The Ever Present Problem of Atheism (HOF thread)

[shima]

Z Man: You're a just a man.

True. So are you.

Take your place and realize that God is God. He does whatever He pleases. And anything He does is right, for that is His character.

If God does something which God has specified as "absolutely wrong" then it is wrong for God to do such a thing. Therefore, if God always does what is right and then murders someone, then murder is not wrong.

Again, take your place as a man and realize that God is God. If He wants to kill, He can and will. It's His creation and He can do as He sees fit with it.

Ofcourse He can't. We are not allowed to do anything we wish to our children right? So God is not allowed to do anything He pleases with us. In fact, He laid down the rules indicating what is acceptable and what is not.

It may be wrong for us to go around and kill people, but it's not wrong for God to do it.

What a load of nonsense. If it is wrong for one person, it is wrong for all persons. We're not going back to the "Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others".

Besides, who are you to judge God?

I'm Shima.

According to Free Will I have the right to an opinion on every subject, item, person, political idea, event etc. So, I therefore have an opinion of Gods actions. God specifically gave us free will in order to use it. If He didn't want us to have an opinion about Him, then He would not have given us a free will.

Besides, who are you to forbid me to have an opinion? Only God has that authority, not you.

He could null your existence without thinking twice about it, if He wanted to. And since obviously He hasn't as of yet, you should be giving Him thanks and praise for even acknowledging your existence by blessing you with whatever you have.

That He hasn't done so indicates either of two things:
1) God doesn't exist.
2) He doesn't mind me questioning His behavior. And if He doesn't mind, who are you to make up Gods mind for him?

Who are we that God is even mindful of us?

We are supposed to be the reason He created this universe. Just like children, we have inherited the world. And, just like children, you treat them like something special. That God has laid down rules of right and wrong and has given those rules to us, says everything.

 

[RogerB]

Originally posted by shima
True. So are you.



If God does something which God has specified as "absolutely wrong" then it is wrong for God to do such a thing. Therefore, if God always does what is right and then murders someone, then murder is not wrong.



Ofcourse He can't. We are not allowed to do anything we wish to our children right? So God is not allowed to do anything He pleases with us. In fact, He laid down the rules indicating what is acceptable and what is not.



What a load of nonsense. If it is wrong for one person, it is wrong for all persons. We're not going back to the "Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others".



I'm Shima.

According to Free Will I have the right to an opinion on every subject, item, person, political idea, event etc. So, I therefore have an opinion of Gods actions. God specifically gave us free will in order to use it. If He didn't want us to have an opinion about Him, then He would not have given us a free will.

Besides, who are you to forbid me to have an opinion? Only God has that authority, not you.



That He hasn't done so indicates either of two things:
1) God doesn't exist.
2) He doesn't mind me questioning His behavior. And if He doesn't mind, who are you to make up Gods mind for him?



We are supposed to be the reason He created this universe. Just like children, we have inherited the world. And, just like children, you treat them like something special. That God has laid down rules of right and wrong and has given those rules to us, says everything.

What's it like living in a box all by yourself?

 

[Curtsibling]

Shima has a right to his/her opinion, no?

 

[RogerB]

Originally posted by Curtsibling
Shima has a right to his/her opinion, no?

Yes. Your point?

 

[Curtsibling]

What's your point with this?

"What's it like living in a box all by yourself?"

 

[RogerB]

Originally posted by Curtsibling
What's your point with this?

"What's it like living in a box all by yourself?"

His diartibe about what God can and can't do has nothing to do with reality and must have been written by someone who lives in a box without knowledge of the outside world.

 

[shima]

RogerB:
What's it like living in a box all by yourself?

I don't live in a abox all by myself. However, if you have to get personal about this because you cannot counter my arguements, then please feel free to do so.

 

[taxpayerslavery]

Z Man

I suggest that you don't try to win a debate. I suggest that you try to know the truth. This will require that you consider that you are wrong. I do it all the time.

John 1:12-13
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

who were born, not of blood - not born of flesh and blood
nor of the will of the flesh - lust
nor of the will of man - not man's plan of salvation
but of God. - God's plan of salvation

Next

Romans 9:16
So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.

