Is it hypocritical to not believe in God...

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



riv6672
...yet still spend money? In the US at least.
That whole "in god we trust" thing.
Is it a matter of people not caring enough about their non belief? A convenient overlooking of something that'd make life impossible to live in the US?
What's everyone's take on this?

AbnormalButSane
No, what's hypocritical is that we have "In god we trust" on our money whilst claiming that there is a separation between church and state.

Also, a lot of people spend money with debit cards these days. So there is a way around that, if you really cared....

riv6672
Its still money you're spending, though, in the end.

And really, i'm not denying (or focusing on) the govt's hypocrisy, just asking as to the level of hypocrisy/commitment, and/or lack thereof, of athiests.

Rao Kal El
If we are going yo use those standards, then it will be hypocritical for anyone with a religion that does not belive in a Christian God to.use the money.

Or for anyone with a religion to use Facebook as it's creator has publicly said he is an Atheist.

In other words, it will be silly to pay attention to those small details. IMO

Astner
Originally posted by AbnormalButSane
No, what's hypocritical is that we have "In god we trust" on our money whilst claiming that there is a separation between church and state.
The purpose of the separation between church and state is to prevent the government from justifying decisions through religion; not to change any non-secular slogan that makes you feel uncomfortable.

riv6672
To your overall post: Silly and hypocritical arent mutually exclusive.

I pointed out atheists because they believe in no god, as opposed to religions that believe in different gods. This thread has only gotten two responses, but they've both been rather deflective.

Its really a yes or no answer, with caveats afterwards. Not caveats with no real answer.

Edit:
The above doesnt include Astner; we posted simultaneously.

riv6672
My bad, Abnormal actually did say no.
Its just the caveat itself tried deflecting things onto the govt.stick out tongue

Mindship
Hypocritical? I say thee, nay. However, I do find it amusing (revealing?) that we put "God" on our money.

Astner
Originally posted by riv6672
I pointed out atheists because they believe in no god, as opposed to religions that believe in different gods.
Actually there are plenty of atheistic religions. Buddhism and Jainism both specifically reject the notion of a creator or governing deities while presenting other supernatural aspects.

Rao Kal El
There are things that cannot be answered with a simple "yes or no" a black and white mentality forgets all the shades in between.

And I don't think an atheist will pay attention to such a minimal thing.

He might as well just look at the money and think "Poor fools"

As far as I remember Atheist do not try to shove their believes down people's throats (Well maybe the extremist ones do)

They might want a separation between church and state, and it will be logical to ask for the print on the money to change, but it will be illogical to starve to death just because they "can't" use money that says "in God We trust" when that is the only currency available in this economy.

Now IF the goverment will be kind enough to print an OPTIONAL currency that NOT says "in God We trust", then it could be consider hypocritical, also depending on how much currency is in circulation for the Atheist to use. But for an Atheist to demand an alternative currency to appease Atheist only it will be Illogical. IMO

MF DELPH
I'm an Atheist.

I don't find it hypocritical to use money because it's the means of commerce and trade in this society. A slogan referring to a fictional character being present on the currency doesn't matter. The currency's purpose does. It's akin to me choosing not to eat McDonald's because I don't have any reason to believe in the supernatural and using that as a rationale to not eat their food because Ronald McDonald purports himself to be a magical clown. If I'm hungry and I need breakfast I'm gonna grab a McMuffin. It doesn't mean I believe in or advocate a magic clown that breakdances and talks to dancing French Fries.

Rao Kal El
Originally posted by Mindship
Hypocritical? I say thee, nay. However, I do find it amusing (revealing?) that we put "God" on our money.

thumb up

Originally posted by MF DELPH
I'm an Atheist.

I don't find it hypocritical to use money because it's the means of commerce and trade in this society. A slogan referring to a fictional character being present on the currency doesn't matter. The currency's purpose does. It's akin to me choosing not to eat McDonald's because I don't have any reason to believe in the supernatural and using that as a rationale to not eat their food because Ronald McDonald purports himself to be a magical clown. If I'm hungry and I need breakfast I'm gonna grab a McMuffin. It doesn't mean I believe in or advocate a magic clown that breakdances and talks to dancing French Fries.

thumb up

Digi
No, to the OP. For details, see what Delph said.

Riv, what would the alternative be? To spending money, that is. Like, what do you propose people do if they're against it? It seems like a silly question to ask, because the choices are literally "deal with it" or "starve and be poor."

Star428
I don't think it's hypocritical by any means for an atheist to use currency that has "In God we trust" printed on it. I mean, living in a society without using the money of said society would seem to unnecessarily complicate your life and would make it much harder to survive. Though, there are ways around it , of course. You could just use credit cards or checks for all your purchases. But then, you'd still have to to deposit some of that money into the bank in order to use them. At least you wouldn't have to walk around with it though.

Star428
edited...

