Bad News: Greensboro Mayor Gets Rid of Moment of Silence…

These prayers are just so stupid. What is it they are praying for? Guidance to make the right decision for their town? Is that really needed? Is it significant? Does anybody really care about what usually happens at a town hall meeting that it needs divine intervention?

I can understand, to some extent, the desire to pray for a sick family member, or victims of a disaster (caused by their god no less), and some other things. But this idea of praying before each school day, or meeting, or FFS before a sporting event is just stupid and frankly vain.

A friend recently told me there is no separation of church and state. He said it’s not in the constitution “It doesn’t say it and it doesn’t mean it”. I came back with this and 11 other quotes from Madison the principle writer of our constitution and bill of rights:
“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.”~ James Madison

Isn’t it ludicrous that Mayors and councillors can’t just get on with the job at hand – spending taxpayers money wisely, making good decisions for the benefit for those that live in the city, rather than ludicrous religious posturing that really has nothing to do with their job or mandate?

At future meetings, the invocations will be more akin to prayer. “I think this adds a very distinctly America quality and a very necessary element,” he said.

I’d like to know who called it an ‘America quality’ not an ‘American quality.’ Did he misspeak, or was it printing error?

Also he appears to be taking a swing at non-believers for not praying. — Calling them Un-american.

Why is this necessary again?

Yet another moronic political leader who thinks America is a Christian nation.

“We all believe in something.” He’s obviously referring to a higher power/creator/mythological being, and it’s offensive.

Prayer should be banned from ANY government-related activity. This includes invocation, voodoo, rain dances, and any other horse shit.

Oh come now your all so harsh.
How else to they get to make public displays of their righteousness.
That closet thing is so last century.

The rule is pretty simple. Generic prayers are OK. Sectarian prayers are not. So a government body can have a prayer, and probably invoke “God,” but it can’t reference a specific god, like Jesus.

I say the rule is “pretty” simple, but apparently this is too complex for a lot of people to understand. But then again, some people also seem to find confusion in the quite simple taxonomy involved here: the city council is not a church.

I think this adds a very distinctly America quality
So “American” = “believes in God”?
According to some, I guess.

SpencerDub said: “”everyone knows that you’re only moral if you’ve got God!””

As a Christian, I would never argue THAT. It’s not that atheists can’t and don’t behave morally, but that they cannot account for what they are doing, as they have no absolute standard of morality by which to condemn or codone ANY behavior in their worldview. Hope this helps.

@ scmike:

I like to give FriendlyAtheist.com posters the benefit of the doubt before I go off assuming that they are sanctimonious pricks, so I’m going to assume that you are being satirical.

“You can’t be moral without God” (and its variations) is an old fallacy. It’s false, arrogant, and frankly offensive.

Claiming that we have no standard of morality is absurd, especially since you employ the same frigging standards that we do every time you break the laws of your precious fictional book (and I know you do, otherwise you’d be in jail for murder).

For what it’s worth, my comment was facetious– I had hoped the “baby-eating” line would give it away.

This calls for my famous “Fonzie Rebuttal” to Lee Strobel.

(The next to the last paragraph is a rephrasing of Strobel’s own futile argument for an absolute moral standard, recasting his argument from the existence of evil as an argument from the existence of ‘nerds’.)

Just because we can perceive good and evil, or light and dark, or loud and quiet as different as relative to each other does not mean there is an absolutely loudest thing, an absolutely brightest thing or an absolutely good thing.

There is no such thing as the loudest sound of all time, against which we measure all sounds for their relative quietness. Rather, all one needs is two sounds to measure relative difference.

If some kids in high-school are cool, and some are nerds, and most kids can agree on which are which, does that mean that the fictional character Fonzie exists? Would answering this question be an adequate way to discover whether or not Fonzie exists, or if he is instead a work of fiction:

And, second, granted that the major objection to belief in Fonzie is the existence of nerds, does the concept of nerdishness itself not suggest a standard of coolness or a style and demeanor from which nerds deviate, so these kids ought to be cooler (rather than just happening to be the way they act normally), don’t such ‘nerds’ or ‘wimps’ seem to suggest a separate standard of what makes cool kids cool independent of nature?

