Atheism and the government.

[rfari]

it actually was, I have long said the worst decision we made was getting independence

That was a pnm decision in 1956 and that's why we are in a mess today

^^ recalcitrant minority

[Habit7]

it actually was, I have long said the worst decision we made was getting independence

Yeah we would have ended up like Turks & Caicos where the UK gov't had to step in and stop the fiefdom of their premier and his movie-star wife as he enriched himself and his family. Or even more recently, Cayman premier McKeeva Bush was arrested (while in office) for corruption. All this happens while their colonial masters in UK gov't hide their personal capital in these colonies to avoid taxes. T&T aint perfect, but at least we going somewhere under our own power.

[zoom rader]

it actually was, I have long said the worst decision we made was getting independence

Yeah we would have ended up like Turks & Caicos where the UK gov't had to step in and stop the fiefdom of their premier and his movie-star wife as he enriched himself and his family. Or even more recently, Cayman premier McKeeva Bush was arrested (while in office) for corruption. All this happens while their colonial masters in UK gov't hide their personal capital in these colonies to avoid taxes. T&T aint perfect, but at least we going somewhere under our own power.

We not going anywhere under pnm, they had over 40 years to put things right and failed each time. Most useless govt this country has ever seen

[pioneer]

PPG is trying to turn trinidad into a hindu state

The brits always feared that back in capildeo days

Now it's coming to reality, but they have 21 months to stop it.

[De Dragon]

Ollour eh realize dat JW do ah Kali puja and win or wha'?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

How would someone who believes in god but not in any religion be sweared in , and how does being an atheist mean you don't have any ethics or morals

they can be asked what book they would like to swear on or they can be given the same oath as agnostics and atheists.

There are atheists with better ethics and morals than avid church goers. True story.

[ruffneck_12]

YALL NEED TO RECOGNISE THE ONE TRUE LOVING GOD

ALL HAIL SATAN, GOD WAS JUST JELLY

WHO KILLED MORE PEOPLE?

#RIGHTSFORSATANISTS #J055T155

[nareshseep]

How would someone who believes in god but not in any religion be sweared in , and how does being an atheist mean you don't have any ethics or morals

they can be asked what book they would like to swear on or they can be given the same oath as agnostics and atheists.

There are atheists with better ethics and morals than avid church goers. True story.

x2

[rocknrolla]

How would someone who believes in god but not in any religion be sweared in , and how does being an atheist mean you don't have any ethics or morals

they can be asked what book they would like to swear on or they can be given the same oath as agnostics and atheists.

There are atheists with better ethics and morals than avid church goers. True story.

x2

how moral is it for someone that decides to assume that the intelligence theyve been given came out of random chance and not give thanks to the original creator ofor the gift theyve received?

but i agree, some ppl have more humanity in them even tho they are atheists, than some ppl who call themselves religious. but if u voting based on race, yuh wouldnt take the time to figure out whether the person u voting for have morals. but i know that a God fearing leader, is a leader who will take his oath of office seriously as it pertains to God. the bible provides a solid foundation of morals and values. as all other religious books.

in an atheist you would be depending on his innate morality set. his natural talent per se. but that may pale in comparison to someone who takes up the mission to hone their morality set on the path of divine aspirations. u have to be good or santa wont bring u any toys.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

how moral is it for someone that decides to assume that the intelligence theyve been given came out of random chance and not give thanks to the original creator ofor the gift theyve received?

why are some people more intelligent than others? did God make them like that or was it "random chance"?