Digi
Originally posted by Star428
I don't think it's hypocritical by any means for an atheist to use currency that has "In God we trust" printed on it. I mean, living in a society without using the money of said society would seem to unnecessarily complicate your life and would make it much harder to survive. Though, there are ways around it , of course. You could just use credit cards or checks for all your purchases. But then, you'd still have to to deposit some of that money into the bank in order to use them. At least you wouldn't have to walk around with it though.

This isn't a true workaround, though, because even credit cards are just representations of that currency. You HAVE to use money in some form. The only thing this would do would be to keep it out of your wallet and in a bank account. But it wouldn't actually change anything. And there are some things that require cash, even in today's world, so if you had any kind of social life, you're still not avoiding the physical money.

Obviously it's not hypocritical, so agreed there. And I don't know a single atheist who's ever really thought about it at length. I'm just truly curious if Riv sees an alternative.

Star428
Edited... nevermind.

Bardock42
Originally posted by riv6672
...yet still spend money? In the US at least.
That whole "in god we trust" thing.
Is it a matter of people not caring enough about their non belief? A convenient overlooking of something that'd make life impossible to live in the US?
What's everyone's take on this?

I don't understand how that could possibly be hypocritical. Originally posted by Astner
The purpose of the separation between church and state is to prevent the government from justifying decisions through religion; not to change any non-secular slogan that makes you feel uncomfortable.

It is a government sanctioned religious slogan. And that's exactly what the separation of church and state should stop, government endorsement or persecution of Religion.

Astner
Originally posted by Bardock42
It is a government sanctioned religious slogan. And that's exactly what the separation of church and state should stop,
Why?

Bardock42
Originally posted by Astner
Why?

Are you asking me whether I think that the separation of church is a valuable rule? Or do you not understand why printing "In God We Trust" on the only form of government sanctioned currency violates the rule?

Astner
Originally posted by Bardock42
Are you asking me whether I think that the separation of church is a valuable rule? Or do you not understand why printing "In God We Trust" on the only form of government sanctioned currency violates the rule?
My bad; I thought you knew what the separation of church and state was.

Bardock42
Oh, so the latter, fair enough.

riv6672
Originally posted by Mindship
Hypocritical? I say thee, nay. However, I do find it amusing (revealing?) that we put "God" on our money.
You guys realize i'm just trying to give us something to discuss in this forum other than the two eminem threads that were topped (again) this morning?

That said i find some of the responses here amusing (revealing) too! stick out tongue

Digi
Originally posted by riv6672
You guys realize i'm just trying to give us something to discuss in this forum other than the two eminem threads that were topped (again) this morning?

That said i find some of the responses here amusing (revealing) too! stick out tongue

The intention is fine. The topic remains odd. I'll ask again: what alternative would there be?

Bardock42
Bitcoin, obvs.

Jynocidus
Sharing could be an alternative to money. It would require an immense shift in behavior on the behalf of people worldwide, but...

riv6672
Originally posted by Digi
The intention is fine. The topic remains odd. I'll ask again: what alternative would there be?

Leave the country? Admit ethics are situational? Realize there are no atheists in foxholes (or at the grocery store)?

Bardock42
Originally posted by riv6672
Leave the country? Admit ethics are situational? Realize there are no atheists in foxholes (or at the grocery store)?

Again, can you explain why you think this is possibly hypocritical.

riv6672
I never said i did, personally.

Bardock42
Originally posted by riv6672
I never said i did, personally.
Yeah, but like you seem to think there is some way this could be considered hypocritical. So on the one hand there's people that don't believe in God, and on the other there's paper that has the word God printed on it...how do we connect these two things to make "hypocritical" make sense.

Rao Kal El
@ Riv

I find your threads very interesting, keep it up. thumb up

I do really like them

riv6672
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, but like you seem to think there is some way this could be considered hypocritical. So on the one hand there's people that don't believe in God, and on the other there's paper that has the word God printed on it...how do we connect these two things to make "hypocritical" make sense.
Thing is, i really dont. I just wanted to see how people would answer and what tangents this might take.

I've been asked this in RL and my answer was, basically what i posted above.

I'm not going to leave the country, ethics are situational, and there's no atheists at the grocery store.

Hypocrisy to me requires some level of forethought and do as i say not do mentality.
When its something you dont really think about, like saying god damn it when you smash your thumb, saying oh my god when you get shot at, exchanging christmas presents or saying merry christmas, or just spending money, i chalk it up to: "dude, stop overthinking things and shut the hell up." In a good natured way. In the end its not such a big deal.

Originally posted by Rao Kal El
@ Riv

I find your threads very interesting, keep it up. thumb up

I do really like them
Thanks. smile

Stoic
Originally posted by riv6672
...yet still spend money? In the US at least.
That whole "in god we trust" thing.
Is it a matter of people not caring enough about their non belief? A convenient overlooking of something that'd make life impossible to live in the US?
What's everyone's take on this?

