Remove 'in god we trust'

[Richard81]

Having God on our currency and in our Pledge of Allegiance fuels the false belief that the United States is a Christian nation. As declared in the Treaty of Tripoli, 1796, "...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This was signed by president John Adams. Having God in our currency and in our Pledge of Allegiance directly disrespects those among us who are not of the Christian faith, and it should be removed.

I took that from this site https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti ... e/sx9gbfgW
It is a petition to remove 'God' from our currency and pledge of allegiance. Do you agree that this should be done? Why or why not? If you do, please sign this petition.

[McCulloch]

Sounds like the motto has unified support from Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Jews, does it not? The atheists will just have to find a way to man up and carry on. Cuba beckons.

So your view is that one specific denomination cannot be established but it is OK to establish a group of religions, so long as the group is large enough to include the majority of Americans. So long as you can find support for the government funded promotion of religion by some leaders of a wide variety of religious groups, then it is OK, even if one or two minority groups are not included. Is that the intent of the wording of the first amendment?

We do not want established atheism any more than we want established religion, even if the religion is broadly based. Governments should not be in the religion business. I have no opposition to anyone freely spreading the message "In God We Trust". However, this is not the message of the government that represents atheists as well as theists, believers and unbelievers, pious and impious.

Cuba, I am told, is a nice place to have a vacation; great beaches but no American tourists.

[East of Eden]

Sounds like the motto has unified support from Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Jews, does it not? The atheists will just have to find a way to man up and carry on. Cuba beckons.

So your view is that one specific denomination cannot be established but it is OK to establish a group of religions, so long as the group is large enough to include the majority of Americans. So long as you can find support for the government funded promotion of religion by some leaders of a wide variety of religious groups, then it is OK, even if one or two minority groups are not included. Is that the intent of the wording of the first amendment?

Yes. Anything else is revisionist distortion. Joseph Story clearly has given the intent of the 1A.

[PhiloKGB]

Yes. Anything else is revisionist distortion. Joseph Story clearly has given the intent of the 1A.

And isn't it just convenient that it's precisely the interpretation with which you agree?

This is silly.

[WinePusher]

This is a good example of bad debating. Instead of doing the honorable thing and admitting that atheist organizations have screwed up priorities, you counter with this garbage.

You have not showed any evidence that such screwed up priorities exist. All you've done is make a fallacious argument to try to insinuate that this is the case.

I already proved why my response wasn't fallacious, and you just ignored it. Pretty convenient for you huh, just ignore whatever you can't refute:

For example, many people who debate evolution and global warming cite the consensus amoung scientists as proof for their position. A good debater would respond to this line of argumentation by saying something along the lines of, "Well, while many scientists do agree on the overall point, they disagree on some of the smaller points" or something like that. A bad debater would say, "You're just committing the Appeal to Authority fallacy" and would simply leave it at that. That type of response doesn't cut it in an honest academic setting, which is a type of setting you're not familiar with?

And my point still stands despite your asinine response. American Atheists, a non profit organization, chooses to spend it's time and money lobbying our government to remove references to God from public spaces (something that does absolutely no harm to anything other than the inflated ego's atheists) rather than lobbying our government to do something about Syria, or Hurricane Sandy, or the recession. You call yourselves humanists but you don't seem to care to much about humanity.

Being concerned about cause x doesn't mean you can't be equally or more concerned about cause y.

Provide a comprehensive list of atheist organizations that are concerned with humanitarian causes. And by comprehensive, I mean more than five. There are literally hundreds of faith based charities that are concerned with humanitarian causes. Sadly, when atheists organize themselves into groups and organizations they only seem to care about their selfish interests and goals.

American Atheists have claimed this:

"In God we trust should be taken off money."

You are misrepresenting their claim as this:

"In God we trust being taken off money is more important than the people being slaughtered in Syria."

They actually made the first claim. They didn't make the second claim - that's just a strawman position you're fallaciously accusing them of holding.

I'm not saying that. I never said that the claim being made by the American Atheists is that

"In God we trust being taken off money is more important than the people being slaughtered in Syria."

Show me the quote where I specficially said that this was the claim being made by the American Atheists or Retract It.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

This is a good example of bad debating. Instead of doing the honorable thing and admitting that atheist organizations have screwed up priorities, you counter with this garbage.