Scientific research has shown that intelligence is due to a number of factors including genetics, early nutrition, early development of the parietal-frontal pathways, nurturing, quality of education, environment and even birth order. That doesn't qualify as "random chance".

i agree, some ppl have more humanity in them even tho they are atheists, than some ppl who call themselves religious.

ok

i know that a God fearing leader, is a leader who will take his oath of office seriously as it pertains to God. the bible provides a solid foundation of morals and values.

but you just said some ppl have more humanity in them even tho they are atheists, than some ppl who call themselves religious. So how can you be so sure a God fearing person will take his oath seriously?

in an atheist you would be depending on his innate morality set. his natural talent per se. but that may pale in comparison to someone who takes up the mission to hone their morality set on the path of divine aspirations.

how can someone who has a genuine and innate morality pale in comparison who is on a mission to hone his morality?

you are being incoherent

[rocknrolla]

i agree, some ppl have more humanity in them even tho they are atheists, than some ppl who call themselves religious.

ok

i know that a God fearing leader, is a leader who will take his oath of office seriously as it pertains to God. the bible provides a solid foundation of morals and values.

but you just said some ppl have more humanity in them even tho they are atheists, than some ppl who call themselves religious. So how can you be so sure a God fearing person will take his oath seriously?

operative word: "Some"
a God fearing person regardless of what religion will consider the oath a bond between them and God. all their other insufficiencies might still need training.. but this particular oath is a direct oath made with God.

but of course this doesnt include pretenders. who just pandering to keep power and feeling important and controlling alot of money. is like drugs some politicians on they love of power. a pretender could make the oath, an atheist could make the oath and all, and not believe nor mean a word of it in their heart. and again that is where the people looking into and getting to know who they voting for before they vote. dont just assume. ppl does vote based on things like "he's cute and handsome" or "she looking good", and of course "he is the closest thing to a white man and white" and vice versa with black indo etc.

in an atheist you would be depending on his innate morality set. his natural talent per se. but that may pale in comparison to someone who takes up the mission to hone their morality set on the path of divine aspirations.

how can someone who has a genuine and innate morality pale in comparison who is on a mission to hone his morality?

you are being incoherent

well u want to vote for someone who both had an innate morality set which they also honed and continue to hone, rather than someone running on just natural talent and yet to hone it.

and again. what rights does an atheist have? they shouldnt have any rights. they dont believe in God and constitutional rights are God-Given. so allyuh want to be bad and say it eh ha no God.. but allyuh want to benefit from the rights given by God and acknowledged by the state. i find that more incoherent and twisted than anything else.

[nareshseep]

If memory serves me correctly ... I remember there was a general election sometime ago and there was a tie ... and although the total number of votes was greater for the then government than the opposition the president sided on the opposition on terms of "moral and spiritual grounds" . This was a wise decision as this PM went on to develop Trinidad and Tobago into the country it is today. There was no corruption, crime was nil, we became self sufficient in agriculture, there was water for all, they promoted unity of all citizen " where every creed and race finds an equal place"
So youre correct religion plays a vital role in the governing of the country.

And since we on the topic what is the national religion of Trinidad and Tobago?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

operative word: "Some"
a God fearing person regardless of what religion will consider the oath a bond between them and God. all their other insufficiencies might still need training.. but this particular oath is a direct oath made with God.

but of course this doesnt include pretenders. who just pandering to keep power and feeling important and controlling alot of money. is like drugs some politicians on they love of power. a pretender could make the oath, an atheist could make the oath and all, and not believe nor mean a word of it in their heart. and again that is where the people looking into and getting to know who they voting for before they vote. dont just assume. ppl does vote based on things like "he's cute and handsome" or "she looking good", and of course "he is the closest thing to a white man and white" and vice versa with black indo etc.

so therefore religious or not the politician can be just as corrupt or just as moral and ethical. So why make religion a factor when choosing?