God shows mercy to who He will, faith and repentance is the key to mercy. It was how Abraham was justified. Paul was explaining to the Jews how God had shown mercy to the Jews when they came out of Egypt and now he is showing mercy to anyone who accepts the stumbling block - Jesus Christ, but if was God who did it, not man. Also, see the parable of the wedding feast where God sends out his servants t invite anybody willing to come (by accepting Jesus).
http://www.csl.sri.com/users/gilham/theology/predestination

Next

Acts 13:48
And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

Notice it does not say pre-ordained to eternal life.
The Gentiles had ears to hear because they sought God. See Acts 28:27. Hence they were glad to hear the word of God. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God, Romans 10:17. And by faith we are saved, see Eph 2:8-9.
They had ears that heard, hence they received faith by hearing the word of God, thus qualifying them for God's ordained plan of salvation via belief.

by Z Man
You are stating that people go to heaven because of their smarter intellect than those idiots who rejected God. What makes you a better person in that you chose the right path and those who go to hell didn't?

I never stated that intellect has anything to do with it. I think that the smarter somebody is, the more they rely on themselves and ignore God. Seeking God is the thing that makes me a better person, because it required faith in God to seek Him. God honored that faith by increasing it to the point where I accepted Jesus and was thereby cleansed of my sins. It was up to me to seek God and not reject Him.

God gives everybody the impulse to seek him, that's why every culture has god(s). But we can repress this impulse and forsake God - atheists. WE are responsible for forsaking God or not, that is why Hell is a just punishment for those who reject him.

Abraham was justified by faith. He did not turn away from God as his father did.

Numbers 14:43
For the Amalekites and the Canaanites are there before you, and ye shall fall by the sword: because ye are turned away from the LORD, therefore the LORD will not be with you.

1 Kings 11
2 Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love.
3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.
4 For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.

2 Chronicles 29
5 And said unto them, Hear me, ye Levites, sanctify now yourselves, and sanctify the house of the LORD God of your fathers, and carry forth the filthiness out of the holy place.
6 For our fathers have trespassed, and done that which was evil in the eyes of the LORD our God, and have forsaken him, and have turned away their faces from the habitation of the LORD, and turned their backs.

 

[taxpayerslavery]

Curtsibling

by Curtsibling
Can you tell the other religions of the world they are all inferior?
How do you react to the fact that they may see you in this same light?

Yes.
I would give them some evidence like http://www.freewebs.com/genuineprofit/proof.html COMPUTER ANALYSIS AND PROOFS THAT GOD, THE CREATOR OF ALL THINGS, DID (In Fact) WRITE THE 66 BOOKS OF THE HOLY BIBLE.

Then I might say something like;
* * * * * * * * * *
Only the Bible and no other "holy book" shows the above phenomena. The finger print of God.

The KJV Holy Bible is a book written by more than 40 authors with no contradictions over a span of 1,000s of years, can explain every physical and supernatural phenomenon (grand canyon, Jesus rising from the dead) we see in the world today without conflicting with true science, is historically - archeologicly and scientifically accurate, that tells where man came from, how he got to where he is today, and what is going to happen to him, has had over 1200 prophecies come true without a single false prophecy and more to be fulfilled, was the inspiration for the best government system in the world, gives those who follow it the best possible life on earth, makes those who follow it the best fellow citizens to have in a country and has the above computer confirmation that every word is from God "The finger print of God" . . . now that's what I call confirmation.

I'll take that source of information over man made stories, like evolution, any day. When you get something better, let me know.
* * * * * * * * * *
That's one thing I might say among many.

The reality of life and it's day-to-day drudgery is more proof that the Bible is true, Adam's fall. I thought you were going to give me some "scientific" evidence which disproves the word of God.

Thank you for your reply.

 

[Curtsibling]

Originally posted by RogerB
His diartibe about what God can and can't do has nothing to do with reality and must have been written by someone who lives in a box without knowledge of the outside world.

I see a lot of that around lately...

 

[Curtsibling]

Originally posted by taxpayerslavery
Curtsibling


Yes.
I would give them some evidence like http://www.freewebs.com/genuineprofit/proof.html COMPUTER ANALYSIS AND PROOFS THAT GOD, THE CREATOR OF ALL THINGS, DID (In Fact) WRITE THE 66 BOOKS OF THE HOLY BIBLE.

Then I might say something like;
* * * * * * * * * *
Only the Bible and no other "holy book" shows the above phenomena. The finger print of God.