I guess if “Cool” exists, and we are able to perceive it and differentiate cool kids from nerds, then certainly Arthur Fonzerelli is a real living being and not a fictional character on Happy Days.

Lol, scmike is funny! 🙂

(Of course, as an atheist, I have no explanation for my calling anything “funny” or “unfunny”… maybe Loki instilled this sense of humor in me? Or the Coyote? Wait, wait, I got it– Anansi, you trickster!)

I’m a Greensboro resident, too, who never pays attention to local news… quite disappointed (but not shocked) to see my hometown headlined here. I’ll be looking up how to write the mayor/city council, and if this gets ugly and we have to sue, I’d be happy to sign on as a fellow complaintant.

JohnFrost,

You said: Lol, scmike is funny!

(Of course, as an atheist, I have no explanation for my calling anything “funny” or “unfunny”… maybe Loki instilled this sense of humor in me? Or the Coyote? Wait, wait, I got it– Anansi, you trickster!)

Hey John, I’m glad to see that you realize the need to abandon your atheism in order account for the things that cannot be accounted for in an atheistic worldview. That’s always refreshing! 😉

“Exactly! Without a transcendental standard (e.g. Divine revelation) one would have no way of distinguishing between ‘red’ and ‘green’”

This goes beyond absurd… I call Poe.

JohnFrost,

I said: “Exactly! Without a transcendental standard (e.g. Divine revelation) one would have no way of distinguishing between ‘red’ and ‘green’”

You said: This goes beyond absurd… I call Poe.

Problem is, in calling ANY argument absurd, you’re appealing to a transcendental standard of logic and reason. How do you account for that standard in your worldview John?

Also, how do you know that the senses and reasoning you use to distinguish one thing from another are reliable? I look forward to your response.

Siamang,

You said: “”Just because we can perceive good and evil, or light and dark, or loud and quiet as different as relative to each other does not mean there is an absolutely loudest thing, an absolutely brightest thing or an absolutely good thing.””

If this is truly your position with regards to behavior, then child molestation, murder, rape, lying, etc. are not ‘wrong’ according to your worldview, they’re just ‘different’.

You therefore have zero justification for condemning ANY behavior, apart from your own personal preference, which is purely arbitrary and therefore irrational. Perhaps you should give this some serious thought?

Mike,

I asked: “That’s nice, but why SHOULD anyone else adhere to your standard?”

You replied: “”You didn’t ask why anyone else should adhere to my standard. You asked why, as an atheist I would not murder.””

Sorry Mike, looks like you may have misread my question. No problem, here it is again:

I asked: ‘Why shouldn’t people murder one another in your worldview (especially if they can get away with it and it benefits them to do so)?’ (From May 20, 8:32 AM)

You said: “”I answered.””

I trust you can see your error now.

You said: “”You seem to think that simply because someone does not believe in God that they have no basis for morality.””

Nope, I know it for certain. Apart from the God of the Bible, you have no logical justification for morality (i.e. that which ‘should’ be), as the most your worldview could ever hope to give us is that which ‘is’. I’d really like to see how you logically get from that which ‘is’ to that which ‘should be’.

You said: “”I simply used myself as an example to display that you can have a basis for morality without an adherence to a particular religion.””

Actually, all you demonstrated was your arbitrary personal opinion, which again has zero authority and is not law-like in any way. Again, morality is that which ‘should’ be. Surely you’re not positing that your standard is the ideal are you? If so, how do you know this to be the case?

You said: “”Choosing to follow a morality set forth in a book or established by religious doctrine is no less arbitrary.””

Unless of course that moral standard is a reflection of the absolute, immaterial, universal nature of God, which it is.

You said: “”As far as I am concerned, Christianity has zero authority.””

Thankfully though, what you may believe about Christianity has nothing to do with the actual truth and authority of Christianity. I am pleased with that.

You said: If “law-like” is your concern, then I think the secular laws in place to prevent murder should be sufficient.