Of course it isn't. If you work you should certainly be able to eat. It costs money to eat in most countries of the world, unless you live in one that provides you with food stamps. You would still need to pay rent however. So the answer to your question remains no, it is not hypocritical.

red g jacks
Originally posted by riv6672
...yet still spend money? In the US at least.
That whole "in god we trust" thing.
Is it a matter of people not caring enough about their non belief? A convenient overlooking of something that'd make life impossible to live in the US?
What's everyone's take on this? no... because spending money is not endorsing whatever is written on the money. it's just a means of exchange. they could write "i **** little kids" on it and i would still spend that shit.

riv6672
I'm sure you would.

Digi
Originally posted by riv6672
Leave the country? Admit ethics are situational? Realize there are no atheists in foxholes (or at the grocery store)?

The atheist in foxhole analogy has to do with belief. No atheist is believing in a god because it's printed on money. Nor is it a statement of belief to use money. It's...just using money. It's not a religious statement, nor an ethical question. There's no cause to say ethics are situational because there's no ethical issue in play. It's just using money.

So you're saying that every atheist needs to leave the country or...what? Say they're hypocrites? You realize the absurdity of that statement, yes? It's akin to saying atheists are hypocrites if they say "Bless you" or "God bless you" after someone sneezes. It's just oversimplifying everything to the point of falsehood.

Also, most atheists I know - myself included - don't give a **** what the money says. If anything, money is the ultimate symbol of secularism. The presence of religious doctrine on it is, imo, more damning for religions that it would be for atheists.

MF DELPH
There's also the fact that the only reason why "In God We Trust" appears on the money (or "One Nation, Under God" appears in the Pledge of Allegiance) was because of McCarthyism and the Red Scare of the 1950s. It was all part of an anti-Communist/Athiest (because 'Commies' were 'godless') propaganda campaign. "Real Americans" were red-blooded, God fearing, capitalist Patriots. Socialists, Communists, and other citizens who held more liberal/'progressive' views on social programs and the role of government were godless monsters hell bent on destroying the American way of life. "In God We Trust" is just a Cold War propaganda relic.

bluewaterrider
Originally posted by riv6672


Is it hypocritical to not believe in God ...

...yet still spend money? In the US at least.
That whole "in God we trust" thing.
Is it a matter of people not caring enough about their non belief? A convenient overlooking of something that'd make life impossible to live in the US?
What's everyone's take on this?


To the extent that people claim ownership of their money, yes, it can be and often is hypocritical to not believe in God yet still spend money.

Bardock42
Explain.

Plz, someone make a logical case for why it could possibly be hypocritical. Is the missing axiom that "If you touch something that has a word written on it, you must believe in the concept the word describes"?

NemeBro
I learned what a nonethical issue is in my Ethics class not too long ago.

That feels relevant somehow.

riv6672
Originally posted by Digi
So you're saying that every atheist needs to leave the country or...what? Say they're hypocrites?

nope.

You realize the absurdity of that statement, yes?

yup.

It's just oversimplifying everything

it IS. And yet we've generated some marvelously complex answers. I realize our paths dont cross often but, i think most people realize i just like posting things to stir up conversation, and often play devil's advocate.
I think this forum deserves more stimulating conversation than multiple hateful islam centric threads.

bluewaterrider
Originally posted by riv6672


I think this forum deserves more stimulating conversation than multiple hateful islam centric threads.




Word to the wise, Digi can become remarkably touchy when "Hypocrisy" or any variation of that word is used in a post.

Regarding the Islam centric threads, though, if you refer to the poster named eninn, I have to say that there's nothing particularly hateful about what he posts.
Quite the opposite. If anything, the people that RESPOND to him are hateful, but he himself is not.

Try addressing him as respectfully as you would a friend.
You might be amazed at how cordial he can be when given simple courtesy.

Laurie
Originally posted by riv6672
...yet still spend money? In the US at least.
That whole "in god we trust" thing.
Is it a matter of people not caring enough about their non belief? A convenient overlooking of something that'd make life impossible to live in the US?
What's everyone's take on this?

riv, do you really want to open that can of worms, and talk about the biblical god, hypocrisy and atheism in the same breath?

One can pick relatively any point in the bible and show the hypocrisy of this 'god.'

Anywhere.

When he met with Abraham outside his tent, and told him that Abraham's geriatric wife would bear a son the following spring. Gen 18:9-10; he had, at that time, just sent off two of his underlings to Sodom, to tell Lot of their plans to blow it off the map. There would have been children, babies and some good honest people dwelling in that city.

Wasn't one of the commandments: 'Thou shalt not commit murder?'

The problem with your question also brings up another anomaly that you chose to ignore; which is that if anyone can feed and clothe themselves, whether religious or not, in the west and without the use of money, we all wanna know how.

Even to grow one's own crops, and to rear sheep for clothing one would have to have the wherewithal to buy all the accouterments necessary for such an enterprise.

riv6672
Well...yeah!

bluewaterrider
Originally posted by Laurie


The problem with your question also brings up another anomaly that you chose to ignore; which is that if anyone can feed and clothe themselves, whether religious or not, in the west and without the use of money, we all wanna know how.


