frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Does Christianity align with US values?

1234568



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
Tie
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    @piloteer - You wrote:=
    So if the standards of "All Justices sitting on court benches TO THIS DAY" have been in practice since the constitution was ratified, how can "laws made today [be] completely irrelevant to this discussion"?
    I have now answered that three times in three different ways.  What part of this don't you understand, namely, that the author of the topic sets the parameters of the topic.   As already mentioned, he more specifically defined, (later), the definition of what he meant by "U.S. VALUES" that meaning specified by him is the U.S. founding documents.  So the topic, subsequently, became this:

    "Does Christianity Align With The U.S. Founding Documents?"


    It appears to me you are arrogantly inclined.  You write long dissertations expecting others to read them, although they are completely off-topic and irrelevant, while refusing to read similarly lengthy dissertations in response, which are on-topic.  If you refuse to read that which is put in front of you in reply to your pettifogging, then you can only expect others to refuse to read yours, or even refuse to respond to them.  Fair cop of the whack?  Now can we drop this?


    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne Gold Premium Member 1628 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    @Grafix

    It seems you're a huge fan of David Barton. I don't recognize his work as that of an historian, and neither do historians. I've read his book "the Jefferson lies" which was pulled from shelves because of its innacuracies. Is this the 'historian' you want to hitch your wagon to?

    https://www.npr.org/2012/08/08/157754542/the-most-influential-evangelist-youve-never-heard-of
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • I challenge anyone to name a single principal unique to Christianity that is one of the US democracy.

    The myth that the US was founded on Christian principals is one that needs to be brought into light if there is to be any moral progress.

    Being Christian does not make you a good person, and this realization is why so many people are leaving religion and checking "none" when asked about religion.

    @ Happy_killbot-
    Basic principle of publicly share belief is unique to all religions not just to the united state held by the people, for the people. A true united State, meaning group without prejudice must include those of Christian value, as the group is united without prejudice. FYI a democracy is not a united state it is a cause with consequence. A person preserving a union on two principles held by definition of constitution is not reserving civil liberty they are molding a united state. Before the application to civil liberty take place YeshuaBought. Understand?

    @ YeshuaBought-
     First, a constitutional state of two principles is combined in a perfect union, then civil liberty can be developed from and or from that union as united state/ group without prejudice. A constitutional right must be proven to have a connection to a basic understanding of legal history.

    Example: The argument that marijuana possession is unconstitutional is made by stating that it is the act of air pollution that is the legal concern to people, not ownership. This is a true constitutional state of the union.


    Grafix
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    There is enough data here to wright a small book, and it is apparent that this discussion went off the rails about 4 pages in, and it isn't coming back.
    SkepticalOne
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -  

    "Does Christianity align with US values?"


    Yes Christianity aligns with US values.

    It's pro Child, pro Family, pro Community, and pro Humanity. 
    Grafix
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    @SkepticalOne - You wrote:
    It seems you're a huge fan of David Barton. I don't recognize his work as that of an historian, and neither do historians. I've read his book "the Jefferson lies" which was pulled from shelves because of its innacuracies. Is this the 'historian' you want to hitch your wagon to?
    Until I followed your link to the NPR article, I had never heard of Barton and know nothing of him at all.  Skimming the purview of a distinctly left-wing tabloid is not going to be sufficient info' for me to comment on Barton's views, either.  I do agree with his primary beef, that history is being revised and re-written by bought-and-paid-for leftist, Marxist and anti-Christian academia to de-educate our kids.  There is absolutely no doubt about that.  We only have to look at the atheistic, Marxist skew found in school texts - everything and anything which references a Christian foundation of any kind in any thing, has been completely obliterated and written out of every text.  This is not accidental.  It is very deliberate.  A comparison with earlier texts confirms it.  The absolute thoroughness and consistency of this erasing of history in every discipline right through to Universities, supports that.

    That said, it is not a rebuttal to my conclusion that Atheists do not know how to define themselves anymore, because of one reason and one alone.  Their true definition for centuries was that they did not believe any deity of any identity of any kind existed; that we had no spiritual soul and no destiny, but to be returned to the earth, dust to dust, ashes to ashes.  However, as science has, particularly with the discovery of DNA, wrought great changes in its knowledge base, we have seen many once-sworn and dedicated atheists backslide from their positive positions of definitely no Gods to an agnostic position, perhaps like your own. 