Could those laws change? If they did change such that murder was deemed lawful, would it then be right to murder? How do you know?

I said: “Riiiight. Just like there are plenty of atheists who believe in God.”

You replied: “”Claiming No True Scottsman, then?””

Nope. Mutual exclusivity.

I said: “Behavior has nothing to do with the existence of the standard. If an absolute speed limit of 55 mph was posted and someone drove 75 mph, does that mean that the standard doesn’t exist?

You said:That was exactly my point.

Glad we agree that just because some people may transgress an absolute standard doesn’t mean that the standard isn’t there.

Now, how do you account for the existence of absolute standards in your worldview?

I said: “The basis is the impossibility of the contrary. Apart from the God of the Bible, it is impossible to KNOW anything. If you dispute this, perhaps you can tell how it is possible for you to know anything for certain in your worldview?”

You replied: “”I do not believe it is possible to KNOW anything for certain.””

Then, perhaps I should ask you if you are certain that you believe this? Are you? 😉

You said: “”The part of your claim that I reject is “Apart from the God of the Bible.” Explain how belief in the “god of the Bible” changes the ability to know.””

Gladly, but first I need to correct your understanding of my claim. It is the Christian position that God has revealed Himself to all people so that we can know for certain who He is and what he expects of us with regards to morality, logic, reason, etc. Therefore, I don’t BELIEVE in God, I KNOW for certain He exists (as do you).

Apart from Divine revelation from a Being that knows everything, it is impossible to KNOW anything for certain (as you are demonstrating right now). We both claim to know things Mike, but only one of us can logically account for that possibility in our worldview. I can and have, while you have not and cannot. Why trust such an absurd and hopeless position?

You said: “”RE: Occam’s Razor. Yes. You have added an entity.””

Not at all. I have provided the necessary preconditon for absolute laws of morality, logic and reason, as well as knowledge (by the impossibility of the contrary).

Your inability to provide a competing account for these concepts while holding to a contrary worldview only serves to demonstrate the truth of my claim. I am grateful!

I said: “I’m sure he won’t mind you saving him the embarassment.”

You said: “”I would not presume to speak for him.””

Let’ hope not for his sake. 😀 (Sorry, couldn’t resist)

I said: “Actually, it was atheistic Philosopher Bertrand Russell who pointed out the fallaciousness of that statement. Seems fitting.”

If you accept Russell’s arguments…

Sorry Mike, an argument need not be accepted in order to be valid, as truth does not equal persuasion.

I asked: “That’s nice, but why SHOULD anyone else adhere to your standard?”
You replied: “”You didn’t ask why anyone else should adhere to my standard. You asked why, as an atheist I would not murder.””
Sorry Mike, looks like you may have misread my question. No problem, here it is again:
I asked: ‘Why shouldn’t people murder one another in your worldview (especially if they can get away with it and it benefits them to do so)?’ (From May 20, 8:32 AM)
You said: “”I answered.””
I trust you can see your error now.

No I cannot. I gave you my worldview. It explained quite succinctly, I think, why I believe people should not murder.

Nope, I know it for certain. Apart from the God of the Bible, you have no logical justification for morality (i.e. that which ’should’ be), as the most your worldview could ever hope to give us is that which ‘is’. I’d really like to see how you logically get from that which ‘is’ to that which ’should be’.

If I can justify immoral actions towards another being, then that being can justify immoral actions towards myself (let us stick with murder). In order for us to be mutually protected from murder by each other, it should be prohibited to commit murder. Why is that illogical?

Actually, all you demonstrated was your arbitrary personal opinion, which again has zero authority and is not law-like in any way. Again, morality is that which ’should’ be. Surely you’re not positing that your standard is the ideal are you? If so, how do you know this to be the case?

You are correct, I did share my “arbitrary personal opinion” and I am not stating that it should be authoritative or law. However, I would like to believe that the idea that murder is wrong would be the ideal.

Unless of course that moral standard is a reflection of the absolute, immaterial, universal nature of God, which it is.
Prove it.

