What Happens When We Stop Believing in God

does not change the fact that slaves were legal property at that time.
stop trying to apply todays world to 1860 as if it were the same ffs

 

FALSE

The war was over PROPERTY RIGHTS which the slippery slope and thanks to SCROTUMUS MAXIMUS we now have Kelo and the guv can seize your property for literally any damn reason and pay you peanuts for it. Its great to be free!

 

I'm not doing that. I've pointed out that there were still slaves in parts of the USA after the war.

Things don't get fixed by the wave of a wand. It takes actual work/time.

 

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with fixing things by a wave of a wand.

It has EVERYTHING to do with DOING IT LEGALLY

by attacking the south long before the 13th was ratified and claiming that the rebel states never seceded but at the same time they were not allowed to vote in congress, they were unlawfully detained




The Confiscation Acts of 1861 and 1862



As the Senate met in extraordinary session from July 4 to August 6, 1861, one of the wartime measures it considered was the Confiscation Act, designed to allow the federal government to seize property, including slave property, being used to support the Confederate rebellion. The Senate passed the final bill on August 5, 1861, by a vote 24 to 11, and it was signed into law by President Lincoln the next day. Although this bill had symbolic importance, it had little effect on the rebellion or wartime negotiations.

When Congress again convened in December, Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, proposed a more comprehensive confiscation bill. On December 2, 1861, Trumbull introduced the Confiscation Act of 1862 to allow for seizure of all Confederate property, whether or not it had been used to support the rebellion. Before long, however, Trumbull's bill stalled due to ideological differences over the issue of confiscation. Radical Republicans called for a vigorous confiscation bill to seize property and free slaves, but more conservative members worried about expanding the reach of the federal government while denying property owners their constitutional rights.

Early in 1862, a group of moderate senators, led by Ohio’s John Sherman, produced a compromise bill that authorized the federal government to free slaves in conquered rebel territory and prohibited the return of fugitive slaves, while allowing for confiscation of Confederate property through court action. It also allowed the Union army to recruit African American soldiers. Although more aggressive than the first act, the Confiscation Act of 1862 also lacked enforcement capabilities. Loosely enforced by the Lincoln administration, the law was actively undermined by Lincoln’s successor, President Andrew Johnson.
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/ConfiscationActs.htm

EXACTLY AS THE SOUTH PREDICTED!

 

Someone who claims "There is no God" - but see's injustice in the world on the basis of religion "belief in God" is far more likely to act against religion .. banning it .. than someone who is in the position "I don't know" could be a God but perhaps not ....

If this is not self evident .. do press further .. as is not child's play .. things not "Prima Facie" easy to spot --- have to dig a little ... but will not go as far as counter intuitive..

and do consider learning the Latin Legal Phrase in quotes ... is a good one ..

 

A lot of presumption there.

Do you mean that particularly claimed God, or any God at all? Theists often believe many Gods don't exist. That is usually even part of their religion itself.
And even when they do believe in that particularly named God, don't they often disagree on what she wants and fight over it?

And also, banning it? Do you think atheists are more likely to do that than theists, banning religion other than their own?

Also when you were talking with Yardmeat you appeared to be misunderstanding him due to the multiple meanings of the word "agnostic". Better to speak with full description and read and account for those of others or confusion will result.

 

^ Also did I misread you or do you equate "don't believe" with "disbelieve"? If not, my error.

If so, then how are your meanings of agnostic and atheist actually different? We had another board member saying this and he was so caught up in his own ego that he was never able to explain.

 

Didn't say anything of the sort .. and was YM who had no clue about the meaning of agnostic .. none of them defacto stating disbelief. thats atheist .. and thus a conflation.

You did not mention any presumption .. and matters not which God we are referring to ... the presumption I did make.

Go figure out what my presumption was .. and then we can progress further .. See post 430 if you disagree with my presumption .. and say something coherent in relation to it.

 

Post numbers dont appear on my phone, but I see no reason why the below would be so, given that belief or uncertainty if gods generally may exist need not apply to a particular religion's claim about a god. Agnostics don't know if any Gods exist, but can be pretty sure that one in particular doesn't, or that no gods say that particular thing, or even that if gods do exist that say that, it's still injustice, etc.

 

Belief or uncertainty in God may or may not have something to do with a person's claim about God - but that has nothing to do with my proposition .. that atheists are more likely to ban religion than agnostics.

Notice I am not that certain of my own proposition.. the evidence seems to suggest Mao - Pol Pot - Stalin - atheists seem to be behind the banning of religion and totalitarianism in general than agnostics.

Someone who is adamant that no God exists .. is exhibiting faith .. belief without justification .. and knowing that .. but believing anyway .. the same on both sides of the fence .. the two extremes meeting on the other side of the spectrum/ continuum. like Extreme Socialism/Collectivism meets up with Extreme capitalism .. in both cases end up with a few owning/controling most reasources and means of production .. the rest of us serfs kicking up weeds. .

In the Middle comes moderation .. those driven by/ ruled by "Faith" .. at both ends of the spectrum .. and those who are not so much .. in the middle .... which moves us towards cognitive dissonance theory "Thoughts" "Actions" "Beliefs" at each end of the Triangle .. if one's beliefs and thoughts move one direction .. the other moves to close the dissonance .