    I don't think this is anything to be ashamed of, let alone any need to prompt denials.  After all, intelligent argument evolves as we learn more.  I no longer believe half of the things I used to argue vehemently as a green sapling at the age of 18 or even 25 years and am more than happy to admit, that I was not as informed then as I am now.  Science is always finding new information which changes our ideas. That's its quintessential blueprint.

    Contemplate these famous words from a famous atheist shown below.  It's such a pity such candid honesty is above today's establishment academia, who live in the bowels of the Anti-Christ ...





    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @Grafix

    That quote doesn't mean what you think it does:

    January 24, 1936

    Dear Phyllis,

    I will attempt to reply to your question as simply as I can. Here is my answer:

    Scientists believe that every occurrence, including the affairs of human beings, is due to the laws of nature. Therefore a scientist cannot be inclined to believe that the course of events can be influenced by prayer, that is, by a supernaturally manifested wish.

    However, we must concede that our actual knowledge of these forces is imperfect, so that in the end the belief in the existence of a final, ultimate spirit rests on a kind of faith. Such belief remains widespread even with the current achievements in science.

    But also, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is surely quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.

    With cordial greetings,

    your A. Einstein


    He doesn't mean the Christian god as you understand it, but a supreme spirit which is outside of the universe and which reality is a manifestation of. Einstein was agnostic, he though Christianity and Judaism were silly superstitions.

    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    @Happy_Killbot - You wrote ...
    The quote doesn't mean what you think it does.

    First error made by you right there in that sentence, which is most unscientific and unprofessional.  How can you presume to know what I think?  See?  ... and this is how you argue everything via misinterpretation, misrepresentation and plain bald-faced lies, none of which an argument make.  

    Does it really M A T T E R which or what type of God or manifestly superior spiritual identity, that Einstein is acknowledging must exist?  No it is immaterial.  The simple fact being put to you is that science supports the necessity to acknowledge a much higher intellect and source of knowledge than any which man can possibly entertain.  That is ALL  he ever meant and ALL  he ever said.  END OF STORY.  So let's not go down the dumb-arsed road of arguing WHICH deity  or the type of deity  Einstein was imagining.  N O T   R E L E V A N T.

    His remark simply supports the concept of those scientists who subscribe to the fact that creation involves Intelligent Design, which DNA attests to.

    Therefore it takes us full circle.  There is no reason then, according to scientists like Einstein, NOT to believe the possibility that God gave Christ his 'Y' chromosome and that as He was half human and half a supernatural spiritual being then He needed only Mary's 23 chromosomes for his humanity and none of the other 22 from any father, his father also being a spiritual entity.  

    Happy_KillbotPlaffelvohfen
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    @Grafix Sometimes the simplest minds are the hardest to probe.

    Einstein was famously agnostic, his stance was one of "we don't know and never will" He was by no means a theist or atheist, as you can see in the context of the letter I quoted above.

    He didn't believe in any one single deity or religion, he was agnostic, I can't drive that point hard enough.

    You still haven't made any attempt to dissuade the "y chromosome" pragmatic argument. If it isn't useful, then it isn't real.

    P.S. You still have gross conceptual errors on how human reproduction works.
    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    Happy_Killbot
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -  
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @Grafix This is what we have been saying the whole time. He bows to no organized religion, except that he has a profound almost spiritual connection with the universe.

    Albert Einstein scoffed at your idea of god, he didn't care for Jesus, and he was only Jewish in culture.

    You can not possibly read this, and then come to the conclusion that Einstein's beliefs and yours are one and the same, that would be delusional. He doesn't even think that consciousness and free will exist, something I agree with strongly. He didn't even think that the universe was "created intelligently" You can find such a thought nowhere in any of his works.

    This is all irrelevant to this debate anyways. This was supposed to be about the travesty of Christian nationalism.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    @Happy_Killbot - And I have never disagreed with this concept of his belief, however some have claimed he was an atheist all the way, the reason I posted the post.  Even Richard the DAwk Dawkins claimed Einstein was an atheist and would not walk it back, even when challenged.  Einstein at first in his younger years was an atheist and wrote some scathing things about Judaism and religion in general, but as he understood more in physics you can read from his own words a gradual moving away from atheism - where he began - and moved to pantheism which is a recognition of a God's existence, but not of a personal God, in the way Christianity portrays God.