Unless Canadian money also has "In God We Trust" printed somewhere, few from the western nation known as Canada are wondering how that can be accomplished.


Originally posted by Laurie


Even to grow one's own crops, and to rear sheep for clothing one would have to have the wherewithal to buy all the accouterments necessary for such an enterprise.

See above.

There are many currencies available in our day and age.
The well-to-do atheist need not use American money for his transactions.

And those of more limited means can, if they can find other like-minded individuals, use a system of barter for what they need.

Remember, Riv's contention is that money bearing "In God We Trust" is hypocritical for the atheist to use, not all monies period.

bluewaterrider

Laurie

riv6672
And this is why i want to talk about the biblical god, hypocrisy and atheism in the same breath.

Excellent debating by all concerned. thumb up

bluewaterrider
Originally posted by Laurie
I can guarantee you that you will find children and babies, and non gamblers in Las Vegas. I'm demmed sure that would have been the same in Sodom and Gomorrah.



Were Sodom and Gomorrah modern American cities with millions of people I might agree with you. Or even Vegas with its hundreds of thousands.

They weren't cities of hundreds of thousands.
They had a fraction of that number of people.

bluewaterrider
Originally posted by Laurie


Are homosexuals not human beings?
Can they not lead good and law abiding lives?



1. Human beings are capable of great evil.

2. Good and law abiding? The Bible reckons that differently than your average American might:

http://biblehub.com/romans/3-10.htm


3. Reconcile what you're saying with the following:

Genesis 19:4-9

4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 5 and they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. 6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, 7 and said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. 8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. 9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.

Newjak
Originally posted by MF DELPH
There's also the fact that the only reason why "In God We Trust" appears on the money (or "One Nation, Under God" appears in the Pledge of Allegiance) was because of McCarthyism and the Red Scare of the 1950s. It was all part of an anti-Communist/Athiest (because 'Commies' were 'godless') propaganda campaign. "Real Americans" were red-blooded, God fearing, capitalist Patriots. Socialists, Communists, and other citizens who held more liberal/'progressive' views on social programs and the role of government were godless monsters hell bent on destroying the American way of life. "In God We Trust" is just a Cold War propaganda relic. So Delph is partially right. It wasn't really printed on paper money until the Red Scare but In God We Trust has been in use off and on for awhile. According to this site.

http://www.treasury.gov/about/education/Pages/in-god-we-trust.aspx

It dates back to the Civil War era. The spirit of what Delph says remains in tact though. Originally the motto did not appear until a group lobbied for it someone in power decided it was a good idea and pushed for it.

Essentially the motto IN God We Trust was pushed by a religious agenda to put their God front and center because they thought without it we were doomed.

I wouldn't consider an atheist using the money as hypocritical. Just like I wouldn't consider a religious person using a credit card hypocritical because it doesn't have In God We Trust on it.

MF DELPH
thumb up

Just to clarify, I was only speaking on the history of the slogan on paper currency (why it appears on modern dollars), not coinage.

Newjak
Originally posted by MF DELPH
thumb up

Just to clarify, I was only speaking on the history of the slogan on paper currency (why it appears on modern dollars), not coinage. Cool and good to know.

Yeah I don't think In God We Trust should be on our currency personally.

Digi
Originally posted by Bardock42
Explain.

Plz, someone make a logical case for why it could possibly be hypocritical. Is the missing axiom that "If you touch something that has a word written on it, you must believe in the concept the word describes"?

thumb up

Originally posted by NemeBro
I learned what a nonethical issue is in my Ethics class not too long ago.

That feels relevant somehow.

thumb up

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Word to the wise, Digi can become remarkably touchy when "Hypocrisy" or any variation of that word is used in a post.

Riv and I haven't been anything but respectful to each even while disagreeing, and this is nothing like the sh*t you and I went through. It's not the word hypocrisy I don't like, or even being called one. It's you. I know how much you like trying to identify hypocrisy in my posts - at times in the past to an absurd, borderline creepy extant - but unless you want to get dragged back into our "discussion", I'd advise you to stop with this.

Originally posted by riv6672


I actually enjoy you playing devil's advocate on a new topic. It's an interesting way to approach topics, and something not enough people do. I just don't think there's much devil to be played here. In any case, I'm glad we seem to be in agreement.

MF DELPH
Originally posted by Newjak
Cool and good to know.

Yeah I don't think In God We Trust should be on our currency personally.

It really makes no difference to me. The purpose of money is what matters, not the design. It reminds me of this old Dave Chappelle joke where he said that America made an effort to remove Saddam Hussein's face from all of the currency over there so the citizens could spend money without being reminded of their former dictator and living in fear, but they won't do the same thing for Black People in America despite U.S. Dollars looking like Baseball Cards with Slave Owners on them, and that he refused to use any money other than $5 bills and Pennies because they had Abraham Lincoln's face on them.

Along those lines I suppose as not only an Atheist but also a Black Man I have even more 'reasons' not to use money, right? laughing

Newjak
Originally posted by MF DELPH
It really makes no difference to me. The purpose of money is what matters, not the design. It reminds me of this old Dave Chappelle joke where he said that America made an effort to remove Saddam Hussein's face from all of the currency over there so the citizens could spend money without being reminded of their former dictator and living in fear, but they won't do the same thing for Black People in America despite U.S. Dollars looking like Baseball Cards with Slave Owners on them, and that he refused to use any money other than $5 bills and Pennies because they had Abraham Lincoln's face on them.

Along those lines I suppose as not only an Atheist but also a Black Man I have even more 'reasons' not to use money, right? laughing I'm not saying don't use the money.

Digi
Who knew spending money was oppressing black people. I should have been a money-hungry capitalist a long time ago.

#itsajokepeople
#keepObamaoffthecurrency

MF DELPH
Originally posted by Newjak
I'm not saying don't use the money.

lol, neither am I. I was referencing a joke about not using money based on imagery or slogans on it.

Newjak
Originally posted by MF DELPH
lol, neither am I. I was referencing a joke about not using money based on imagery or slogans on it. Fair enough. I never watched that skit stick out tongue

red g jacks
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Unless Canadian money also has "In God We Trust" printed somewhere, few from the western nation known as Canada are wondering how that can be accomplished.




See above.

There are many currencies available in our day and age.
The well-to-do atheist need not use American money for his transactions.

And those of more limited means can, if they can find other like-minded individuals, use a system of barter for what they need.

Remember, Riv's contention is that money bearing "In God We Trust" is hypocritical for the atheist to use, not all monies period. so i should move to canada because the money here has god on it? lol @ this non-issue you people are trying to create. last i checked this country is supposed to protect religious freedom. if you're saying that we have to leave the country or else believe in god in order to be consistent in our beliefs, you are effectively making a powerful argument for why 'in god we trust' on the money is in fact unconstitutional. something which i honestly never gave a shit about until now.

bluewaterrider
Originally posted by red g jacks


I should move to Canada because the money here has God on it?


If that's what you're inclined to do, I would suggest checking to see what's on Canadian currency first.
It'd be a waste of time if they had something similar.



Originally posted by red g jacks

If you're saying that we have to leave the country or else believe in God in order to be consistent in our beliefs, you are effectively making a powerful argument for why 'In God We Trust' on the money is, in fact, unconstitutional.


1. There are far more solutions than this.

2. The constitution itself is unconstitutional if you want to use metrics of that sort.
Two examples of the latter, if you want to use that particular line of thinking:

http://spectator.org/articles/38475/any-part-constitution-unconstitutional
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=2570


Originally posted by red g jacks

Last I checked this country is supposed to protect religious freedom.


This thread may become even more interesting than expected if you claim atheism as a religion.

God
I agree with the author of the topic.

Digi
Originally posted by God
I agree with the author of the topic.

laughing out loud

Welp, that settles that.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
The constitution itself is unconstitutional...

Lol. I'll take things that are tautologically impossible for $400, Alex.

Bardock42
Well, I guess technically the 18th amendment to the constitution is unconstitutional...

bluewaterrider
Originally posted by God


I agree with the author of the topic.



?

confused

red g jacks
Originally posted by bluewaterrider


1. There are far more solutions than this.such as...

i don't care if you call it a religion or not. that is honestly of no importance to me. but true religious freedom means the freedom to hold any opinion on any religious topic. so this by definition can't exclude the option to not be religious at all.

bluewaterrider
Originally posted by red g jacks


true religious freedom means the freedom to hold any opinion on any religious topic. so this by definition can't exclude the option to not be religious at all.


Fair enough.



Originally posted by red g jacks


such as ...



Already mentioned is bartering.
Which automatically introduces 3 other options:


1. Goods can be traded for goods. (pure bartering)
2. Goods can be traded for services. (hiring, favors)
3. Services can be traded for services. (contractual agreement)

Cooperatives work under the principle that some or even all costs can be reduced or eliminated by people intelligently working together to meet each others needs and at least a few desires.

Programs with things like food stamps, etcetera would be a fifth example.
Effectively this is a government entity, or entity of collaborating individuals creating their own system of currency.

So at least 3 alternatives exist, and most people are widely familiar with what I've given, essentially, as #s 4 and 5.

red g jacks
you really think it is practical to live in this country without using money? lol @ bartering. yea maybe here and there you can do that. do you honestly expect you can pay your rent, utilities, go grocery shopping, buy a car, buy a house, etc without using real currency?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by riv6672
...yet still spend money? In the US at least.
That whole "in god we trust" thing.
Is it a matter of people not caring enough about their non belief? A convenient overlooking of something that'd make life impossible to live in the US?
What's everyone's take on this?

