SpudTech Archive

by **Pimpmann22** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:12 am

Well I was originally directed to the below YouTube video after Ben created a thread on the subject, largely supporting the video. Yes, the Ben that has been banned, and on the same token, what a coincidence. Since this forum is composed of both atheists, and religious folk, I thought this discussion would be interesting.

<a href="">For comment: Should we eliminate "In God We Trust"? - YouTube
[From - GIIVideo / Duration - 2:13]</a>

<a href="">*Elimating "In God We Trust" - Theopia</a>

With a combination of the 500 character limit YouTube imposes on text replies, this racking some 1.3G characters, and the fact that my YouTube account is buggy, I post here.

In direct reply to the video:

Lets start with the obvious, why does one believe in a 'God'-like entity? [To steal you of your cheesy-ass introductory phrases] Simple, something of almost ungaugeable dimensions was not created from a massless pre-existence.

One would be incorrect on the assumption that 'God' takes the appearance of a homosapien, and converses with its 'Earthling followers' via 'text'. While this may be a major belief in Christian religions, there are many of individuals, and sects that believe such to solely be a 'supreme power'. Possibly having no physical form, or even intervention with that of the homosapien race, and other earth-bound creatents, exempt from that of a creation of the universe.

Personally I believe this entity of 'God' not to have given humans any divine intervening, in which established text based guide lines. If such a forces objective is to govern the human race, why text? Something of minimal stimulation to the senses, and to be ever interrupted. You govern your damn self!

Essentially your correlation between text, from a proclaimed 'divine' inspired bible, to define all 'God' like entities as to the inability of trust as a result of a common perception as to what 'God' endorses, is wrong. I beg you to reconsider on which grounds you go about disproving the credit of such a entity.

"The choice is yours..."
O man, I'm having a orgasm of empowerment!

* = I understand such is incorrectly spelled, but to leave in 'true' form, such was unedited.

by **SkweezMyCheez** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 9:32 am

eliminating "In God We Trust" and "Under God" is in essence the downfall of our society. This nation was built on both God and freedom. Now I personally am agnostic. I was raised Roman Catholic, but I really have a bone to pick with that church. Anyway, if we eliminate these phrases, we are catering to the MINORITY. Why should we? Since when did it become the minorities interest that we looked out for? If you don't like this country, then get the [intercourse] out. Sure I don't believe that a "god" exists, but I respect this country enough to keep myself from complaining about such a petty thing. Like that little girl who covered he ears during the national anthem, her parent(s) should have been on the first boat to Bosnia. It is [intercourse]ing disgraceful.

by **Mr.Plow** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 1:51 pm

"Under God" didn't exist in the pledge for a substantial amount of time... I'd hardly believe our society would crumble if those two words were removed.

I see the entire debate from a different perspective: like a referee at a football game. If a play is challenged, they review it. But here's the rub: if the video evidence is not enough to definitively prove the previous ruling was incorrect, then it stands. In other words, is there a sufficient cause to change the status quo, to remove the words? I posit that there is not. Can anyone demonstrate the opposite?

by **Navigator7** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:21 pm

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Pimpmann22~Yes, the Ben that has been banned, and on the same token, what a coincidence.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Ben's departure was not due to his beliefs. Or...my opposition to his views....if any.
If you are suggesting I caused his banning to occur because of any of this, please think again.

I welcome people who despise my views, oppose my logic, spit in my face, call me names. It's like catnip.
A debate is for the brain like exercise is for the body.
Banning somebody because they don't agree with me would be a repulsive failure on my part.
Ben was banned for breaking the rules of this forum. Is that not enough?

BTW....I've been banned from 4 art websites that derive money from taxpayers. I lasted no longer than 5 days on one and was banned after 3 posts.
No foul language, no name calling...just questioning the ethics of calling garbage .....art.
Those liberals did not like me at all! Rather than defend receiving tax payer money for garbage....they nixed my IP.
What a coincidence! ;-)

by **SGTCSpudMaster** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:06 pm

I too was raised Catholic. I am not currently a religious person. The only time you will catch me in church is/are for weddings, funerals, and baptisms.....and the ocasional first communion if it isn't out-of-state.

This country was founded on puritan values by people that came here to have the ability to live a "clean life" and be free to pray to "God" without persecution. Therefore I have no issue with God references in the pledge, on our money, or having the 10 commandments in out court houses.....after all, they are what our laws are based on.

Granted we have waaayyy to may laws that go beyond the 10 handed down from above.....to the point that it is sickening.

From what I have noticed....the people that take the most issues in regard to religious politics are religious people. We have that right under the constitution. In a society so diverse in it's religions, there are going to be disputes. Myself not being a religous person.....I couldn't give a rats ass if there was a statue of Budda, a copy of the Koran and the Bible, and a picture of a cow in every classroom in the country. Besides.....when it's all said and done, a person can simply choose to not speak the words "under God" when saying the pledge.

by **Los Frijoles** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:45 pm

I really don't see why we should take it out of anything. It bugs me how some people just seem to have a problem with it. Yes, I am a religious person, but even my non-religious friends wonder why people make such a big deal out of it.

People say things like "Oh my god" all the time...so is this really any different from the perspective of having to say things?

by **Pimpmann22** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:29 pm

"...we are catering to the MINORITY."

I agree. As a result of this false sense of empowerment that generally liberals have created.

Plow, I believe the successes America has had are when we are dynamic to the majority. In accordance with the majority I think such a decision should be made.

Nav, I know Ben beliefs had no part in his ban. I think possibly his posting ethics alone weren't of sufficient reason for a ban, but in combination with the ban-able offense he committed, the decision was over whelming simple. I was drawing the coincidence on a semi-humorous basis. I think we all could see a mis-firing of brain cells producing a no logic output, from time to time. So I guess I was being rudely humorous at the fact that he neither gave his 'cracking' of the forum, and support to some bot voice over atheist video a damn bit of thought.

Largely why this topic was created was to point out the creator of this videos blatant proposal that all believers in 'God like entities' are of a organized religion, and/ or follow a religous text. Personally I think organized religion is a crock of sh*t, yet can I still believe in a 'all-power entity'? No matter how much you refine it, you govern yourself. Organized religion is the 'middle man' between you, and 'God'.

by **Arborman495** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:41 pm

No way should we take it out. The very day we do that WILL BE the beggining of the end for our great nation. Look what happened to Sodom and Gamorah (feel free to correct my spelling), Babel, Assyria, Persia, Greece, Rome, and even Isreal itself. When a nation turns its back on God, God deals with them accordingly.

Mr. Surprise, I do have to agree with you about the choice. I dont want to force people to act like Christians, that would be missing the point entirely. After all, the entire basis of Christianity is ONE CHOICE.

by **Suppresive Fire** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:32 pm

I am and was raised to be a christian. Granted I don't exactly believe everything the bible says, nor do I run around preaching about god. I believe that religion is a personal choice that should not be subject to public opinion. The main reason the the founding fathers of the present day USA came to this country was to escape persicution of their beliefs. They laid the foundation for this country. "In God We Trust" STAYS. I don't say this because I'm a religious person, I say this because we owe it to our founding fathers to keep the phrase that they were willing to DIE for. Just cause it's there doesn't mean that you have to believe in the "deeper meaning" but you do owe the respect that occompanys the phrase to those that laid the foundation of this country. To remove it would be a disgrace to those who fought and died for their beliefs. No matter what you believe in, you should pay the respect you owe to those that made your current day life possible and the phrase that they chose to live their lives by. To them it symbolized hope when all was lost, strength when they were too weak to stand, and that trust and preserverance can win any fight.

by **Navigator7** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:50 pm

Pimpman~No problemo. I see the humor. The video link didn't work for me.

Comparing humor....

What was the fundamental ground strap to the formation of the country? Christianity.
Everything we base our society on has a biblical references to it. For good reason.
I think I made a post before, searching up all the national holidays...and yes...there are biblical, spiritual or religious references to each. Glowing references, actually.
So today, there is an effort afoot to tear down the institutions that has made America the most successful nation in world....And have also "given birth" to an unhappy sort...that had no hand in the building of this nation but are now desperately seeking ways to make it a crime to bring up God in a public, to kill babies on a whim is as routine as mowing the lawn, subverting marriage to an unrecognizable farce and creating a nation on welfare.

I'm getting to the humor...what for it... ;-)

Compare that to say a forum??
Mebbie a ........ A spud gun forum?

Let's say.........a reckless yoot surfs here...decides to build cannon, and does ...and then lets say he kills himself or another from sheer friggen stupidity?
It's determined:
o The death was the fault of this website...which it isn't.
o The website is allowed to exist but certain words will not be used.....which is nuts
o Namely, Supah, PVC, PSI chamber, combustion etc etc.....crackers!
o The use of Joel's name is forbidden...... Obviously
o Potatoes are determined to have rights....
o Maximum pressure allowed is 3 psi
o Male to male and female to females fittings are the only type allowed as male to female fittings are not PC anymore.....

It funny to suggest it but...

The insanity above is nearly the insanity happening to our country. I can't accept it happening to this website no more than to a nation.

The elimination of In God We trust, IMHO....is a further ratcheting a nation away from fundamental principles to an absence of principles which is death and destruction and what Arborman495 is suggesting.

Just like there are a few demanding prayer in school be removed...so the rest must suffer
One idiot....in the current liberal mindset in America could wrestle this spudding forum away from Joel ....or all of us.

They could make criminals of all of us! If In God we Trust...can be removed...then what you think is of no longer any importance. You will be instructed what to think.

Edited because I couldn't help myself.