    Having said that, Einstein came to the conclusion that you could not be a scientist and deny the existence of a God and that religions which did not accept science were blind.
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @Grafix , this site can't even do high school math right:

    "step one: Add all the mass in the universe

    step two: multiply by the speed of light

    step 3: square that number:" WRONG! You have to square the speed of light first, then multiply that number by the mass of the universe, and then you will STILL BE WRONG because that is a misuse of that equation!

    This equation applies not directly to matter, it doesn't mean that you can turn energy into matter and vice versa, the confusion comes from the term "mass" which is separate from "matter" what it means is that the faster something is moving, the more mass it has. It puts the speed limit on travel of information and matter, namely the speed of light, (c) which stands for causality.

    The confusion over this whole debacle comes from it's use in calculating the mass defect of atoms. Simply put, the most massive atoms contain more binding energy than lighter ones down to iron, and splitting this difference releases energy. This is how nuclear fission happens.


    When you calculate mass defect you use the equation E = Mc^2 to determine the energy yield, where M is the mass defect. This however, doesn't change the fact that you start out with the same amount of matter as before, it is just now that matter has a different mass. That is how the equation is supposed to be used, not this blasphemy from some idiots on the internet who failed high school math!

    Image result for calculating energy released in nuclear fission
    Dee
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @Grafix ;

    You were the one who said he was an atheist!

    Contemplate these famous words from a famous atheist shown below.  It's such a pity such candid honesty is above today's establishment academia, who live in the bowels of the Anti-Christ ...
    You are debunking your own ignorance!

    And this is still irrelevant to this debate!
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne Gold Premium Member 1628 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    Grafix said:
    @SkepticalOne - You wrote:
    It seems you're a huge fan of David Barton. I don't recognize his work as that of an historian, and neither do historians. I've read his book "the Jefferson lies" which was pulled from shelves because of its innacuracies. Is this the 'historian' you want to hitch your wagon to?
    Until I followed your link to the NPR article, I had never heard of Barton and know nothing of him at all.  Skimming the purview of a distinctly left-wing tabloid is not going to be sufficient info' for me to comment on Barton's views, either.  
    Obviously, you are unaware the "wallbuilders" site you linked in your last reply to me is David Barton's organization. Perhaps you need to check the legitimacy of your sources a little more carefully.

    I reject Barton as an historian for obvious reasons - he has no academic credentials in history or any relevant field. Combined with the fact that his version of history is so often wrong, it is laughably absurd that he should be viewed as any type of authority in history. Perhaps, he might be viewed as an authority in religious education as this is what his degree is in, but definitely not history.
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • @Grafix This is what we have been saying the whole time. He bows to no organized religion, except that he has a profound almost spiritual connection with the universe.

    Albert Einstein scoffed at your idea of god, he didn't care for Jesus, and he was only Jewish in culture.

    You can not possibly read this, and then come to the conclusion that Einstein's beliefs and yours are one and the same, that would be delusional. He doesn't even think that consciousness and free will exist, something I agree with strongly. He didn't even think that the universe was "created intelligently" You can find such a thought nowhere in any of his works.

    This is all irrelevant to this debate anyways. This was supposed to be about the travesty of Christian nationalism.
    If a Christian wants to place Einstein as an authority on god, then they should drop Christianity as he felt it was childish and primitive legends. 

    Regardless, appealing to Einstein as an authority on god is a fallacious appeal to authority. He was a physicist, not a spiritual leader, theologian, or anything close.

    I agree this is irrelevant to the OP, and hope this helps to redirect us to content rationally linked to it.
    Happy_Killbot
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @Grafix

    Yet another appeal to authority this time to Richard Greene a man who claimed ........” E=MC2 and the New Definition of God" 

    Comedy Gold 

  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @Grafix

    How many appeals to authority a day do you make? Einstein thought people like you believed in childish fables  I agree , run along now and finish your colouring book and try stay in the lines 
  • Any way you do the math

    Grafix
  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    @SkepticalOne

    Yes Christianity does align with U.S. values.

    Being that they are pro Child, pro Family, pro Community, and pro Humanity.

    Does Christianity align with US values?



    @SkepticalOne

    Does the Atheist stance align with the United States values? 