Why do you care what is written on money? I look at "In God we trust" as a general statement that can mean whatever you want it to mean. You could define God in this phrase as meaning nature or the universe. But if you just can't get over the God thing, I have a solution. Just send me all of your money, and I will spend it for you. wink big grin

bluewaterrider
Originally posted by red g jacks
you really think it is practical to live in this country without using money? lol @ bartering. yea maybe here and there you can do that. do you honestly expect you can pay your rent, utilities, go grocery shopping, buy a car, buy a house, etc without using real currency?

We're talking ideal in this thread, not strictly practical.

In fact, part of the implied premise of this thread by the OP, which couldn't be eliminated even if the OP chose to deny it, is that atheists are not guided by ideals as firmly held as truly religious individual.

They do what they perceive is convenient for them and/or efficient.


However, everything I mentioned is quite possible, and, the stronger your community network or personal level of resource, the more practical it becomes.

I doubt you've had experience with the sort of communities I'm talking about.
When you get together enough like-minded people, you CAN do this.

You forget how much as a society we've moved away from cash altogether, let alone "In God We Trust"-bearing U.S. currency.

How much did you pay for the last 10 videos you watched, for instance?

If your answer amounts to any cash at all, you're probably in the minority on these forums. The Internet just disguises the fact that you're working with a community of numerous individuals as opposed to you by your lonesome on your computer.

Star428
Once the dollar collapses (and yes, it will in the near future, I'm afraid) bartering will play a huge role in our society. I bet you won't no one will be laughing about bartering then.

red g jacks
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
We're talking ideal in this thread, not strictly practical.

In fact, part of the implied premise of this thread by the OP, which couldn't be eliminated even if the OP chose to deny it, is that atheists are not guided by ideals as firmly held as truly religious individual.

They do what they perceive is convenient for them and/or efficient.


However, everything I mentioned is quite possible, and, the stronger your community network or personal level of resource, the more practical it becomes.

I doubt you've had experience with the sort of communities I'm talking about.
When you get together enough like-minded people, you CAN do this.

You forget how much as a society we've moved away from cash altogether, let alone "In God We Trust"-bearing U.S. currency.

How much did you pay for the last 10 videos you watched, for instance?

If your answer amounts to any cash at all, you're probably in the minority on these forums. The Internet just disguises the fact that you're working with a community of numerous individuals as opposed to you by your lonesome on your computer. yea, downloading videos is easy. downloading an apartment, food to eat, electricity, a car, etc.. not quite as easy. it's basically impossible to live in the US without using US currency... except if you are willing to go live in the wilderness and live off the land.

as for atheists not being guided by ideals... not believing in god is not an ideal to me. i do have ideals but not believing in god is not one of them. it is just a stance/opinion i happen to hold. it's not honestly that important though at the end of the day.

God
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
?

confused

Read the title then read my answer again. smile

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by God
Read the title then read my answer again. smile

I don't trust you! wink

riv6672
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why do you care what is written on money? I look at "In God we trust" as a general statement that can mean whatever you want it to mean. You could define God in this phrase as meaning nature or the universe. But if you just can't get over the God thing, I have a solution. Just send me all of your money, and I will spend it for you. wink big grin
When you post a response that makes me think you actually read the thread, and so understand why i made it, i might send you a dollar if you PM me your address.thumb up

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by riv6672
When you post a response that makes me think you actually read the thread, and so understand why i made it, i might send you a dollar if you PM me your address.thumb up

I read it and understood it, but its not a big deal to me. I didn't post at the beginning because of that. I only posted when I thought a joke would be appropriate.

red g jacks
Originally posted by red g jacks
yea, downloading videos is easy. downloading an apartment, food to eat, electricity, a car, etc.. not quite as easy. it's basically impossible to live in the US without using US currency... except if you are willing to go live in the wilderness and live off the land.
come to think of it you could just do everything electronically... debit transfers and credit transactions don't have god printed on them anywhere. then again the national motto remains 'in god we trust' and the pledge of allegiance has god in it as well, so maybe i'm a hypocrite for being from a country that seemingly does its best to assert its opposition to my point of view.

it's funny cause when an atheist raises an issue over this kind of petty shit certain religious people will scream "militant atheism" and insist that having god on the money and the pledge is no big deal and doesn't affect anyone's beliefs... and yet there are religious people here willing to cry hypocrisy if we agree to not whine about it and just look the other way.

anything to score some points i guess. "haha! caught you not being atheist enough."

Shakyamunison
I don't believe in Santa Claus. Is it hypocritical for me to shop at a store that has Christmas advertisements that feature images and the name Santa Claus?

The answer is of course no. I don't believe in Santa Claus, and I realize that it is just fiction. Am I offended by people who believe in Santa Claus? Some of them yes, but not all.

The same is true with "In God we trust". It's just fiction. Do I have a problem with people who believe in gods? Sure, some of them are dicks, but most of them are nice people.