The KJV Holy Bible is a book written by more than 40 authors with no contradictions over a span of 1,000s of years, can explain every physical and supernatural phenomenon (grand canyon, Jesus rising from the dead) we see in the world today without conflicting with true science, is historically - archeologicly and scientifically accurate, that tells where man came from, how he got to where he is today, and what is going to happen to him, has had over 1200 prophecies come true without a single false prophecy and more to be fulfilled, was the inspiration for the best government system in the world, gives those who follow it the best possible life on earth, makes those who follow it the best fellow citizens to have in a country and has the above computer confirmation that every word is from God "The finger print of God" . . . now that's what I call confirmation.

I'll take that source of information over man made stories, like evolution, any day. When you get something better, let me know.
* * * * * * * * * *
That's one thing I might say among many.

The reality of life and it's day-to-day drudgery is more proof that the Bible is true, Adam's fall. I thought you were going to give me some "scientific" evidence which disproves the word of God.

Thank you for your reply.

And thanks for going to the effort of making that large post.

Hmmm...

God actually wrote the book?
I find that a bit far-fetched, personally.
Well, that is another debate...

About the post you make here,
what if someone had similar opinions about their faith and fired a post like yours back at you?

How do you rationalise that?

Regards,
Curt

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by taxpayerslavery
Curtsibling


The KJV Holy Bible is a book written by more than 40 authors with no contradictions over a span of 1,000s of years, can explain every physical and supernatural phenomenon (grand canyon, Jesus rising from the dead) we see in the world today without conflicting with true science, is historically - archeologicly and scientifically accurate, that tells where man came from, how he got to where he is today, and what is going to happen to him, has had over 1200 prophecies come true without a single false prophecy and more to be fulfilled, was the inspiration for the best government system in the world, gives those who follow it the best possible life on earth, makes those who follow it the best fellow citizens to have in a country and has the above computer confirmation that every word is from God "The finger print of God" . . . now that's what I call confirmation.

That the Bible "can explain every physical and supernatural phenomenon" and has "no contradictions" are clearly assertions open to debate (and in fact, such debates appear to go on essentially endlessly in many forums, including this one), and would appear to rely on some extremely questionable interpretations of MANY passages. So I hope you'll forgive me if I don't find this a particularly convincing argument.

Fortunately, it is also not a relevant argument. It would be necessary if the only question being considered were "is the fundamentalist, literal-interpretation model of God the correct one?", but it hardly touches on the much broader question of "is there as God?", which is what any discussion of theism vs. atheism must fundamentally address.

(By the way - it should also be clear that fundamentalist apologists for ALL of the world's major religions will make much the same claim regarding ALL of the world's "holy books" as has been made above - so before the atheist could begin to tackle that particular issue, he or she would have to wait for all of the theist to sort out just who is correct! This simply isn't a very productive line of argument, for the theistic side of the discussion.)

 

[Curtsibling]

@bmyers:

Fine post, that is what I more or less meant, but I was softening the blow a little!

PS
Welcome to this madhouse!

 

[LightSon]

Greetings bmyers. Welcome.

Originally posted by bmyers
That the Bible "can explain every physical and supernatural phenomenon" and has "no contradictions" are clearly assertions open to debate (and in fact, such debates appear to go on essentially endlessly in many forums, including this one), and would appear to rely on some extremely questionable interpretations of MANY passages. So I hope you'll forgive me if I don't find this a particularly convincing argument.

I forgive you. I understand that you are not yet convinced. I hope you will keep an open mind and be somewhat expectant that if God exists, that He will make an attempt to speak to you.
The Bible does not presume to "explain every physical and supernatural phenomenon", so that is off the point.

I am one who holds that there are "no contradictions" in scripture. There are many puzzles in scripture which may appear as contradictions to the untrained and unspiritual eye, but with some honest study and prayerful consideration, most will resolve. I say "most" because there are still some puzzles I'm waiting to see resolved. Nevertheless, the overarching grandeur, authority and legitimizing evidences of scriptural veracity have captured my loyalty. I agree inerrancy is debatable, as clearly we are debating it.

Originally posted by bmyers
Fortunately, it is also not a relevant argument. It would be necessary if the only question being considered were "is the fundamentalist, literal-interpretation model of God the correct one?", but it hardly touches on the much broader question of "is there as God?", which is what any discussion of theism vs. atheism must fundamentally address.