    Are the Atheist values pro Child, pro Family, pro Community, and pro Humanity? 

  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 2673 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    Whatever the founding fathers based their values on is irrelevant to the modern-day. It was/is contemporary thinking. We cannot conclude that we should follow something on the bases of tradition.



  • TKDB said:
    @SkepticalOne

    Does the Atheist stance align with the United States values? 


    ZeusAres42
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    @Happy_Killbot ; - Any which way we do the math Killjoy, it does not change the concept being advanced here, does it?  And that is the point. 

    The force of energy that Einstein knew he had discovered, convinced him that it was beyond all comprehension of our human intellect and in his journey to crack this equation, he came to understand that there must be a God because, for him, it explained the creation of the universe.  That's it.  That's all that matters.
    Happy_Killbot
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 2673 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    Grafix said:
    @Happy_Killbot ; - Any which way we do the math Killjoy does not change the concept being advanced, does it?  And that is the point. 

    The force of energy that Einstein knew he had discovered, convinced him that it was beyond all comprehension of our human intellect and in his journey to crack this equation, he came to understand that there must be a God.  That's it.  That's all that matters and that it explains the creation of the universe.

    @Grafix Nowhere did Einstein ever say he believed in a God. Don't believe everything you read online. Or believe everything you hear.



  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @Grafix You have no idea that you have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

    Are you an actual giraffe by any chance?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    @ZeusAres42 - Certainly not in the concept of a Christian God, or any other religion's God, but he spoke quite a bit on religiosity and what science and religion should mean and on what he believed was the ultimate religion.  He basically worshipped Creation, the wondrous beauty of the universe and life itself, while still acknowledging that there had to be an ultimate intellect, knowledge and supernatural wisdom, far greater than man's. 

    We can see that in his writings everywhere in the later years of his life.  I have no doubt he began as an atheist, but he definitely became a Pantheist, which is a belief in what I just described.
    .
    Happy_Killbot
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @Grafix ; @ZeusAres42 ; @SkepticalOne ;

    All this talk about Einstein is irrelevant to the debate. Please stay on topic here.


    ZeusAres42SkepticalOne
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    @SkepticalOne - You wrote ...

    Obviously, you are unaware the "wallbuilders" site you linked in your last reply to me is David Barton's organization. Perhaps you need to check the legitimacy of your sources a little more carefully

    I am not aware that this Barton character you keep on harping about is connected with the Wallbuilders website. Whether it is an assumption you have made to build an argument or not, I also don't know.  Who cares.  He did not write the article.  Did not author it.  The article's views align with mine.  

    I am so sick of atheists jumping to shooting the messenger when they cannot argue the substance, the content or make any kind of a rebuttal.  It is transparently weak and transparently dishonest debating.  Barton could jump off a cliff.  It would not change the argument being made.  Now debate it, or shut it.

    Please don't now fill up a page proving he does have a connection.  It is irrelevant.  He did not author the article.  It aligns with my views.  I am arguing my views.  Not Barton's.

    Happy_Killbot
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • @Grafix ; @ZeusAres42 ; @SkepticalOne ;

    All this talk about Einstein is irrelevant to the debate. Please stay on topic here.



    @Happy_Killbot Fair point. I think I might comment more on it later. I have to say I am very tired right now. Only two hours of sleep last night. Sorry, I digressed again. That's it from me for now.



  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    @Happy_Killbot - Good one Killjoy I will pay this post of yours below, the first you have written which makes a good argument.  Here it is ....

    @Grafix ;

    You were the one who said he was an atheist!

    Contemplate these famous words from a famous atheist shown below.  It's such a pity such candid honesty is above today's establishment academia, who live in the bowels of the Anti-Christ ...
    You are debunking your own ignorance!

    And this is still irrelevant to this debate!
    Einstien began as an atheist.  He was an atheist, until he realized a number of physics laws which gobsmacked him into space that actually made atheism an impossible answer.  He never worshipped a specific God or personalised God for himself.  He instead moved from atheism to Pantheism.  That's all and the cause of that was the acknowledgement that, in particular, his famous equation E=Mc squared testified to a far greater and higher form of intellect, wisdom and knowledge that man could ever attain. 