Those ruled by emotion .. those ruled by appatites .. those who let reason govern

The emotion .. you want in the army .. God and country worth more than life .. those by appatites not so much not willing to give up life for a cause ..

Those letting reason govern .. let reason govern .. more often than the irrational far ends of the spectrum .. just a probability thing

 

Your explanation seemed to indicate that it did. I must have misread, or you were unclear.

Banning of all religion? Yes. Banning of some religions (usually all but the state sanctioned one)? No. Also, atheist regimes won't compel religion. Agnostics will, I agree, likely do neither at a state level, because such regimes and their societies usually also have atheists or theists in them.

I don't agree with your chosen definition of "atheist" but I agree with this point you are making. It is more sensible not to be adamant about something you can't actually know, and more sensible people will tend to behave more sensibly.

 

If you thought you could argue this topic, you would have quoted me or tagged me when mentioning me. You didn't. Because you know you can't support your own argument. And even your first (incomplete) statement proves you didn't understand what I said. Would you like me to explain it again? Hint: agnostics don't believe in God =/= agnostics believe God doesn't exist. Two different things. They have overlap, but they are not the same. Anyone who can draw a Venn Diagram should be able to understand this elementary concept, but I can provide further education if absolutely necessary.

 

Obviously if definitions are not agreed on .. coherent argument near impossible..

What is problem with my definition of atheist = someone who does not believe in God .. and is rather defacto about it ,pre extreme as you move up the continuum

The separation between agnostic and atheist .. which is the only important thing about this definition .. being that the agnostic does not necessarily believe there is no God .. where as the atheist does.

How else you separate the two ? Good luck am interested to hear your definition

 

The fellow brought you up should have .. tagged you .. myself don't care .. was responding to his comments .. not to you .. basic information .. such on your conflation .. of Atheism with Agnosticism .. a horse which needs beating no longer

 

And one day you will understand that agnostics don't believe in God. No, that doesn't mean they deny that God exists. It just means they don't ascribe to the claim that he does. Which, if you try to actually look at the topic, you'd understand puts them in the same category as everyone else who "[stops] believing in God". This ain't rocket surgery.

 

Thanks. This is certainly interesting.

However, the final decision on whether to keep America intact wasn't going to be decided by the CSA and the USA following some proper legal process. In fact, I think one can come up with legal criticisms of how we've gone to war in other cases, too. We decided Vietnam, Iraq and others, because that's what we wanted to do. Then, we searched for legal justifications.

And, I just don't see any chance that the CSA was going to be allowed to secede.

 

"And one day you will understand that agnostics don't believe in God."
I never claimed otherwise .. start with a false premise .. and strawman in this case .. no wonder you end up in the mud so .. what part of beating dead horse does the picture not present .... couldn't find the icon for hopelessly dead and lost.

 

Yes, I understand. That is one common definition of "atheist" but isn't the only one. That's why you and Yardmeat didn't understand each other. He was using "atheist" and to mean doesn't believe in God, without your added "believes God doesn't exist".

We had elsewhere somebody confusing this even moreso, saying that "I don't believe God exists" (which would include your agnostics) is same meaning as "I believe God does not exist" (which would not). He was not able to explain that to us, his ego getting in the way. I thought I saw you saying the same so that maybe you could but explain it, but it seems I misread you.

Agnostic can also mean "don't know". Gnostic meaning knowing (or thinking you do). An agnostic doesn't know if Gods exist, so usually doesn't believe they do and is this also atheist. But not always. It's possible to have tons of doubt and this not claim to know if God exists, but still believe she does. That agnostic is theist.

 

This isn't a well formed idea.

Nobody in the USA is trying to ban religion. You have a constitutional right to any religious/spiritual ideas you choose.

 

In the USA I see a weird confusing of "secular" for "ban religion", when actually secularism is needed for freedom of religion. You can't have the freedom to practice your religion if you don't have freedom from the other conflicting religion. You can do your Christian prayers and rituals in secular society. You can't in theocratic Muslim society.

 

The two are the same..

The difference is that Atheists do not have room for "I Don't know" - Do not accept that a God Exists .. Believe that a God does not exists

What I have been explaining over and over ... but thanks for repeating.

 

Who said they were ... off the ramp you must have gone missed the red light and ended up in a fallacious strawman ditch !

 

Why not? Or do you mean by your definition? Under the other definition there is such room. If you don't hold a belief it doesn't mean you hold another opposite or conflicting belief. You may simply not know and not hold any belief in the matter (be agnostic atheist instead of atheist plus more in this case).

 

Dude .. you are down a semantic hell hole .. Distinguish between Atheist and Agnostic.. what is the difference .. by your definition.

Simply not knowing .. in my definition .. is Agnostic .. not atheist. Atheism is an affirmation of non belief - "There is no proof of God either way but I am stating there is not" .. but you are welcome to another definition .. "Which manages to distinguish between the two" .. this being the big failure - hole in your argument thus-far. talking circles around yourself up to this point .. in a kind of definitional circle jk ..if you would..

What distinguishes atheist from agnostic in your definition. ?

 

From the point of view of government, I don't really see an important difference between atheism and agnosticism. Those are pretty darn close in how decisions are made.

As an atheist, I'm not interested in using the power of government to change religious views being held. Surely that would be a fool's errand. Plus, religious views are protected by the constitution. And, surely an agnostic would agree with that.

We're all benefitted by having a secular government as mentioned above. Our founders were wise in that regard.