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.

[PhiloKGB]

="WinePusher"]
Well, I mean, do you know what the difference is between the term 'secular' and the term 'atheistic?' I'll make it simple so you can understand: secular does not equal atheistic. Secular =/= Atheist. Two different terms with two different meanings. Public schools are secular, but they aren't the products of atheist endeavors.[/quote]
Aaaaand scene.

[WinePusher]

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).

I really don't understand your imcomprehensible rant. I'll just say, for the record, I make an effort to try to understand my opponents position and arguments in these threads. And I make an effort to actually address their points and concerns. You don't, you're just interested in trying to embarrass people you disagree with, which is why you are constantly asking people to 'withdraw their claims.' If my opponent makes an unsubstantiated claim, I don't do the unproductive thing and tell them to provide evidence or withdraw it. I actually try to address it and engage in an exchange of ideas. Your motives are insincere.

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.

Hah! I see you had the common sense to edit and delete what you wrote in response to my statement. If I remember correctly, you wrote something along the lines of...'This reasoning speaks for itself' or something like that? This is exactly what I'm talking about. You make a point, in this case about book clubs. I respond to your point. And you either just ignore it or write an unproductive one liner that doesn't address any of the substance. If you disagree with it, explain the error in my thinking. That's the point of this entire forum. Don't just ignore it or write something inane like 'This reasoning speaks for itself.'

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.

Then it's really pointless to continue on with you, since it's been spelled out several times.

Point 1) My intial post that started all this may have been a logical fallacy, which is what you pointed out. I responded by saying that even though it is a fallacy, the general point is not invalidated, and I provided an example where the use of a logical fallacy doesn't invalidate the argument.

Point 2) I never said the quote you attributed to me: "In God we trust being taken off money is more important than the people being slaughtered in Syria." You said I said that, and I never did. And I went on to further explain what I meant. What I meant was: "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."

I've honestly tried to engage in a productive exchange with you but it's clear that your motives are malicious and insincere. You're obviously not on this forum because you have an appreciation for rigorious debate, or to genuinely learn and grow intellectually.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Point 1) My intial post that started all this may have been a logical fallacy, which is what you pointed out. I responded by saying that even though it is a fallacy, the general point is not invalidated, and I provided an example where the use of a logical fallacy doesn't invalidate the argument.

We seem to have a disagreement on the fundamentals of logic. An argument based on a logical fallacy isn't valid. That's inherent in the very definition of valid, is it not? I don't see what "example" you've provided that shows otherwise. If you make a claim based on an argument, and that argument is fallacious, the claim doesn't stand for further debate anyway.

Point 2) I never said the quote you attributed to me: "In God we trust being taken off money is more important than the people being slaughtered in Syria." You said I said that, and I never did. And I went on to further explain what I meant. What I meant was: "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."

Yes, I've already conceded this (I had no intent to misrepresent you and have agreed to your clarifications every step of the way). Everything else in your response seems to be addressing myself and my posting style as opposed to any argument I've made.