    He had always stood in awe of the universe and the concept of life itself.  Now he simply acknowledged that it was created by a force beyond the understanding of man and that even that force had to have a creator, with a small 'c'. That's Pantheism, which acknowledges the existence of a god, with a small 'g'.
    Happy_Killbot
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • Grafix said:
    @SkepticalOne - You wrote ...
    Obviously, you are unaware the "wallbuilders" site you linked in your last reply to me is David Barton's organization. Perhaps you need to check the legitimacy of your sources a little more carefully.
    I reject Barton as an historian for obvious reasons - he has no academic credentials in history or any relevant field. Combined with the fact that his version of history is so often wrong, it is laughably absurd that he should be viewed as any type of authority in history. Perhaps, he might be viewed as an authority in religious education as this is what his degree is in, but definitely not history.

    The system is broke.  The quote won't accurately load.  I am not ware that Barton is connected to "Wallbuilders".  It is an assumption you have made and then used to build a false argument upon.  Again, I know nothing about Barton.


    It's not an argument - it's an observation that David Barton is not an historian and that you are relying on his non-expertise to support your views of a Christian founding of America. If you say your are not familiar with Barton, I believe you, but your case is built on a weak foundation provided by Barton all the same.
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • All this talk about Einstein is not relative to the use of letters to describe numbers. As the value of any number sets their placement to describe principles used on the numbers as letters. GOD

     
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @Grafix Einstein is irrelevant to this debate, stay on topic!
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -  
    @SkepticalOne - You wrote ....
    If a Christian wants to place Einstein as an authority on god, then they should drop Christianity as he felt it was childish and primitive legends. 
    Regardless, appealing to Einstein as an authority on god is a fallacious appeal to authority. He was a physicist, not a spiritual leader, theologian, or anything close.
    Who is placing Einstein as an authority on the Christian God or any God for that matter?  No-one, so the basis of your premise to mount a rebuttal is false from the get go. 

    I am merely pointing out that Einstein during his journey to crack his famous equation, came to realize that his former belief in atheism could not be upheld.  He understood that his very own equation testified to a far higher knowledge, wisdom and intellect than man would ever be able to possess and pointed to the existence of a Supernatural entity, by virtue of its magnitude.  That is all I am saying.  I am appealing to the laws of physics, which Einstein himself unravelled, not to Einstein himself.

    I love the way when one shows atheists that the altar at which they worship actually disagrees with them, how they want to suddenly change the subject.  LOL!  


    Happy_Killbot
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @Grafix Einstein is irrelevant to this debate! Stay on topic!
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    @Happy_Killbot - In your claim that I said Einstein was an atheist, and he was initially, you overlook these words in this post of mine, also addressed to you ...
    " ..... Einstein at first in his younger years was an atheist and wrote some scathing things about Judaism and religion in general, but as he understood more in physics you can read from his own words a gradual moving away from atheism - where he began - and moved to pantheism which is a recognition of a God's existence, but not of a personal God, in the way Christianity portrays God.

    Having said that, Einstein came to the conclusion that you could not be a scientist and deny the existence of a God and that religions which did not accept science were blind.
    Running a cherry picking argument, Hey, Killjoy?
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @Grafix Einstein is still irrelevant to this debate!
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -  
    @SkepticalOne ;- After posting the broken post I made a second attempt and posted it again with some amendments.  Here it is ....
     
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    @John_C_87@TKDB@Happy_Killbot@ZeusAres42 + @Dee@SkepticalOne ;      

    @John_C_87 ; - I appreciate your point and it must not be dismissed.  I know but a smattering about the Tetragrammaton and its Hebraic numbering system, nevertheless agree it is relevant, but so too is proving or disproving that atheism or secularism were the Founding Father's intent, because all of these things contribute to the original argument that Christianity does or doesn't align with the Founding Documents, including whether these documents are or are not based on secular intent and beliefs.  So we have to take the debate step by step.  In my purview the following is a possible road map ...

    1.  The question demands an understanding of the establishment of Christian beliefs, (or not) in the U.S.  It can't advance without common agreement on that.

    2.  The atheistic argument is that U.S. government is secular, therefore the Founding Fathers could not appeal to Christianity to create the Founding Documents.

    3.  The Christians argue that is false, that the Founding Fathers themselves were not secular in their beliefs and therefore did appeal to the moral backbone of Christianity when drawing the Founding documents.