Thankfully though, what you may believe about Christianity has nothing to do with the actual truth and authority of Christianity. I am pleased with that.

What authority? It only has authority over its adherents.

Could those laws change? If they did change such that murder was deemed lawful, would it then be right to murder? How do you know?

Yes they could. And no it would not. Because of my morality based in the values I espoused before. Others might discagree.

Nope. Mutual exclusivity.

I see no difference.

Glad we agree that just because some people may transgress an absolute standard doesn’t mean that the standard isn’t there. Now, how do you account for the existence of absolute standards in your worldview?
You are missing my point. The standard is not absolute. The speed limit could be changed. And while the limit and the laws could influence one’s behavior, they do not dictate it.

Then, perhaps I should ask you if you are certain that you believe this? Are you?
Yes I am certain I believe it. There is a difference between belief and knowledge.

Gladly, but first I need to correct your understanding of my claim. It is the Christian position that God has revealed Himself to all people so that we can know for certain who He is and what he expects of us with regards to morality, logic, reason, etc. Therefore, I don’t BELIEVE in God, I KNOW for certain He exists (as do you).

Apart from Divine revelation from a Being that knows everything, it is impossible to KNOW anything for certain (as you are demonstrating right now). We both claim to know things Mike, but only one of us can logically account for that possibility in our worldview. I can and have, while you have not and cannot. Why trust such an absurd and hopeless position?
Still don’t buy it. You stated it yourself. “It is the Christian position [belief] that God has revealed himself…” You do not know; you simply believe you know. You may claim to KNOW things, but I do not. I am simply a man with beliefs. You are too, but you have convinced yourself that you KNOW. I find that absurd.

Not at all. I have provided the necessary preconditon for absolute laws of morality, logic and reason, as well as knowledge (by the impossibility of the contrary). Your inability to provide a competing account for these concepts while holding to a contrary worldview only serves to demonstrate the truth of my claim. I am grateful!

Glad you are grateful, but I have provided a competing account. You have simply dismissed my arguments out of hand and (seemingly smugly) claimed victory. Is that why you are here?

Let’ hope not for his sake.

Cute. I wonder if you can argue without insulting those you argue with.

Sorry Mike, an argument need not be accepted in order to be valid, as truth does not equal persuasion.

That is true. Unfortunately it is also not possible for you to know that you are the one with full knowledge of what the truth is.

BTW, I apologize in advance, since I suspect you will no doubt reply to this post, but I will be travelling over the next few days. It is unlikely I will be able to respond for a while. Have a good weekend.

Hang on. Full stop. scmike wrote : “Therefore, I don’t BELIEVE in God, I KNOW for certain He exists (as do you).”

Wait. So your position is that people who don’t agree with you about the existence of God really secretly DO agree with you, but they are lying?

Wow. The arrogance and self-centeredness of that position is truly breathtaking. I’m frankly stunned.

That really wraps up any chance of conversation with you, doesn’t it? Anything I say will be completely pointless, as you alone hold the one truthful position, and everyone else knows it, secretly.

Message received. This conversation is not worth my time, as it’s one-sided.

I’m done. Have fun ruling the universe.

Mike,

You said: “”I gave you my worldview. It explained quite succinctly, I think, why I believe people should not murder.””

Sorry Mike, it didn’t explain why people SHOULDN’T murder at all. Again, all you have done is made known your personal preference regarding murder. No offense, but why should anyone else care about your personal preference, especially if they happen to like murdering people and intend to exercise that preference upon you?

You see, when it comes to arbitrary standards, one is just as valid as another. This means that someone else has just as much right to impose their standards upon you as you do to impose yours upon them, and you would have zero logical justification for saying anything about them doing so if you truly lived according to your beliefs (which, thankfully, you don’t).

After all, why in an atheistic worldview does it matter what one evolved bag of molecules does to another? You wouldn’t put a lion in prison for killing a gazelle, so what gives human life dignity over that of other life forms in a worldview which denies God?
You see, apart from an absolute standard of morality, you are forced to admit that

I said: “Nope, I know it for certain. Apart from the God of the Bible, you have no logical justification for morality (i.e. that which ’should’ be), as the most your worldview could ever hope to give us is that which ‘is’. I’d really like to see how you logically get from that which ‘is’ to that which ’should be’.”