You have not showed any evidence that such screwed up priorities exist. All you've done is make a fallacious argument to try to insinuate that this is the case.

I already proved why my response wasn't fallacious, and you just ignored it. Pretty convenient for you huh, just ignore whatever you can't refute:

For example, many people who debate evolution and global warming cite the consensus amoung scientists as proof for their position. A good debater would respond to this line of argumentation by saying something along the lines of, "Well, while many scientists do agree on the overall point, they disagree on some of the smaller points" or something like that. A bad debater would say, "You're just committing the Appeal to Authority fallacy" and would simply leave it at that. That type of response doesn't cut it in an honest academic setting, which is a type of setting you're not familiar with?

How does this prove your argument isn't fallacious? This isn't even addressing any argument you made, this is simply you criticizing my response. A good debater doesn't waste his time proving claims wrong when those claims are clearly based on a logical fallacy in the first place.

And my point still stands despite your asinine response. American Atheists, a non profit organization, chooses to spend it's time and money lobbying our government to remove references to God from public spaces (something that does absolutely no harm to anything other than the inflated ego's atheists) rather than lobbying our government to do something about Syria, or Hurricane Sandy, or the recession. You call yourselves humanists but you don't seem to care to much about humanity.

Being concerned about cause x doesn't mean you can't be equally or more concerned about cause y.

Provide a comprehensive list of atheist organizations that are concerned with humanitarian causes. And by comprehensive, I mean more than five. There are literally hundreds of faith based charities that are concerned with humanitarian causes. Sadly, when atheists organize themselves into groups and organizations they only seem to care about their selfish interests and goals.

What does this have to do with your claim about the "messed up priorities" of American Atheists? Provide evidence that American Atheists think "in God we trust" is a more important issue than Syria (et al.). If you can't provide such evidence, you should not make such accusations.

American Atheists have claimed this:

"In God we trust should be taken off money."

You are misrepresenting their claim as this:

"In God we trust being taken off money is more important than the people being slaughtered in Syria."

They actually made the first claim. They didn't make the second claim - that's just a strawman position you're fallaciously accusing them of holding.

I'm not saying that. I never said that the claim being made by the American Atheists is that

"In God we trust being taken off money is more important than the people being slaughtered in Syria."

Show me the quote where I specficially said that this was the claim being made by the American Atheists or Retract It.

American Atheists, a non profit organization, chooses to spend it's time and money lobbying our government to remove references to God from public spaces (something that does absolutely no harm to anything other than the inflated ego's atheists) rather than lobbying our government to do something about Syria, or Hurricane Sandy, or the recession. You call yourselves humanists but you don't seem to care to much about humanity.

What point are you trying to convey here, if not that American Atheists view "in God we trust" as more important than Syria? If you are objecting to my specific wording, then please excuse my hyperbole. I remain under the impression that you are claiming that the American Atheists consider "in God we trust" a priority over Syria (et al.) if not specifically the people being slaughtered there.

[WinePusher]

How does this prove your argument isn't fallacious? This isn't even addressing any argument you made, this is simply you criticizing my response. A good debater doesn't waste his time proving claims wrong when those claims are clearly based on a logical fallacy in the first place.

I didn't dispute the fact that it was fallacious. I'm saying a fallacious argument doesn't make it an illegitimate argument, via the example I provided and you ignored. I have nothing to say to you if you're going to continually ignore all my points.

Provide a comprehensive list of atheist organizations that are concerned with humanitarian causes. And by comprehensive, I mean more than five. There are literally hundreds of faith based charities that are concerned with humanitarian causes. Sadly, when atheists organize themselves into groups and organizations they only seem to care about their selfish interests and goals.

What does this have to do with your claim about the "messed up priorities" of American Atheists? Provide evidence that American Atheists think "in God we trust" is a more important issue than Syria (et al.). If you can't provide such evidence, you should not make such accusations.

1) So you can't provide a list of atheist organizations concerned with humanitarian causes. 2) I never made the claim that atheists think that the motto "In God We Trust" is more important than humanitarian issues. I specifically said they devote their time and effort and funds towards the former and not the latter. Do not misrepresent my position and say I said thing that I never said. Admit you're wrong in trying to misrepresent my position and retract it or else I'm going to request moderator intervention.

I'm not saying that. I never said that the claim being made by the American Atheists is that

"In God we trust being taken off money is more important than the people being slaughtered in Syria."