    4.  Arguments which can substantiate either one are relevant, before the question of the topic can even be answered. 

    5.  Proving or disproving that Einstein's equation in science proves or does not prove that atheism is an impossible position is necessary because this equation reinforces the entire premise upon which Christianity is based, i.e., it is impossible to not believe in the existence of a God.

    6.  Proving or disproving that the Founding Fathers believed that an absence of moral teachings in schools, an absence of "virtuous", "moral" and "righteous" men in Government were the very antithesis of America's future and proving or disproving that they said so many times, is relevant.

    7.  Proving or disproving that the Founders subsequently, did or did not take great care to include in the Founding documents an acknowledgement of the existence of the Christian  Creator from whom, they state, all of our liberties and inalienable rights are obtained, i.e. that these cannot be removed by any authority, entity, Court of Law or Government, for the reason that they are God-given, is relevant.

    8.  Proving or disproving that the Founding Father's beliefs together with proof of the laws of physics as revealed by Einstein himself, and proving or disproving that Einstein acknowledges that his equation is testimony to the existence of a God, is relevant to the debate for the reasons noted in Item 9. below.

    9.  If either side can prove the intent and purpose of the law, enacted by the Founding Fathers and if either side can prove the magnitude of the meaning of Einstein's equation and his own interpretation of his own equation, then these will settle the debate, for the reason that Christianity relies on both.

    @John_C_87 - I would love you to fully argue the significance of the Tetragrammaton code, for I believe that our DNA is the same code, but I don't think this topic is the place to do it.  Maybe, start a new topic on it.
    .
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    @SkepticalOne

    Is being pro Child redundant?

    Is being pro Family redundant?

    Is being pro Community, and pro Humanity redundant?

    Is a Church feeding the homeless, or providing shelter to the homeless redundant?

    @SkepticalOne Do you have an issue with harmless Christian United States values?

    Tell me something, what's stopping you from hiring an Attorney, to protest harmless Christian United States values before the Supreme Court of your state?

    @SkepticalOne Educate the Public, on your understanding, of why the harmless Christian Values haven't been outlawed in the U.S., given the apparent amount disdain that you seem to have over harmless United States Christian values?


    And Christianity does align with U.S. values.

    Being that they are pro Child, pro Family, pro Community, and pro Humanity.

    Does Christianity align with US values?

    In God We Trust?

    The Pledge of Allegiance?

    The Oath taken by the POTUS, before going into the White House?

    The Oath taken by every Service member who goes into the United States Armed Services?

    All of the above are harmless, aren't they?







     
    Grafix
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    @TKDB -  Agreed.  Even our inherited customs and laws, reinforced by our lawmakers, corroborate your arguments, for example the custom of placing our right hand on the Christian Bible to swear an oath of truth in our Courts and the opening of Congress with prayer.  Below is the historical record of the first opening of the very first sitting of Congress ...

    I not only agree with your argument that Christianity is aligned with U.S. values as they were when it was founded, I consider that the U.S. Founding Documents relied upon the Judeo-Christian ethos and that so too does our system of law, citing five of the Ten Commandments as law, together with enshrining the Judeo-Christian ethos of monogamy in the Marriage Act.  (As an aside.  Note the importance of this law.  Ilhan Omar may now possibly face an indictment for violating this law, there being evidence that she married her brother, while still married to husband, in order to gain legal entry into the United States, knowing she would otherwise be denied entry.)

    This is proof of our Judeo-Christian heritage, which reinforces the fact that Christianity does align with U.S. values and that atheism and Islam do not.
    .
    TKDB
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • TKDB said:
    @SkepticalOne

    Is being pro Child redundant?

    Is being pro Family redundant?

    Is being pro Community, and pro Humanity redundant?

    Is a Church feeding the homeless, or providing shelter to the homeless redundant?

    @SkepticalOne Do you have an issue with harmless Christian United States values?

    Tell me something, what's stopping you from hiring an Attorney, to protest harmless Christian United States values before the Supreme Court of your state?

    @SkepticalOne Educate the Public, on your understanding, of why the harmless Christian Values haven't been outlawed in the U.S., given the apparent amount disdain that you seem to have over harmless United States Christian values?


    And Christianity does align with U.S. values.

    Being that they are pro Child, pro Family, pro Community, and pro Humanity.

    Does Christianity align with US values?

    In God We Trust?

    The Pledge of Allegiance?

    The Oath taken by the POTUS, before going into the White House?