Also, do you think some religions are more moral and ethical than others? If you agree then this further erodes at your argument since it would then require that the politician be of the religious persuasion that YOU consider to be "more" moral and ethical - a purely subjective criteria.

in an atheist you would be depending on his innate morality set. his natural talent per se. but that may pale in comparison to someone who takes up the mission to hone their morality set on the path of divine aspirations.

how can someone who has a genuine and innate morality pale in comparison who is on a mission to hone his morality?

you are being incoherent

well u want to vote for someone who both had an innate morality set which they also honed and continue to hone, rather than someone running on just natural talent and yet to hone it.

and again. what rights does an atheist have? they shouldnt have any rights. they dont believe in God and constitutional rights are God-Given. so allyuh want to be bad and say it eh ha no God.. but allyuh want to benefit from the rights given by God and acknowledged by the state. i find that more incoherent and twisted than anything else.[/quote]What makes constitutional rights God-Given? Who wrote the constitution?

Is Zimbabwe's constitutional rights God-given where a citizen's agricultural land can be taken away by the state with immediate effect with no more than a notice printed in the gazette? Is that moral or ethical?

[rocknrolla]

so therefore religious or not the politician can be just as corrupt or just as moral and ethical. So why make religion a factor when choosing?

Also, do you think some religions are more moral and ethical than others? If you agree then this further erodes at your argument since it would then require that the politician be of the religious persuasion that YOU consider to be "more" moral and ethical - a purely subjective criteria.

not just as moral at all. remember someone with divine aspirations making an oath with their personal God, is someone seeking to earn favour and respect from an intelligence source billions+ times greater than their own. an atheist may see no reason to improve their morality. and if they did they might have to look to religious teachings to discover the ultimate standards of morality.

it should've been quite clear from my statements that i consider all religions equal in standing.

Is Zimbabwe's constitutional rights God-given where a citizen's agricultural land can be taken away by the state with immediate effect with no more than a notice printed in the gazette? Is that moral or ethical?

well my boy. you see you ask me a question there that shows u opinionating on a topic without studying it's full perspective and effects over time and influence on society as a whole.

let me refer you to the title of 'Natural Rights':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

natural rights are those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable.

as you can see. Natural rights is not a politically controlled aspect of existence. furthermore..

The theory of natural law is closely related to the theory of natural rights. During the Age of Enlightenment,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

Natural law, or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis), is a system of law that is purportedly determined by nature, and thus universal.[1] Classically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature—both social and personal—and deduce binding rules of moral behavior from it. Natural law is classically contrasted with the positive law of a given political community, society, or state, and thus serves as a standard by which to criticize said positive law.

now understand what you read here. without natural law, you shall have no recourse to complain to affect the type of governance afflicted upon you. no protesting low wages, no freedom of speech.. especially not to criticize political officials and their illegitimate practices etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

The Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment or Age of Reason) was a cultural movement of intellectuals in the 17th and 18th centuries, which began first in Europe and later in the American colonies. Its purpose was to reform society using reason, challenge ideas grounded in tradition and faith, and advance knowledge through the scientific method. It promoted scientific thought, skepticism and intellectual interchange and opposed superstition,[1] intolerance and some abuses of power by the church and the state. The ideas of the Enlightenment have had a major impact on the culture, politics, and governments of the Western world.

what you also dont seem to realize, is that science was spawned out of philosophy. inventors first created inventions in their imagination. and then proceeded to make it reality. science and all it's fields were formed and passed down through philosophical ideals. entire fields today were actually started by various philosophers and enlightenment seekers. Men of Spiritual assertions.

what you dont know is how the discussion and the push for atheism is to use the atheists far and wide as puppets for a political agenda.

it happens in phases.. listen again..

some political campaign seeking to subvert the constitution will get ppl to raise the topic of atheism to gain a momentum of discussion going in the public sphere. they have to nitpick at the laws to give atheists extra rights. as it is, noone stopping atheists from practicing their life how they want. they dont want to give thanks to God for achievements etc. then fine. but now they want to cross the line and stop religious ppl from thanking God. how that could work.. look at the twisted sense of morality. u infringing on religious ppl rights to impose your rights. when you have rights you dont even deserve according to the reason they were enstated. atheists have been tolerated.. now they are displaying intolerance with this action.

but as i say.. it is all to be played as puppets. first atheists gain their momentum, and they start taking up positions in office. some carrying the same twisted morality as others. then they gain a momentum for other things, like taking God out of oaths, and off the dollar bill, and out of the anthem.. and when the political campaign that instituted the whole plan gain enough momentum, they get the support of the masses in a grand political podium pitch to support removing God from the constitution. if the masses stupid, they go along with it, and tyranny ensues slowly but surely with each step closer.

and well once God out the way in the constitution... your Natural rights would have suddenly gone missing.. like a rug being pulled out from under you.

the atheist campaign through science is nothing more than a political front to use scientists to push their agenda and market it among the masses. gain a large following and assume control. u might think u just holding an opinion to get together with fellow athiests. but the repurcussions of what you have not thought through could have unexpected and unpleasant severe longterm effects.

this is how you play chess! and the atheists and gay community right now are just the pawns for a greater agenda.

[nareshseep]

Theocracy is the way to go, look for example the countries that follow sharia law, in these countries we see that there is less crime, I mean if you are caught stealing,, brisk brisk hand is chop off, adultery whether the woman is wrong or not, she is stoned to death because she deserves it. In the centuries before if you were thought to be a witch you will be burned at the stake because witchcraft is devil thing. The media is inherently bad and theocracies regulate the media so the people do not get out of hand, it may seem as there is no freedom of the press but it is the moral thing to do for the betterment of everyone.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

what agenda rocknrolla?

you are mixing up various concepts and religions and adding it to your own conspiracy theories and making a pelau that only you completely agree with.

Theocracy is the way to go, look for example the countries that follow sharia law, in these countries we see that there is less crime, I mean if you are caught stealing,, brisk brisk hand is chop off, adultery whether the woman is wrong or not, she is stoned to death because she deserves it. In the centuries before if you were thought to be a witch you will be burned at the stake because witchcraft is devil thing. The media is inherently bad and theocracies regulate the media so the people do not get out of hand, it may seem as there is no freedom of the press but it is the moral thing to do for the betterment of everyone.

surely rocknrolla must agree with this!

[rocknrolla]

essentially.. without Natural Law, which gives us Natural Rights, which are considered God-Given, we would all still be slaves and peasants ruled by a King and eating mud to survive while the king biting pork leg and throwing the rest for his dogs. and we cah say nuttin or do nuttin. paying 90% tax on our earnings etc.

only ppl who would want to go back to that era, are rich/wealthy, power hungry, GREEDY individuals. and it have plenty.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

it should've been quite clear from my statements that i consider all religions equal in standing.

you consider all of the claims of all religions to be true?

[rocknrolla]

what agenda rocknrolla?

you are mixing up various concepts and religions and adding it to your own conspiracy theories and making a pelau that only you completely agree with.

Theocracy is the way to go, look for example the countries that follow sharia law, in these countries we see that there is less crime, I mean if you are caught stealing,, brisk brisk hand is chop off, adultery whether the woman is wrong or not, she is stoned to death because she deserves it. In the centuries before if you were thought to be a witch you will be burned at the stake because witchcraft is devil thing. The media is inherently bad and theocracies regulate the media so the people do not get out of hand, it may seem as there is no freedom of the press but it is the moral thing to do for the betterment of everyone.

surely rocknrolla must agree with this!

to the both of allyuh..

conspiracy theories? no. if u were paying attention to the reality of the political setting across america right now you wouldnt call it a conspiracy theory. because that is what is happening in america as we speak. and has been happening.. and at an accelerated rate since around the time Obama got to office. the constitution is being circumvented via a gay and atheist agenda.

the gay agenda is aimed at dismantling the core foundation of the church by forcing them to marry gays via political decision. but if we all agree.. and i believe we do.. that Church and state should be kept seperate, the politics have no place dictating to the church what it should and should not allow according to its faith. God is not a homosexual. and the ritual o f marriage is a symbolic representation of how God formed existence via the marrying of male and female energies. THIS CANNOT BE CHANGED VIA A CONSENSUS! truth cares not whether or not you agree with it.

