Argument

[Guest]

I feel like starting and argument.

So heres the rules:

-First person post a topic, me and only that persone shall then have a argument over that topic until a winner is decided

-The loser gets replaced with whoever wants to go next

-It cant be a one sided discusion, and must try not to be offensive

- If you lose you must wait a minimum of 1 argument before rejoining/reapplying

-No getting pissed or offended here either, dont like it dont visite this thread there after eh.

a good exemple for argument is : Why did the Germans lose the war, pick 3 key battles or weapons or tactics or reasons for this. you must defend your 3 points with real facts, you dont have to nescesarily post your sources but it must be able to be found.


If i lose this argument i reefere the next ones

[Guest]

So when is a winner decided?

[Guest]

probably when 'the loser' gives up?

oh and for the sake of your example, I'd say:
The fact that they attacked russia, and the battle at Stalingrad, that's what did them in.
if they left russia alone and focussed all those troops on the western front instead, their survival chance would have been much higher.

[Guest]

Ohh I got one...

"How can the United States be "One Nation Under God" But also Have the "Seperation of Church and State"

One Nation Under God would not have a seperation of church and state. The church would be the ruling body as the representitives to god.

[Guest]

Ohh I got one...

"How can the United States be "One Nation Under God" But also Have the "Seperation of Church and State"

One Nation Under God would not have a seperation of church and state. The church would be the ruling body as the representitives to god.

oooo! a good one, ok walker your on.

A nation can be 1 nation under god
A) seperation of the state is not applicable to this because the state belongs to the nation and thus is still under the nation, many or one states are still under ''GOD''

B) As i may quote We were soldiers. According to there own understanding All the chuches pray to the same ''god'' they may have a differrent understanding, names and ways to celebrate but still it is one ''GOD'', also ''God'' is a generic name so its like saying, One Nation under a higher being, as such even if the churches are seperated they still pray to the same ''higher being'' or ''God''


The churche remains as an Advisor to the president (if hes religious) not governing because they are the spiritual side of things well a ellected goverment deals with the physical aspect, but both must remain as advisors to each other.

ps: im atheist

[Guest]

But they are clearly not under god. If they were the LDS church (I believe they are the biggest in the usa) would have a very strong say. As it is they do not. The LDS church cant impose any policys. Thus proving a seperation of chuch and state. Both ideals can not exist and are conflicting statments.

By saying one nation under a higher being do you mean Obama? Because Obama has very little power. He is a figure head for the state. He is not a figurehead for god. Only one person acts as a representative to god and that is the Pope.

If its one nation under god surely the pope as gods rep can impose policy. (He cant) which thus proves the point. The united states can not have both ideals.


Let me quote

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

We were created in gods image. One nation under god but also equal? Again theese ideals conflict and dont work well together.

Hence my argument, Speration of church and state and One nation under god can not exist.
(P.s Im atheist too lol)

[Guest]

US and Jesus FTW!
looks like that argument's over
anyway we are a nation under god, or god's we allow religous freedom and when that statement was made the world wasnt that religously diverse because of leaders in other nations not allowing certain beliefs to be preached

[Guest]

US and Jesus FTW!
looks like that argument's over
anyway we are a nation under god, or god's we allow religous freedom and when that statement was made the world wasnt that religously diverse because of leaders in other nations not allowing certain beliefs to be preached

WTF? Please do stay out of it till it is actually over and its not your position to decide.

Walker, But allow me to quote the stupid commercial telling all of use God has a plan for everyone one of us, (HOW! does he have supoer computer lol) If god already has a plan for us and were created in his image then he also has a plan for the figurehead of the state, IE Obama, and thus every man, is himself a represantation of god, so the two are not seperated, and thus the Pope becomes to the churche as Obama is to the govourment merely a figure head.

My point being, Since we were all created in image of god we were created from the same source thus we are equal, and since we are all from god then any party that rules may it be the gouverment now, or religious groups or whatever since we are all representation of god we are still a nation under god.

The problem with this discusion is it way to easy to bullshit eh

[Guest]

But they are clearly not under god. If they were the LDS church (I believe they are the biggest in the usa)

Just to update the facts. Southern Baptist are the largest, non Catholic, with 19M members. LDS is ranked 7 out of 10 as they only have 3.5M members in the US.

Now, you two can get back to the argument.

[Guest]

US and Jesus FTW!
looks like that argument's over
anyway we are a nation under god, or god's we allow religous freedom and when that statement was made the world wasnt that religously diverse because of leaders in other nations not allowing certain beliefs to be preached

WTF? Please do stay out of it till it is actually over and its not your position to decide.

Walker, But allow me to quote the stupid commercial telling all of use God has a plan for everyone one of us, (HOW! does he have supoer computer lol) If god already has a plan for us and were created in his image then he also has a plan for the figurehead of the state, IE Obama, and thus every man, is himself a represantation of god, so the two are not seperated, and thus the Pope becomes to the churche as Obama is to the govourment merely a figure head.

My point being, Since we were all created in image of god we were created from the same source thus we are equal, and since we are all from god then any party that rules may it be the gouverment now, or religious groups or whatever since we are all representation of god we are still a nation under god.

The problem with this discusion is it way to easy to bullshit eh

Plans never go as planned. Gods plan means nothing unless you mean the "One nation under god" as "One nation, god has planned for which wont go to plan"

Please dont quote god is omipotent, because it clearly states he gave us free will. Free will and omnipotence are two conflicting ideals and a WHOLE other argument lol.

So in short what you are saying is The usa can be both because god has a plan. And how did lincoln know that? Because god never appeared and said "I want you to be one nation under god" no the USA decided it themselves the also decided on the seperation of church and state as per their free will.

What they didnt think on was that the two ideas can not exist. What about Bhuddists? They dont have a god... Is it changed to "One Nation under under karma" It raises a whole load of issues lol

[Guest]

As i have sated previously, Its to there own understanding,

God represents unckown, as any atheist will see, god is used to explain stuf that science can otherwise not know, such as in the 1800s Lighting was from god, these days its the creation of the universe the first man, heaven. after life.... etc

So saying 1 nation under god is like saying 1 nation under the unknown, witch is no longer a conflicting statement with separation of churches and state because all of them are still completly unknowing, not even the priest know of the afterlife even if they pretend too.

So in short since god is a representation of all things unknown/unexplained then saying one nation under god is a statement of One nation that does not know everything and thus tries to explain it through spiritualism. This also meets the buddist because they nether know everything and they
(not sure here seing as im not a buddist) attempte to explain things throught spiritualism.

[Guest]

One nation that does not know everything and thus tries to explain it through spiritualism.

akhm and how about those who dont explain it throught spiritualism, but throught science - if they cant explain it through science (yet) they say, we will explain it someday, but now we dont know enough and so we leave it (unexplained) for the future? and oh, how about those who dont even try to explain anything and are just happy to open another beer?

[Guest]

akhm and how about those who dont explain it throught spiritualism, but throught science - if they cant explain it through science (yet) they say, we will explain it someday, but now we dont know enough and so we leave it (unexplained) for the future? and oh, how about those who dont even try to explain anything and are just happy to open another beer?

That truly matters not, im comming from a point of view of the people who made up this ligne and for some reason trying to defend them (????WHy i dont know) but any who, from the point of view of these people they obviously believed that what not explained now is from god AKA lighting 1800s.

[Guest]

I feel like starting and argument.

So heres the rules:

-First person post a topic, me and only that persone shall then have a argument over that topic until a winner is decided

-The loser gets replaced with whoever wants to go next

-It cant be a one sided discusion, and must try not to be offensive

- If you lose you must wait a minimum of 1 argument before rejoining/reapplying

-No getting pissed or offended here either, dont like it dont visite this thread there after eh.

a good exemple for argument is : Why did the Germans lose the war, pick 3 key battles or weapons or tactics or reasons for this. you must defend your 3 points with real facts, you dont have to nescesarily post your sources but it must be able to be found.


If i lose this argument i reefere the next ones

smell's like an history lesson... i hate those!

[Guest]

I feel like starting and argument.

So heres the rules:

-First person post a topic, me and only that persone shall then have a argument over that topic until a winner is decided

-The loser gets replaced with whoever wants to go next

-It cant be a one sided discusion, and must try not to be offensive

- If you lose you must wait a minimum of 1 argument before rejoining/reapplying

-No getting pissed or offended here either, dont like it dont visite this thread there after eh.

a good exemple for argument is : Why did the Germans lose the war, pick 3 key battles or weapons or tactics or reasons for this. you must defend your 3 points with real facts, you dont have to nescesarily post your sources but it must be able to be found.


If i lose this argument i reefere the next ones

smell's like an history lesson... i hate those!

Please stay out of this thread if your not part of the argument