    The Oath taken by every Service member who goes into the United States Armed Services?

    All of the above are harmless, aren't they?







     


    Grafix
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    @SkepticalOne + @TKDB 
    @SkepticalOne - I think you just admitted that you have lost the debate.  LoL!  There are even further arguments which support the arguments made by @TKDB, the fact that they are on the historical record and  enshrined in the Marriage Act, as I mentioned in this post ...
    Grafix said:

    @TKDB - Agreed. Even our inherited customs and laws, reinforced by our lawmakers, corroborate your arguments, for example  the custom of placing our right hand on the Christian Bible to swear an oath of truth in our Courts and the opening of Congress with prayer.  Below is the historical record of the first opening of the very first sitting of Congress ...



    I not only agree with your argument that Christianity is aligned with U.S. values as they were when it was founded, I consider that the U.S. Founding Documents relied upon the Judeo-Christian ethos and that so too does our system of law, citing five of the Ten Commandments as law, together with enshrining the Judeo-Christian ethos of monogamy in the Marriage Act.  (As an aside.  Note the importance of this law.  Ilhan Omar may now possibly face an indictment for violating this law, there being evidence that she married her brother, while still married to husband, in order to gain legal entry into the United States, knowing she would otherwise be denied entry.)

    This is proof of our Judeo-Christian heritage, which reinforces the fact that Christianity does align with U.S. values and that atheism and Islam do not.
    .

    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -  
    @SkepticalOne

    Are you refusing to debate?


    Grafix
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @Grafix

    Albert Einstein

    It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it
    SkepticalOne
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -  
    @Dee - I've already stated that.  Tell me something I don't know.  You just have a comprehension problem.
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    @Grafix

    *****  I've already stated that. 

    You’ve stated a lot of things including the words of conman Ron Wyatt , quack Richard Greene and a frustrated chemist most who claims he knows f—k all about Evolution, do you ever have an opinion of your own that’s not yet another appeal to authority?

     ** *Tell me something I don't know.  

    I don’t have 20 or 30 free years to even begin that 

    ****You just have a comprehension problem.

    Says a guy who thinks a lack of belief is actually ......a belief Bwaaaaaaahahahahahaha 
  • @ Grafix @ TKDB

    In God We Trust


    This replaced the motto the founders would have been familiar (E Pluribus Unum) in the 1950's. This cannot be considered evidence of Christianity as a basis for US government - the founders had no part in this.

    The Pledge of Allegiance and "under God"

    "Under God" was added to the pledge in 1954. The Founding Fathers never pledged allegiance to the flag, much less pledged to a nation under god. This cannot be considered evidence of Christianity as a basis for US government - the founders played no role in this.

    POTUS Oath of office

    The modern Oath of office for the president has been embellished far beyond what the Constitution requires in the Constitution, Article II, section 1: 

    I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

    The original Oath of Office, as laid out by the Forefathers, made no mention of deities or religion.  

     Military Oaths

    Per the 1st Cong in the 1st session, statute 1, chap. 1, 1st of June 1789 (officer oath):

    I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.

    Per the 1st Congress, 1st session, statute 1, chap. 25, September 29 1789 (enlisted oath): 

    I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whomsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the president of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the articles of war.

    Again, we find no mention of deities or religion in the original military oaths contemporary to the Founders.

    Right hand on the Bible?

    While many choose to use a Bible to swear an Oath or Truth, it is not required.  There have been affirmations (with no Holy book) and the use of Holy books other than the Bible. In fact,  some Presidents have placed their hand on a law book with the intention being to swear on the Constitution. (seems very appropriate!) The fact that article VI of the Constitution eliminates any religious test to hold office makes plain the legal insignificance of the Bible to taking office. 

    Christian values are not American values

    US values such as freedom of religion, representative government, and equality run contrary to Christianity. I don't see how this can be argued against. Christianity literally holds "you shall have no other gods before me", is authoritarian in nature, and accepts a particular group as "God's chosen people". Clearly, these are dissonant values.

    The fact that the Founders called for 'no religious test', accepted the need for the first amendment, crafted the Constitution with absolutely no mention of god(s), and unanimous Senate ratified the Treaty of Tripoli (signed by John Adams) which states "the US is not in any way founded on the Christian religion"  (1791) all make this abundantly clear.




    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch