syllogism, that would make you also an atheist.