The reason why "God" was referenced in the Declaration of Independence is because in the old tradition prior to the Enlightenment, it was generally believed that kings ruled over their subjects by the will of God.

This concept was promoted by the Church and was called the "Divine Right of Kings". It meant that a king's reign was ordained by God and therefore any attempt to overthrow a reigning monarch was a grave sin, a direct affront to the will of God. The notion of "The Divine Right of Kings" was the Church's contribution to preserving the status-quo of the age, and thereby assuring its own survival as well as a tidy source of income. Kings were crowned in a religious coronation ceremony with the blessing of an archbishop. Kings tithed a portion of their land's wealth to the Church, and in return they received "God's blessing" over their reign. Pretty good scam, no?

It's important to note that the benefits of the "Divine Right" applied only to kings; not to nobles or your average schmuck out in the fields, breaking his back to tend the fucking cattle and cultivate the goddamn wheat for everybody to eat.

The Declaration of Independence was written to assert to the British Crown that kings held no sway over them as subjects and that God granted all humans certain "inalienable rights", the most important of which is to live free from tyranny, so King George can go bugger off.

The religious overtone of the Declaration was a custom of its age. International treaties of the day often made reference to belief in God. We've come a long way since then. We've largely broken free of the influence of the Church, but now in this country. its political role has been replaced by a vague concept of "Christianity" wherein, if an authority figure makes enough vehement references to his faith in God, he's more likely to be accepted by the American people and given free reign to do whatever the fuck he wants, so long as he continues to reference "God" in public and lets it be known that he prays regularly.

Is it necessary to believe in God in order to believe in any of the good ideas that have historically been promoted in his name? If I don't believe in God, will I therefore have to start believing that all men are not created equal? Will I also have to concede that stealing and lying and killing people other is okay? Are you retarded?

Rick, read Earwicker's post again. Then remember how you posted the same idea. He will show you how you're a failing to do your ideas justice. He clearly makes the point in much more concise language and he doesn't resort to pointless insults. People understand what you say, when he says it because some of your ideas are ok but your rhetoric is fucking awful. Its like when someone calls you an asshole and you think they are calling you wrong. Two different issues.

Gramsci wrote:

DrAwkward wrote:

Earwicker wrote:

DrAwkward wrote:I never said i was embarrassed. Find the quote where i said i was embarrassed.

You never said you were embarrassed but you did describe your faith as 'ridiculous' - 'irrational' and 'illogical' aside the word 'ridiculous' certainly suggests you think of your own faith negatively.

And yet it's not the case. Funny, huh?

Fuck off.

If I were you I'd ignore Tweedle Dee, baiting Tweedle Dumb is fun enough.

That might be considered reasonable though and DrAwkward - he's decided - has impeded himself in that department by having faith.

Rick Reuben wrote:Some classic Gramsci hate speech:

galanter wrote: Insulting religious people by insisting that they are primitive and irrational is not only rude, it doesn't reflect well on the speaker's education.

Gramsci wrote:You Americans are so quant with your "respect for people of faith" as if that in itself is a "good".

There you have it. Gramsci argues that people who practice religion should be treated as second class citizens by society. That's the kind of world you're walking into if you let the atheists control the description of faith, Dr. Awkward.

Wait is Gramsci, Galanter? Cause that first one sounded supportive of religious people. The last one had sarcastic quotes and was taken out of context to the level of meaningless. It looks like a republican smear campaign.

Meanwhile, if scientific thought doesn't enter into religious faith, than does that make it alogical as opposed to illogical?

All arguments (or "theories") are not equal.

Not believing in something for lack of evidence is logical.

Believing in something despite lack of evidence is not.

This is an error made quite often by Rick.

Wait you mean for lack of counter-evidence?

Earwicker wrote:

Gramsci wrote:

DrAwkward wrote:

Earwicker wrote:

DrAwkward wrote:I never said i was embarrassed. Find the quote where i said i was embarrassed.

You never said you were embarrassed but you did describe your faith as 'ridiculous' - 'irrational' and 'illogical' aside the word 'ridiculous' certainly suggests you think of your own faith negatively.

And yet it's not the case. Funny, huh?

Fuck off.

If I were you I'd ignore Tweedle Dee, baiting Tweedle Dumb is fun enough.

That might be considered reasonable though and DrAwkward - he's decided - has impeded himself in that department by having faith.

DrAwkward is welcome to belief anything he likes, if that is in Yahweh, and Jesus myth that's his choice. I'm happy to point out that there are reasons to not believe in Yahweh, and no reasons to. It actually doesn't make me think less of him, but I personally find it impossible to understand how anyone that has actually thought about it could still come to the conclusion of the Abrahamic god's reality - the god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam - , or worse some mushy and vague idea like Tom's "creator" god.

As I have pointed out before, to form a belief in this god, humans need to create him/it first as there is nothing in nature we have seen so far that gives the slightest indication that we should draw this conclusion.

As for Tom pointing out my previous post that I do not think there is anything inherently "good" about faith, I stand by that. Since when is believing something without evidence a moral virtue? Is believing astrology a moral virtue, what about all the other dead gods. As for Yahweh, nothing more than an Iron Age myth, just the same all the others. Tagging, "but this is everything" onto it, just makes it more implausible. Incredible claims, required incredible evidence.

My opinion on "faith", and people that have it is all over this message board. I would say I try to be a little more polite now. I would not call a believer "stupid" anymore, as Tom likes to pin on me. However, I have principles and have no problem expressing them. Hopefully in a more articulate manner than in the past and certainly more than your continual sycophancy towards Tom/Rick/Bob.

I'm happy to admit this topic is one of my "themes" on the board, but better that than my sole topic being Tom/Rick/Bob's cheerleader.

Gramsci wrote:DrAwkward is welcome to belief anything he likes, if that is in Yahweh, and Jesus myth that's his choice.

Just to clarify...it's not. It's what i was indoctrinated with as a child, so those tropes, myths, images and stories are simply convenient to fall back on as a reference material when discussing religion and spirituality, is all.

DrAwkward wrote:

Gramsci wrote:DrAwkward is welcome to belief anything he likes, if that is in Yahweh, and Jesus myth that's his choice.

Just to clarify...it's not. It's what i was indoctrinated with as a child, so those tropes, myths, images and stories are simply convenient to fall back on as a reference material when discussing religion and spirituality, is all.

Cool, Rick was painting you as some poor theist I was oppressing.

I spend 4 years in a Church of England high school. I enjoyed Theology class a lot and had a great relationship with the Chaplain, who was a major role model as a teenager. But never for a second did I believe in the god he preached for 4 days a week. I was born immunized against faith.

Rick, why are you even bringing up Galanter in this thread? He has nothing to do with Gramsci, nothing to do with this thread, and he hasn't posted here in months, if not longer.

Whatever you think of Galanter, to bring him up when he doesn't post here anymore and has nothing to do with what you are talking about is kind of ludicrous.