You said: “”If I can justify immoral actions towards another being, then that being can justify immoral actions towards myself (let us stick with murder). In order for us to be mutually protected from murder by each other, it should be prohibited to commit murder. Why is that illogical?””

Because you are arbitrarily declaring murder to be ‘immoral’ with zero justification whatsoever. How do you know that murdering people is not what we should be doing as opposed to not murdering them?

How do you know that murderers didn’t evolve the right standard of behavior, in which case they are the ‘moral’ ones and you are the ‘immoral’ one? As a matter of fact, how does anyone distinguish ‘moral’ behavior from ‘immoral’ behavior in your worldview?

I said: “Actually, all you demonstrated was your arbitrary personal opinion, which again has zero authority and is not law-like in any way. Again, morality is that which ’should’ be. Surely you’re not positing that your standard is the ideal are you? If so, how do you know this to be the case?”

You said: “”You are correct, I did share my “arbitrary personal opinion” and I am not stating that it should be authoritative or law.””

Actually, that’s exactly what you’re doing when you label any behavior ‘wrong’ and say that it ‘should not’ be done. In doing so, you become irrational in your thinking and behavior (not to mention inconsistent with your professed atheistic worldview), as you have zero justification for imposing your belief on another.

In an atheistic worldview, the universe is just ‘matter in motion’ without any purpose whatsoever. Peoples actions are then also meaningless, kind of like the spattering of rain on the ground. You would never look at the different spatter patterns of raindrops on the concrete and call one ‘right’ and another ‘wrong’, you would only say that they are different with regards to one another.

The fact that you do know that some behaviors are right and some are wrong demonstrates the truth of the Bible that you do know that God exists in your heart of hearts, but are merely suppressing that truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to Him. Not very wise.

You said: “”However, I would like to believe that the idea that murder is wrong would be the ideal.””

The ‘ideal’ for achieving what purpose?

I said: “Unless of course that moral standard is a reflection of the absolute, immaterial, universal nature of God, which it is.”

You said: “”Prove it.””

You’ve already done a super job of proving it for me, by your inability to account for an absolute, objective standard of morality by which you can logically justify calling anything right or wrong. I appreciate that!

I said: “Thankfully though, what you may believe about Christianity has nothing to do with the actual truth and authority of Christianity. I am pleased with that.”

You said: “”What authority? It only has authority over its adherents.””

Actually, the authority of Christianity is founded upon the God of the Bible, who has revealed Himself to all mankind and whom you continue to appeal to in your responses while denying Him at the same time.

I give you an example: earlier, you asked me ‘proof’ that God is the source of absolute laws of morality. Obviously you believe in the concept of proof, or you wouldn’t be asking me for it. What you may not realize, though, is that proof of anything requires truth, knowledge (which is certain by definition), and absolute laws of logic and reason.

How do you account for the existence of any of these concepts apart from the Christian God?

I asked: “Could those laws change? If they did change such that murder was deemed lawful, would it then be right to murder? How do you know?”

You said: “”Yes they could. And no it would not. Because of my morality based in the values I espoused before. Others might discagree.””

So, who is right; you or them? How do you know?

You said: “”Claiming No True Scottsman, then?””

I said: “Nope. Mutual exclusivity.”

You replied: “”I see no difference.””

One is fallacious, the other is not.

I said: “Glad we agree that just because some people may transgress an absolute standard doesn’t mean that the standard isn’t there. Now, how do you account for the existence of absolute standards in your worldview?”

You replied: “”You are missing my point. The standard is not absolute. The speed limit could be changed.””

Uh, not if it’s ABSOLUTE (which it was in the scenario I presented).

You said: “”And while the limit and the laws could influence one’s behavior, they do not dictate it.””

Is that absolutely true, or could it be false?

You said: “”I do not believe it is possible to KNOW anything for certain.””