I would argue that scripture is usually relevant, provided it is truth. I recognize that to many "the fundamentalist, literal-interpretation" is a joke and the word "fundamentalist" is often used as a pejorative. Nevertheless, this is my position. I will defer to drill down too far, until we have a clear set of definitions for "fundamentalist" and "literal-interpretation"; they are not well understood IMO.

Our view of scripture certainly does touch on the broader question of "is there a God". Our view of scripture is predicated on God, in that we believe He is the one who inspired the Bible

Originally posted by bmyers
it should also be clear that fundamentalist apologists for ALL of the world's major religions will make much the same claim regarding ALL of the world's "holy books" as has been made above…

It may be true that other religions make similar claims. The veracity of God's holy Bible stands, regardless of any competing claim.

It is my conviction that the Bible is truth, and any theistic line of discussion must inevitably have to intersect with the scriptures (i.e. what God has said) or it will be a vain discussion.

Regards.

 

[taxpayerslavery]

Curtsibling

what if someone had similar opinions about their faith and fired a post like yours back at you?

I was stating fact, not opinion. Those who want to call it opinion are simply ignorant of the facts.

Assuming that their religion does not use the Bible, they would not have the computer evidence that God wrote their book. If their book said that the Bible was not true, then their book which does not have God as the author as per the computer proof, would be wrong - false religion. If their religion includes more books than just the Bible, it is a false religion.

It would be interesting to see if their book had anything close to the prophecies of the Bible such as fore telling of how Jesus would be pierced, hung on a tree, have no bones broken and the soldiers would gamble for Jesus's clothes 793 years before it happened and before crucifixion was invented. The fact that the scriptures told of this before it happened, verified by the dead sea scrolls, is evidence of the supernatural author. The book of Isaiah had been found to be perfectly preserved for over a thousand years, at least as found in the KJV Bible. That's a miracle in itself.

I would tend not to believe that their religion was valid if it was created by only a few people. One of the things which verifies that the Bible is the word of God, is that it was patiently created over thousands of years not just by one or a couple of people in one lifetime. This is evidence of the common author, God, supernaturally speaking through many different people. This is key so that prophecies can reveal the supernatural author. If their religion did not have any BOOK which it is rested upon, that would disqualify it from the get go. Making it up as you go along is the antithesis of religion.

I would also look at the kind of society their religion creates.
* * * * * * From Haley's Bible Handbook * * * * * *
Hinduism has made India what it is.
Confucianism and Buddhism have made China what it is.
Mohammedanism has made southwest Asia and north Africa what they are.
Roman Catholicism has made Italy, Spain and Latin America.
Protestantism has made Britain, United States and Canada.
THESE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES, and SPEAK LOUDLY.
* * * * * * end of quote from Haley's * * * * * *
Things are going down hill rapidly as Britain, United States and Canadain Citizens reject Christianity. As can be seen on the nightly news.

These are the kind of things I would say for starters, if I didn't think that talking to them was a waste of my time.

By the way. In earlier posts you asked if someone was afraid of your beliefs. If your are an atheist, I am afraid of your beliefs.

 

[Curtsibling]

@taxpayerslavery,

I fully welcome your views, even if I do not agree with parts of the quoted content. But that is not a major issue from my viewpoint.
I am a expansive guy.

If you think the bible has a supernatural author, I am not going to try and take that right away from you, sir.

Personally, I think it was written by men in classical times, and before.
A computer cannot to my mind, prove that a mystical deity created any earthly tome.

Improbable, and to me impossible...How you wish to see it is your call, though.

The beauty of our way of life in the West is that you can believe what you wish, and so can I.
And we are in no jeopardy doing so...

One thing I would advise, be flexible in your thought, for by saying all others are ignorant in not sharing your view,
you could be setting yourslef up for a mighty fall if you cannot prove your convictions.

Another thing, I contest this conclusion that this 'Haley's Bible Handbook' comes to about countries.

Art, culture, language, economics, trade, and war also make nations what they are.
Religion is merely one aspect...Do not ignore all the other crucial aspects of a country that make it's history unique...
To judge from a religionist view only, is highly suspect, in my view.

Finally,
Why would you be afraid of an athiest, what would he achieve that can harm you? I'm interested to know.

All the best,
Curt

 

[taxpayerslavery]

Curtsibling

by Curtsibling
One thing I would advise, be flexible in your thought, for by saying all others are ignorant in not sharing your view,
you could be setting yourself up for a mighty fall if you cannot prove your convictions.

