• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dr. Benjamin Carson

What do you think of Dr. Carson?

  • The man is obviously God

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • He should be President, and anyone who disagrees is a racist

    Votes: 2 9.1%
  • Sent by Satan

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • An apparently good man and good doctor, but not President.

    Votes: 9 40.9%
  • Sloppy Joe's rule!

    Votes: 11 50.0%

  • Total voters
    22
If you didn't do that, then why didn't you answer teh following question "Doesn't the "entire evangelical Christian" community go on a rampage whenever some atheist openly says that they don't like "under god" in the pledge and "in god we trust" on the money or that saying "merry Christmas" to everyone is offensive to those who are not Christian?" with a soimple "yes"? Instead of saying "yes" you tried to defend them.

The thing is that the Christian community's ability to freely express their religious beliefs is being threatened just like the atheists ability to freely express their disbelief is being threatened. The "entire" Christian community does not go on a "rampage". This is why I didn't say "yes" and this is why you're wrong.


They actually have a legitimate complaint. The pledge is nothing more than a tool of indoctrination. The "Under God" was added because it was an attempt at anti-atheist indoctrination.

Maybe.... or maybe its the person who proposed the idea was a Christian who had support, political connections, etc. and it was agreed upon by the people added those two words that the country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles..... :shrug:

And I do not see how it would be "legimate" if its not a legally binding document? How is the supreme court going to rule on something that doesn't necessarily exist in their books?
 
Serious question: Are you having hallucinations or do you suffer from illiteracy?

I have asked myself the same thing of you for a total of about 17 times now... and counting :sigh:
 
I already addressed your lack of concern for history quite clearly by pointing out that the history of the pledge was dutifully ignored by you in your defense of it.

I also pointed out that history is of no concern for the specific claim I made regarding "Merry Christmas", one simply has to be capable of connecting the dots. (Christmas being a historical tradition doesn't invalidate the claim that it is offensive to say merry Christmas to non-Christians, ergo, your historical response is irrational gibberish spewed as a non-sequitur).

I did not cherry pick, I threw you a bone by not pointing out exactly how irrational and nonsensical your initial response was. You felt th eneed to make it's irrational nonsensical nature a primary part of the discussion, though, so I guess you only have yourself to blame for looking silly.



You like to play pretend, don't you?

If history is of no concer than why is the origin of the pledge of concern? It is the same damn thing! For someone who pretends they understand logic and reasoning, you sure don't use much of it. And no you have not addressed any of the questions posed.
 
Serious question: Are you having hallucinations or do you suffer from illiteracy?

And why is it that you are trying to stray away from answering my question? Is it because you have realized that you have no legitmate argument against what I have said.
 
If history is of no concer than why is the origin of the pledge of concern?

:prof I'm not the one who used the fallacy of appeal to tradition/history as an argument.

I merely defeated that fallacy by demonstrated your lack of concern for history. I've never once presented an argument dependent on history. I presented rebuttals regarding historical facts to your arguments which were dependent on history, yes, but no argumetns dependent on history came from.

But the real reason history is of no concern to my statements about Christmas is because at no point did I say a damned thing about Christmas. This is why your literacy is questionable.
 
Doesn't the "entire evangelical Christian" community go on a rampage whenever some atheist openly says that they don't like "under god" in the pledge and "in god we trust" on the money or that saying "merry Christmas" to everyone is offensive to those who are not Christian?

You didn't say a damned thing about Christmas you say?

Thinking you've defeated anything when all you've done is cherry pick your way around arguments is the only fallacy I can see.
 
You did not ask a question. You made a statement.

Now do you see why your literacy is questionable?

Says the one who never fully reads the question and denies his own statements.
 
Maybe.... or maybe its the person who proposed the idea was a Christian who had support, political connections, etc. and it was agreed upon by the people added those two words that the country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles..... :shrug:

That is so historically wrong, it's almost funny. Unfortunately it's just further evidence of the ability of True Believers to play fast and loose with history when it doesn't suit them.
 
That is so historically wrong, it's almost funny. Unfortunately it's just further evidence of the ability of True Believers to play fast and loose with history when it doesn't suit them.

You clearly did not understand the post.....take note that I said the PERSON that who proposed the idea.....please understand the post before responding
 
You didn't say a damned thing about Christmas you say?

Yes. As you can clearly see, I spoke about how some atheists say that people saying merry Christmas to "everybody" can be offensive to those who do not celebrate Christmas. I did not say anything about Christmas itself, I talked about a behavior that people engage in around Christmas time.
 
Says the one who never fully reads the question and denies his own statements.

Which part of the following is a "question" which you have imagined that I have failed to read:

Yes, and its nice to see that you have finally come to your senses and that you sir finally see that the lefties who rant on about and are threatened by "under God" are just on a mindless rampage as well.

And if something there is a "question" in your world, please explain to me what you imagine a question to be.
 
Maybe.... or maybe its the person who proposed the idea was a Christian who had support, political connections, etc. and it was agreed upon by the people added those two words that the country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles..... :shrug:

And maybe your mom has a penis and she's really your dad. Pointless hypotheticals are, well, pointless. The under god was added as an anti-atheist/anti-communist indoctrination. That was the logical framework provided to include the term in the pledge.

"What ifs" which are designed specifically to ignore the reality of the situation are as useless as testicles on a lightbulb.


And I do not see how it would be "legimate" if its not a legally binding document? How is the supreme court going to rule on something that doesn't necessarily exist in their books?

The law which added "under god" to the pledge is a law. The supreme court can rule on laws. That's how these things work.
 
Back
Top Bottom