the atheist agenda is aimed at gaining political control of the constitution for "Constitutional Reform". we have been loving that word recently havent we. let me tell you.. be careful what reform u allow in the constitution. it just might have a section 34 type issue that goes through unchecked, realized too late, and ends up giving some future powermonger the authority to get away with very unpleasant and unscrupulous behaviour.

naresheeps subtly apparent sarcasm is noted. but as i have stated. i am in support of seperation ot church and state. and that is precisely how things are NOW! but the atheist movement is moving under cover of a rights issue but with the ultimate goal of annihilating religion completely. they dont want to coexist.. they want everyone to become atheists too, and carry atheists ideals, and vote atheists, and vote for atheist type legislation. this is not iran, where a senior religious figure calls all the shots and designs all the laws. we currently live in a society where the laws and rights were crafted for ALL to SHARE! here you can be atheist christian hindu buddhist and the laws are crafted so that all would have an equal standing in society. what allyuh atheists want again?

and the gays, they want to force the church to go against its foundation.

and allyuh telling me these things not all in the bible and the devil not working overtime right now? is temptation on all sides.

[rocknrolla]

it should've been quite clear from my statements that i consider all religions equal in standing.

you consider all of the claims of all religions to be true?

what i can say is that i have discovered that some of the fantastic and unbelievable claims are true. because of the credibility awarded to the topic from that, i have to say.. it's possible.

truth comes in various levels of metaphoric interpretation. one sentence can be true from multiple perspectives. some truth is literal, and some truth is metaphorical.. and other truths are both literal and metaphorical.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

it should've been quite clear from my statements that i consider all religions equal in standing.

you consider all of the claims of all religions to be true?

what i can say is that i have discovered that some of the fantastic and unbelievable claims are true. because of the credibility awarded to the topic from that, i have to say.. it's possible.

truth comes in various levels of metaphoric interpretation. one sentence can be true from multiple perspectives. some truth is literal, and some truth is metaphorical.. and other truths are both literal and metaphorical.

how do you know which is metaphorical and which is literal and give me an example of a religious truth that is both literal and metaphorical.

[rocknrolla]

it should've been quite clear from my statements that i consider all religions equal in standing.

you consider all of the claims of all religions to be true?

what i can say is that i have discovered that some of the fantastic and unbelievable claims are true. because of the credibility awarded to the topic from that, i have to say.. it's possible.

truth comes in various levels of metaphoric interpretation. one sentence can be true from multiple perspectives. some truth is literal, and some truth is metaphorical.. and other truths are both literal and metaphorical.

how do you know which is metaphorical and which is literal and give me an example of a religious truth that is both literal and metaphorical.

you know i taught you all these things quite extensively in the religion discussion. wasnt it you that asked me how do you decipher truth from lies? didnt i go through showing you how truth about the story of the garden of eden is interpretted among christians who believe the Garden of Eden was on Physical earth and we were clothed in flesh. i showed how to correlate what is being analysed with the real world to find a literal interpretation and if one cannot be found then it must be metaphorical. i made a solid presentation on light and flesh and hebrew translation by the scribes, which then rectified the discrepancies and apparent contradictions that many still question in genesis regarding the fall.

and you come and ask me again. well if i was to summarize. how do you learn to tell truth from lies??

just like everything else. PRACTICE! if you practice truth.. u will know truth. birds of a feather flock together.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

correlate what is being analysed with the real world to find a literal interpretation and if one cannot be found then it must be metaphorical.

yet it is still "truth"?

that is some incredible logic there!

You didn't give me an example

i made a solid presentation

clearly you didn't

[rocknrolla]

correlate what is being analysed with the real world to find a literal interpretation and if one cannot be found then it must be metaphorical.

yet it is still "truth"?

yes.. many times, only after discovering the metaphorical truth does one gain the ability to see the literal truth which IT REPRESENTS. Symbolic truth!