The main question: does it make you less of an atheist to have currency that has something about god written on it? I thought atheists were free of the belief in gods. It seems to me that if you answer this question as yes, then you are still bound to the belief in gods in some way.

riv6672
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I read it and understood it, but its not a big deal to me. I didn't post at the beginning because of that. I only posted when I thought a joke would be appropriate.
Ah, that thinking thing never does quite work out for you. laughing out loud

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by riv6672
Ah, that thinking thing never does quite work out for you. laughing out loud

So, all you can do is insult me. You are not even able to consider my point.

Shakyamunison
So, how is not believing in a fictional character like Santa Claus different from not believing in a fictional character like god?

riv6672
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, all you can do is insult me. You are not even able to consider my point.
Wow, for someone who routinely posts as much inflammatory (though mostly entertaining) crap as you do, you should have a thicker skin. I was j/k.

As to the Santa question, i guess it depends on how seriously you take your beliefs.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by riv6672
Wow, for someone who routinely posts as much inflammatory (though mostly entertaining) crap as you do, you should have a thicker skin. I was j/k.

As to the Santa question, i guess it depends on how seriously you take your beliefs.

Far enough. I don't usually insult people, just their ideas.

I assume you are an atheist, is that correct? How seriously do you take other people's belief in gods?

riv6672
I'd submit insulting a person's ideas is just a school yard "i'm not touching you" version of insulting that person.

And no, not an atheist. Asatru actually.
As to other people's beliefs, i believe all gods are real, i believe in souls, ghosts, angels demons, aliens, basically i dont disbelieve anything, in that i dont KNOW everything. Seems presumptuous of me to dismiss things just because i feel i'm too smart to take it as real.

MF DELPH
^Wait, what?

Your position is that all claims are true and valid until proven false?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by riv6672
I'd submit insulting a person's ideas is just a school yard "i'm not touching you" version of insulting that person.

No. It's the rules of the forum. No personal attacks.

Originally posted by riv6672
And no, not an atheist. Asatru actually.

Really? I knew someone who would invoke Thor from time to time, but I don't think he was serious.

Originally posted by riv6672
As to other people's beliefs, i believe all gods are real, i believe in souls, ghosts, angels demons, aliens, basically i dont disbelieve anything, in that i dont KNOW everything. Seems presumptuous of me to dismiss things just because i feel i'm too smart to take it as real.

Then "In God we trust" should be no problem for you.

riv6672
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No. It's the rules of the forum. No personal attacks.
like i said, "i'm not touching you" stick out tongue

Then "In God we trust" should be no problem for you.
see, you ARENT reading my posts/this thread very thoroughly. I never said it was.

riv6672
Originally posted by MF DELPH
^Wait, what?

Your position is that all claims are true and valid until proven false?
More like, they arent false because we say they cant be proven.

Shakyamunison
riv6672, I read a lot, but I don't know if I read it all. Also, I don't always know who you are. I do get people confused from time to time. I'm usually doing five things at the same time.

riv6672
No need to explain.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by riv6672
No need to explain.

So, to get back on topic: Why did you make this thread? What was the point?

riv6672
Could have SWORN i explained that a couple pages ago...wink

j/k

To start a conversation or two.

MF DELPH
Originally posted by riv6672
More like, they arent false because we say they cant be proven.

Hmm...

So, for example, your position on, say, a claim that human's have the ability of teleportation by mental control in our current world, is akin to "I've never seen it, but it likely is true despite no evidence to support it" versus "I've never seen it, but it likely isn't true due to no evidence to support it"?

You'd accept an affirmative claim of the existence of contemporary Jumpers (a la the Hayden Christensen film) at face value?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by riv6672
More like, they arent false because we say they cant be proven.

Then unicorns only dance in the spring time. Can't disprove it.

MF DELPH
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to be insulting or facetious, just trying to clarify your position Riv.

bluewaterrider
Originally posted by MF DELPH
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to be insulting or facetious, just trying to clarify your position Riv.


erm

How different would your post look if you were?




Reading through these threads, I've begun wondering what kind of conversation we'd be having if the populace of these forums reflected more of mainstream society.

On the other hand, bias might simply be slanted in the other direction in that case.

Which would not necessarily be a good thing ...

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


Study: Atheists distrusted as much as rapists

A new study finds that atheists are among society's most distrusted group, comparable even to rapists in certain circumstances.
Sponsored Links

Psychologists at the University of British Columbia and the University of Oregon say that their study demonstrates that anti-atheist prejudice stems from moral distrust, not dislike, of nonbelievers.

"It's pretty remarkable," said Azim Shariff, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Oregon and a co-author of the study, which appears in the current issue of Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

The study, conducted among 350 Americans adults and 420 Canadian college students, asked participants to decide if a fictional driver damaged a parked car and left the scene, then found a wallet and took the money, was the driver more likely to be a teacher, an atheist teacher, or a rapist teacher?

The participants, who were from religious and nonreligious backgrounds, most often chose the atheist teacher.