Stating it the way I do displays the level of faith I have in the Bible. Since it is faith, I won't need to prove my convictions. Those who disagree would have to prove that I am wrong and I would find it very interesting if they could. I am confident enough to say they could not. This confidence provides a witness of the truth for you, if you want to look at it that way.

by Curtsibling
Why would you be afraid of an atheist, what would he achieve that can harm you? I'm interested to know.

The following quote is from my 2002 campaign web page.
http://antislavery.freeservers.com/run.htm/

The absurdity of Atheists appealing to the Constitution to remove 'under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance
The Declaration of Independence is a document which has been ratified by all 50 states. The Declaration of Independence clearly states that our unalienable Rights come from our Creator. The Constitution is the document which describes how those God given rights are to be protected. When an Atheist appeals the Constitution to try and push his idea that there is no God, he is using a document the he has already declared null and void when he disavowed God.

The importance of saying we have God given rights, is that man has no jurisdiction to remove rights he has not given. If our rights did not come from God, then they came from man. What man gives, man has the authority to take away, by majority rule for instance. I wonder how many Atheists realize the jeopardy they put their own freedom in, when they claim there is no God.

If an Atheist is not going to be a hypocrite, then they will have to forget about the Constitution and take what the majority gives him.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Paradox of Atheism
I suppose an Atheist could say that his rights come from the source of universal laws rather than man, probably the same source as the laws of physics which governed the creation and coarse of the universe. Laws which have always existed and that are all around us. Laws which can't be changed and are a source of truth. Sounds a lot like God to me, the only difference is if this power and source of truth in the universe has self awareness.
If an Atheist does not believe in God, then where did we come from, evolution? If an Atheist thinks that human beings came from evolution, which would take more faith than I have, then he would have to say that his creator is nature. Since he is subject to the laws of nature, nature can be the god he is referring to when he says 'one Nation under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance.

God doesn't value faith because it is easy. Unbelief is infectious. I am afraid that the atheists will undermine everybody's God given rights by undermining the foundation of the documents which made this country great. I would prefer that they move to France so that we can be one nation under God.

Erik

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by LightSon
Greetings bmyers. Welcome.



I forgive you. I understand that you are not yet convinced. I hope you will keep an open mind and be somewhat expectant that if God exists, that He will make an attempt to speak to you.
The Bible does not presume to "explain every physical and supernatural phenomenon", so that is off the point.

Sorry, but I wasn't the one who said it DID. If you will be so kind as to look a bit earlier in the thread, you will find that this was argued by one apparently firmly in the Christian (and apparently literal-interpretation) camp. I can't presume to speak for that person, but my comment was directed to that original assertion.

As to "keeping an open mind," I would certainly hope that I always do so, and could only ask that others here do as well. Oddly enough, though, when I find I am being asked to "keep an open mind" about something, the person who is asking me this is themselves not willing to consent to the most fundamental thing required for a truly "open mind" - to constantly admit to the possibility that their own beliefs are in error. I strive to do this; to claim an interest in discussing a topic without the possibility that one's own beliefs can be changed by that discussion has always seemed to me to be the height of insincerity. So I ask - are all here truly keeping an "open mind"?

I would argue that scripture is usually relevant, provided it is truth. I recognize that to many "the fundamentalist, literal-interpretation" is a joke and the word "fundamentalist" is often used as a pejorative.

I hope that you can accept that I did not intend it as such. My intent was to use it as an accurate description of a given set of beliefs, and indeed those who adhere to such beliefs have often, at least in my experience, applied this label to themselves. If there is a better word, I will certainly use it instead. Still, I clearly do not subscribe to that position myself, and therefore one would correctly conclude that I believe such a position to be incorrect (else I WOULD subscribe to it).

It may be true that other religions make similar claims. The veracity of God's holy Bible stands, regardless of any competing claim.

Yes, but to be complete one would have to add "in the opinion of those who believe in the Bible." In short, this claim of veracity by itself will not be sufficient to convince someone who does NOT already believe in the correctness of the Bible to change that opinion. From an "outside," objective position, it is an argument of the form:

"X is true."

"How do we know this?"

"Because X says so!"

...which I hope you will agree is not especially satisfying.

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by taxpayerslavery

I was stating fact, not opinion. Those who want to call it opinion are simply ignorant of the facts.