Show me the quote where I specficially said that this was the claim being made by the American Atheists or Retract It.

American Atheists, a non profit organization, chooses to spend it's time and money lobbying our government to remove references to God from public spaces (something that does absolutely no harm to anything other than the inflated ego's atheists) rather than lobbying our government to do something about Syria, or Hurricane Sandy, or the recession. You call yourselves humanists but you don't seem to care to much about humanity.

Where in that statement did I say they consider the motto "In God We Trust" to be more important than Syria, Hurricane Sandy, etc? I never said that. In fact I said they have messed up priorities because they are focusing their energy on an unimportant issue like the motto rather than focusing on an important issue like Syria. You are wrong, plain and simple. You tried to misrepresent and distort my position. Retract your claim about my position. This has got to be one of the most blatant examples dishonesty that I've ever seen during my 3+ years as a member of this forum.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

How does this prove your argument isn't fallacious? This isn't even addressing any argument you made, this is simply you criticizing my response. A good debater doesn't waste his time proving claims wrong when those claims are clearly based on a logical fallacy in the first place.

I didn't dispute the fact that it was fallacious. I'm saying a fallacious argument doesn't make it an illegitimate argument, via the example I provided and you ignored. I have nothing to say to you if you're going to continually ignore all my points.

"A fallacious argument doesn't make it an illegitimate argument" sounds like a contradiction to me.

Provide a comprehensive list of atheist organizations that are concerned with humanitarian causes. And by comprehensive, I mean more than five. There are literally hundreds of faith based charities that are concerned with humanitarian causes. Sadly, when atheists organize themselves into groups and organizations they only seem to care about their selfish interests and goals.

What does this have to do with your claim about the "messed up priorities" of American Atheists? Provide evidence that American Atheists think "in God we trust" is a more important issue than Syria (et al.). If you can't provide such evidence, you should not make such accusations.

1) So you can't provide a list of atheist organizations concerned with humanitarian causes. 2) I never made the claim that atheists think that the motto "In God We Trust" is more important than humanitarian issues. I specifically said they devote their time and effort and funds towards the former and not the latter. Do not misrepresent my position and say I said thing that I never said. Admit you're wrong in trying to misrepresent my position and retract it or else I'm going to request moderator intervention.

You are claiming that American Atheists, as an organization, devote their time and efforts and funds towards their cause and not humanitarian causes? Then... so what? Would you also criticize a book club for devoting their time and efforts and funds towards their cause and not humanitarian causes?

I'm not saying that. I never said that the claim being made by the American Atheists is that

"In God we trust being taken off money is more important than the people being slaughtered in Syria."

Show me the quote where I specficially said that this was the claim being made by the American Atheists or Retract It.

American Atheists, a non profit organization, chooses to spend it's time and money lobbying our government to remove references to God from public spaces (something that does absolutely no harm to anything other than the inflated ego's atheists) rather than lobbying our government to do something about Syria, or Hurricane Sandy, or the recession. You call yourselves humanists but you don't seem to care to much about humanity.

Where in that statement did I say they consider the motto "In God We Trust" to be more important than Syria, Hurricane Sandy, etc? I never said that. In fact I said they have messed up priorities because they are focusing their energy on an unimportant issue like the motto rather than focusing on an important issue like Syria.

That is pretty much what I was trying to get at, but alright. Your point about their "messed up priorities" is still based on the same fallacious logic.

This has got to be one of the most blatant examples dishonesty that I've ever seen during my 3+ years as a member of this forum.

Not sure if serious...

[WinePusher]

I didn't dispute the fact that it was fallacious. I'm saying a fallacious argument doesn't make it an illegitimate argument, via the example I provided and you ignored. I have nothing to say to you if you're going to continually ignore all my points.

A fallacious argument doesn't make it an illegitimate argument" sounds like a contradiction to me.

Well if you could maybe address my example regarding appeals to authority used in Evolution and Global Warming debates then maybe we could get somewhere.

1) So you can't provide a list of atheist organizations concerned with humanitarian causes. 2) I never made the claim that atheists think that the motto "In God We Trust" is more important than humanitarian issues. I specifically said they devote their time and effort and funds towards the former and not the latter. Do not misrepresent my position and say I said thing that I never said. Admit you're wrong in trying to misrepresent my position and retract it or else I'm going to request moderator intervention.