The study is part of an attempt to understand what needs religion fulfills in people. Among the conclusions is a sense of trust in others.

"People find atheists very suspect," Shariff said. "They don't fear God so we should distrust them; they do not have the same moral obligations of others. This is a common refrain against atheists. People fear them as a group."

Shariff, who studies atheism and religion, said the findings provide a clue to combating anti-atheism prejudice.

"If you manage to offer credible counteroffers of these stereotypes, this can do a lot to undermine people's existing prejudice," he said. "If you realize there are all these atheists you've been interacting with all your life and they haven't raped your children that is going to do a lot do dispel these stereotypes."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-12-10/religion-atheism/51777612/1

riv6672
Originally posted by MF DELPH
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to be insulting or facetious, just trying to clarify your position Riv.
Understood.
Now this, is someone trying to be insulting...
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then unicorns only dance in the spring time. Can't disprove it.
...and succeeding only in making themselves look foolish.

Lord knows there's enough proof of that from thread to thread. laughing

Star428
[email protected] "people fear atheists". True believers of the almighty God fear no one besides God Himself. He is the only one who has the power to destroy not only your body but your soul as well. Also, of course atheists don't fear God because the poor lost souls don't even believe in Him but that's not going to save them from being judged by Him.

red g jacks
Originally posted by bluewaterrider

Reading through these threads, I've begun wondering what kind of conversation we'd be having if the populace of these forums reflected more of mainstream society. ever been on facebook?

MF DELPH
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
erm

How different would your post look if you were?

Connotation can't be conveyed over the internet so I wanted him to be sure that the hypothetical scenario I presented regarding human teleportation wasn't said in a manner where I was trying to insult him or insinuate anything.

How is clarifying your position to ensure that the person you are speaking to knows your intentions are genuine inquiry a negative thing?

riv6672
They atent. thumb up

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by riv6672
...and succeeding only in making themselves look foolish.

Lord knows there's enough proof of that from thread to thread. laughing

They are going to come get you!

bluewaterrider
Originally posted by red g jacks
ever been on facebook?


Believe it or not, I don't have a Facebook account.

red g jacks
me either. but if you know anyone who does, that's basically what it looks like when mainstream america meets the internet.

riv6672
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Believe it or not, I don't have a Facebook account.
Huh.
Neither do i.

red g jacks
so are you guys all paranoid like me or do you just not like facebook.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by red g jacks
so are you guys all paranoid like me or do you just not like facebook.

Why are you paranoid about Facebook? I just don't give them any information what so ever... I guess you could say I'm paranoid about Facebook too. laughing out loud

riv6672
Originally posted by red g jacks
so are you guys all paranoid like me or do you just not like facebook.
I just have no use for it.
Been out if HS for decades, and FB smacks of that type of atmosphere.

As an aside, i heard there was a shooting in Detroit recently? The culmination of a FB feud...

bluewaterrider
Originally posted by red g jacks


So are you guys all paranoid like me?

Or do you just not like Facebook?




I'm too old. sad

red g jacks
Originally posted by riv6672
I just have no use for it.
Been out if HS for decades, and FB smacks of that type of atmosphere.
i think its boring for the most part too but it's useful for keeping in touch with people. i have moved around a bit and lost quite a few friends i had in other states that i might have kept if i had a facebook. but i hate having my business out there on the internet like that.

to be fair pretty much every dispute in detroit is resolved with a shooting.Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I'm too old. sad how old could you possibly be? my mom is 50 something and facebook is the only reason she ever goes online. there are a ton of your people on there man.

55iopy
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I'm too old. sad
I'm younger now than I was 30 years ago, Blue. wink There are many good reasons to not use Farcebook, but being too old is an excuse instead of a reason.
(But you knew that, didn't you?)

To answer the OP, it's not hypocritical because when you spend money you're performing an act of worship to your God. It's just not the God you thought they were referring to.

Digi
The social and professional benefit of FB, when used toward those purposes in a deliberate, controlled manner, far outweighs any security concerns for me. We all have some kind of info on dozens of sites, if you've ever used a credit card or signed up for anything. And I'm not overly concerned with the NSA knowing, say, my favorite movies. Paranoia is more rightly aimed at smaller or shadier sites whose security is more suspect. I'd wager that no site is completely immune from such worries, but with FB you at least have a billion-dollar corporation capable of fixing any problems, and the benefit of statistical anonymity among billions of other users.

Everything else is just ad tracking, and that's easily dealt with via browser plugins.

red g jacks
i don't care about the nsa either. i don't even care about ad tracking. i'm talking more about companies i might apply to jobs for. tbh i don't filter myself online and a lot of friends that i have would be putting dumb shit on their walls so i just assume have no real identity online. like you said yea i could do it in a deliberate, controlled manner but that would sort of defeat the purpose to me cause i find that boring and facebook is supposedly something i would do in my free time.

i do have a linkedin which is basically just for career purposes.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.