You didn't give me an example

i made a solid presentation

clearly you didn't

reading genesis many assume the garden to be on earth. and so it seems from the kjv of the bible. on the first level, that is false. to see how literal we are in interpretation reading further we find that God names some rivers.. only 2 of which can be found on earth presently.. and the disconnect from literal interpretation begins. further we discover when adam and eve were cast out of the garden that God place a Guardian to the gate of Eden with a Gian Double-Edged flaming Sword.

now obviously it starts to seem to get a bit ridiculous. there is no giant flaming sword wielding guardian

Gen. 3
24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side[e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

near the tigres and euphrates rivers

Gen. 2
10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin[d] and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush.[e] 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

do u have to ask me if that is literal? use your God-given thinking intelligence.

now that we realize that we are certainly dealing with some level of metaphor or symbolic representation we can analyze deeper. my analysis lead me to hebrew translation, which explains that we were made of light and in spiritual form. seeing the world through spiritual eyes before the fall. which places eden in a spiritual plane.

now that we see what the symbolism was truly pointing to by correcting the translation, and understand the symbolic truth, the process begins to loop back on itself to prove it's literal truth. we know now that adam was in the spirit originally and eden is on the spiritual plane, thus the flaming sword and its wielder will also be at that location at the gates to eden. too much study to summarize will lead you to consider eden synonymous with the spiritual plane.

the truth did not only correct the answer to the question we seek. it corrected an entire section of the bible by recompiling truth through corroboration. im sorry i wont go over it in more depth than that. if you really want to know then go back to the religion discussion thread and read all that i have posted leading up to the presentation on hebrew translation. that is what happens when u dont listen.

compare what you read to reality. if it doesnt match up, then seek it's symbolic match. when u find the symbolic match, you will understand how the metaphor is formed, and through that you will understand the literal truth which the metaphor is meant to represent. contradiction is not annihilated by simply discarding it. but by measuring it and giving it only it's weight in measure. if it is true it will endure. if it is untrue it will fall off. this is also a universal truth.

i answered all your questions. you werent paying attention.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ many Christians disagree with your self interpreted claims. They also claim they are right.

Was there anyone paying attention?

[rocknrolla]

^ many Christians disagree with your self interpreted claims. They also claim they are right.

Was there anyone paying attention?

u shouldnt assume everyone holds your same judgement on all matters.

many christians would disagree with me. but they wont when i finish my books. besides.. the stories have even greater levels of symbolic truth. and that is the greatest code of all mankind to crack. let them listen to their pastor over me. i not handing out any collections basket. and i can say something their pastor would need to be a bit bold to say. "I possess the light". so they can listen to him over me if they want. him.. a seeker.. unlike me.. who has found!

their pastor will have to show me where on earth i can find the garden of eden with God in it guarded by flaming sword wielding angel at the gate.

[rocknrolla]

observe.. science is approaching my particular field of expertise. the science which many so revere and trust with their soul. is attempting to correct itself and admit it has been viewing the universe with "cockeyed" vision.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=521068

inter-dimensional travel.

[sMASH]

flaming swords are a waste of time. they cause more distraction to the person wielding it than harm to the opponents.


people who believe in god can be good as well as wicked
people who don't believe in god can be good as well as wicked.

therefore, it serves no purpose mandating that a state be under the rule of a religion.
it is better that if a state is not predominantly one way or the other, that i makes allowances for all types of theology, or lack there of, in order to be fair.

[rocknrolla]

flaming swords are a waste of time. they cause more distraction to the person wielding it than harm to the opponents.


people who believe in god can be good as well as wicked
people who don't believe in god can be good as well as wicked.

therefore, it serves no purpose mandating that a state be under the rule of a religion.
it is better that if a state is not predominantly one way or the other, that i makes allowances for all types of theology, or lack there of, in order to be fair.

agreed.. and that rule should also apply to 'the atheist religion'.

[Chimera]