You are claiming that American Atheists, as an organization, devote their time and efforts and funds towards their cause and not humanitarian causes? Then... so what? Would you also criticize a book club for devoting their time and efforts and funds towards their cause and not humanitarian causes?

Your book club example is dumb. Books clubs don't generate revenue. Book clubs don't charge membership fees and collect donations and organize fundraisers. On the other hand, there are dozens of organizations that are devoted towards humanitarian causes even though that's not their specific purpose and mission statement. Nearly every sinle company in the fortune 500 has a charitiable and humanitarian component to it, every single Christian church has a charitiable and humanitarian component to it. Atheists clearly are organizing themselves and are only lobbying for their selfish goals. Christians do the same, but they also undertake altruistic and non-selfish goals as well.

This has got to be one of the most blatant examples dishonesty that I've ever seen during my 3+ years as a member of this forum.

Not sure if serious...

Yea it is. First you misrepresent my position, and then you're unwilling to retract your error when you've been exposed.

[PhiloKGB]

[Replying to post 248 by WinePusher]
So when I give you the names of secular humanitarian charities, are you going to nitpick and complain and say they're not atheistic charities?

Doctors Without Borders
Oxfam
Kiva
Donors Choose

Enjoy.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

I didn't dispute the fact that it was fallacious. I'm saying a fallacious argument doesn't make it an illegitimate argument, via the example I provided and you ignored. I have nothing to say to you if you're going to continually ignore all my points.

A fallacious argument doesn't make it an illegitimate argument" sounds like a contradiction to me.

Well if you could maybe address my example regarding appeals to authority used in Evolution and Global Warming debates then maybe we could get somewhere.

Are you talking about this?

For example, many people who debate evolution and global warming cite the consensus amoung scientists as proof for their position. A good debater would respond to this line of argumentation by saying something along the lines of, "Well, while many scientists do agree on the overall point, they disagree on some of the smaller points" or something like that. A bad debater would say, "You're just committing the Appeal to Authority fallacy" and would simply leave it at that. That type of response doesn't cut it in an honest academic setting, which is a type of setting you're not familiar with?

What is there for me to address? You're just giving me your opinion on what makes a good debater. I disagree with your opinion, and am content to debate within the rules of the forum. I fail to see why I should spend any time arguing against a claim based on a fallacy (and by insisting that I do so you are yourself committing the shifting of the burden of proof fallacy. You haven't supported your claim yet, you don't get to ask me to disprove it until you do).

1) So you can't provide a list of atheist organizations concerned with humanitarian causes. 2) I never made the claim that atheists think that the motto "In God We Trust" is more important than humanitarian issues. I specifically said they devote their time and effort and funds towards the former and not the latter. Do not misrepresent my position and say I said thing that I never said. Admit you're wrong in trying to misrepresent my position and retract it or else I'm going to request moderator intervention.

You are claiming that American Atheists, as an organization, devote their time and efforts and funds towards their cause and not humanitarian causes? Then... so what? Would you also criticize a book club for devoting their time and efforts and funds towards their cause and not humanitarian causes?

Your book club example is dumb. Books clubs don't generate revenue. Book clubs don't charge membership fees and collect donations and organize fundraisers. On the other hand, there are dozens of organizations that are devoted towards humanitarian causes even though that's not their specific purpose and mission statement. Nearly every sinle company in the fortune 500 has a charitiable and humanitarian component to it, every single Christian church has a charitiable and humanitarian component to it. Atheists clearly are organizing themselves and are only lobbying for their selfish goals. Christians do the same, but they also undertake altruistic and non-selfish goals as well.

This has got to be one of the most blatant examples dishonesty that I've ever seen during my 3+ years as a member of this forum.

Not sure if serious...

Yea it is. First you misrepresent my position, and then you're unwilling to retract your error when you've been exposed.

I fail to see how I was misrepresenting your position (unless we are to split the thinnest of hairs), and given that you now seem to be ignoring my requests for further clarification of your position your indignation appears disingenuous. Not to mention that I've already conceded what clarification you've offered.

You were insinuating something about the priorities of American Atheists with regard to Syria (et al.). It was based on fallacious reasoning. You have shown nothing with regard to the priorities of American Atheists. Your assertion is based on a fallacy and can be dismissed pending further support.