Frankly, I don't think that calling those whose opinions differ from yours "ignorant" is much of a way to carry on a civil discussion - but that IS just my opinion. Unless one's statements are demonstrably true, then they are "opinion" and not "fact," at least as these words are used in my experience. As we are currently engaged in a debate over these very points, it would seem that they are not demonstrably true at this point - at the very least, such notions are hardly "facts" of the same nature as, say, the existence of gravity.

It would be interesting to see if their book had anything close to the prophecies of the Bible such as fore telling of how Jesus would be pierced, hung on a tree, have no bones broken and the soldiers would gamble for Jesus's clothes 793 years before it happened and before crucifixion was invented.

It would also be interesting to see just exactly how you believe the Bible does these things as well. Being extremely charitable, I think the best that one could say is that certain passages are capable of being interpreted in this way, if removed from historical context.

The fact that the scriptures told of this before it happened, verified by the dead sea scrolls, is evidence of the supernatural author. The book of Isaiah had been found to be perfectly preserved for over a thousand years, at least as found in the KJV Bible. That's a miracle in itself.

I think that you may want to be very careful with the notion that simply being "perfectly preserved for over a thousand years" is evidence of Divine origin. If it is, you will likely have to admit any number of quite non-Biblical texts into that category.

I would also look at the kind of society their religion creates.
* * * * * * From Haley's Bible Handbook * * * * * *
Hinduism has made India what it is.
Confucianism and Buddhism have made China what it is.
Mohammedanism has made southwest Asia and north Africa what they are.
Roman Catholicism has made Italy, Spain and Latin America.
Protestantism has made Britain, United States and Canada.
THESE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES, and SPEAK LOUDLY.
* * * * * * end of quote from Haley's * * * * * *

First, these are not "facts" - these are again opinions, and highly debateable ones. Anyone who asserts that Confucianism/Buddhism are solely responsible for the present state of China, or even that Protestantism is solely responsible for the present state of the U.S., Canada, or the U.K. is, I'm afraid, grossly oversimplifying history. (And conveniently ignoring any number of decidedly UN-Christian behavior that went into the shaping of the latter three, just to give one example!) It is also interesting to note that of the religions listed above, there is only one that does not have significant amounts of blood on its hands (and it isn't either brand of Christianity).

Things are going down hill rapidly as Britain, United States and Canadain Citizens reject Christianity. As can be seen on the nightly news.

Yes, we were certainly better off in the Good Old Days, weren't we? Say, 150 years ago, when in a large part of this nation, a man could be bought, sold, or killed on a whim simply for having the wrong color of skin, or when half of the nation's adult citizens were denied a voice in its government for being of the wrong gender. Or even 50 years ago, when much the same conditions still existed, despite their now being "illegal." How quick we are to ignore the wrongs of past generations, or to attribute our "falling" from a supposedly better past to a rejection of someone's pet belief system.

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by taxpayerslavery

The following quote is from my 2002 campaign web page.
http://antislavery.freeservers.com/run.htm/

The Declaration of Independence is a document which has been ratified by all 50 states. The Declaration of Independence clearly states that our unalienable Rights come from our Creator. The Constitution is the document which describes how those God given rights are to be protected. When an Atheist appeals the Constitution to try and push his idea that there is no God, he is using a document the he has already declared null and void when he disavowed God.

Hardly.

First, the Declaration of Independence, while certainly a revered document that is a part of our nation's history, is NOT in any way, shape, or form a part of its legal system. It was not "ratified" by the states, nor was there ever any need for such, since its adoption (by the Continental Congress of 1776) predates the establishment of the U.S.'s current form of government. The Declaration is not referenced by the current Constitution (itself adopted some years later, after the near-failure of the government established by the Articles of Confederation), nor does the Constitution in any way require that the "rights" which it enumerates are considered as "God-given" by those who seek their protection. Instead, the Constitution - or rather, the Bill of Rights, its first ten amendments - is the instrument which ensures that the State will take no position regarding questions of religion, neither promoting nor restricting it. It is quite clear from reading the commentaries of the framers of the Constitution, especially Jefferson and Madison, and that of many of their contemporaries (esp. Benjamin Franklin), that they were keenly aware of the problems inherent in the government requiring ANY sort of test of religious convictions, and so were striving to make such things impossible.