I said: “Then, perhaps I should ask you if you are certain that you believe this? Are you?”

You replied: “”Yes I am certain I believe it.””

Great, then you refute yourself! Now, how is it possible to be certain of anything in your worldview?

You said: “”There is a difference between belief and knowledge.””

Correct. Knowledge is certain by definition while belief is not. Now, once again, how is it possible to know anything for certain in your worldview?

I said: “Gladly, but first I need to correct your understanding of my claim. It is the Christian position that God has revealed Himself to all people so that we can know for certain who He is and what he expects of us with regards to morality, logic, reason, etc. Therefore, I don’t BELIEVE in God, I KNOW for certain He exists (as do you).

Apart from Divine revelation from a Being that knows everything, it is impossible to KNOW anything for certain (as you are demonstrating right now). We both claim to know things Mike, but only one of us can logically account for that possibility in our worldview. I can and have, while you have not and cannot. Why trust such an absurd and hopeless position?”

You said: “”Still don’t buy it. You stated it yourself. “It is the Christian position [belief] that God has revealed himself…” You do not know; you simply believe you know.””

Perhaps we can determine that once you tell us how it is possible to know anything for certain in your worldview. You’ve already admitted that you can (after you originally denied the possibility, of course), now please tell how.

You said: “”You may claim to KNOW things, but I do not.””

Really? Guess you forgot about your comment earlier where you said this:

‘Yes I am certain I believe it’
–Mike

What gives??

You said: “”I am simply a man with beliefs. You are too, but you have convinced yourself that you KNOW. I find that absurd.””

Do you know any of this for certain, or could it all be false? Let me know.

I said: “”Not at all. I have provided the necessary preconditon for absolute laws of morality, logic and reason, as well as knowledge (by the impossibility of the contrary). Your inability to provide a competing account for these concepts while holding to a contrary worldview only serves to demonstrate the truth of my claim. I am grateful!”

You said: “”Glad you are grateful, but I have provided a competing account.””

Are you certain that you have provided a competing account? If so, how are you certain of this?

You said: “”Cute. I wonder if you can argue without insulting those you argue with.””

Guess you missed the big 😀 after my comment. Surely you can stand a little friendly sarcasm, (or is that absolutely not allowed in your worldview :))?

I said: “Sorry Mike, an argument need not be accepted in order to be valid, as truth does not equal persuasion.”

You said: “”That is true. Unfortunately it is also not possible for you to know that you are the one with full knowledge of what the truth is.””

Do you know for certain that this is not possible? If so, how?

You said: “”BTW, I apologize in advance, since I suspect you will no doubt reply to this post, but I will be travelling over the next few days. It is unlikely I will be able to respond for a while. Have a good weekend.””

No problem Mike. I hope you have a safe trip and look forward to resuming this discussion upon your return. 🙂

Siamang,

You said: “”(I’m done talking to scmike at this point, next bit is for any other readers.)

Man, I knew that religion can really mind-**** a person, but I’m always stunned when I come across someone so messed up beyond the ability to see or understand any point of view but their own.

Everyone here has seen the likes of scmike before, and he won’t be the last. I should have known that trying to engage him in conversation was pointless when he played the old trick of claiming God was the author of logic, therefore we can’t offer logical arguments without a tacit acknowledgment that theism is true. Lol. Next he’ll say that God created language, and so by merely talking, he wins the debate!

The fact that he’s trying to “win” a “debate” with these gotcha-games shows that he’s lost so much. He’s not here to seek understanding. He’s not here to understand or learn anything, or indeed share anything. He is the only one with access to Ultimate Truth, and his ego is too large to let anyone else’s understanding, experience or wisdom make a dent.

A shame and a waste.

Yet another case-study in why religion is so important to fight. It erects such walls between people searching to understand each other. What a harmful, dividing force it can be.

We’ve got to do better.””

Your need to save face by directing your responses to those who sympathize with your position instead of towards me (as a means to avoid dealing with my previous challenges to your worldview and those which would surely follow) is duly noted. Priceless!! 😀