Should "In God We Trust" be on American money? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Should "In God We Trust" be on American money?
in Politics

I say Yes.
Zombieguy1987
  1. Live Poll

    Should "In God We Trust" be on American money?

    12 votes
    1. Yes.
      33.33%
    2. No.
      66.67%
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
33%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • Why not? 

    Zombieguy1987
  • Not everyone in the US believes in any gods, and our political system was founded on the principles of pluralism and separation of church from the government. I would replace it with something like "In liberty we trust", which is more in line with the governing ideology.
    Zombieguy1987Polaris95
  • In God We Trust should be changed or straight up removed Church and state are separated 
    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Blues and Raptors handed two very toxic teams embarrassing losses, 95% of the sports world is rejoicing in the news

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • Separation of church and state.

    How about some of man, excercising some mindful retraint, and separate himself from committing the various crimes that some commit? 




    Zombieguy1987
  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 452 Pts
    edited October 2018
    @TTKDB why not put an elephant on a unicycle on all our money? Or lil Wayne? Or beelzebub?
    Zombieguy1987Polaris95CYDdharta
  • @TTKDB why not put an elephant on a unicycle on all our money? Or lil Wayne? Or beelzebub?

    Our nation wasn't founded on issues related to elephants or unicycles.  It was founded on the belief of a God.
    Zombieguy1987Polaris95
  • @CYDdharta ok then let's put a black man getting whipped on there
    Polaris95Zombieguy1987CYDdharta
  • @CYDdharta ok then let's put a black man getting whipped on there

    You just keep getting sillier and sillier.  The US wasn't founded for slavery, either.
    Zombieguy1987
  • CYDdharta said:
    @TTKDB why not put an elephant on a unicycle on all our money? Or lil Wayne? Or beelzebub?

    Our nation wasn't founded on issues related to elephants or unicycles.  It was founded on the belief of a God.
    It really wasn’t founded on the belief of God though 
    CYDdharta
    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Blues and Raptors handed two very toxic teams embarrassing losses, 95% of the sports world is rejoicing in the news

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • Why should it be? Not everyone believes in a god, so hence, not everyone trusts in one either. 
    Zombieguy1987CYDdharta
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1076 Pts
    edited October 2018

    It really wasn’t founded on the belief of God though 

    Yeah, it really was, hence the reference to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" in the Declaration of Independence.

    Zombieguy1987
  • Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli (1796):
    As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp


    Zombieguy1987CYDdharta
  • @CYDdharta and how do you explain jefferson fighting so hard to keep a separation of church and state? To the point that he was criticized for hating religion when he ran for president.
    Zombieguy1987CYDdharta
  • MayCaesar said:
    Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli (1796):
    As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp



    That's true, and irrelevant.  The fact that the US was not founded on a Christian God doesn't mean that the US was not founded on the belief of a God.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @CYDdharta and how do you explain jefferson fighting so hard to keep a separation of church and state? To the point that he was criticized for hating religion when he ran for president.

    A)  Jefferson was only one of the Founding Fathers

    B) Jefferson explained his reasoning;

    Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that [Whereas] Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time: That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness; and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporal[ry] rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more than on our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right; that it tends also [only] to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.
  • @TTKDB Ask the people who said no. I voted yes for free speech and cultural reasons.
  • @Polaris95 Why should monotheists be forced to cowtow to an antitheist bigoted minority? We have the collective and individual right to free speech.
    Zombieguy1987
  • Wow! Intense reading. Okay I am not a great history buff or an avid scholar however the direction I had been given in a brief lecture in New York’s Cities central park in the mid-60 was like this. The Idea of the wording IN GOD WE TRUST was introduced as a dedication to a person’s own religious belief. That person was an elected President.

    However the letters GOD can be displayed as a numerical axiom, and not a word for only deity due to precedent set by guided and shared understanding of the way letters can be used to express mathematics. Roman numerals, algebra, and such mathematic principle. The trickery of the time at hand to the establishment of a United State set on the boundaries of liberty from the fundamental rule of religious understanding was effecting many people who had been leaving England at that time. Church of England was a strong influence in English rule periodically as religion in general was with many Monarchies.

    President Washington was a very religious man, growing up with understandings of banking by family members. It can be said that the story of cutting down his father’s cherry tree was in some way related with an ax as and child youth symbolic of truth as to be placed in a position of honor to not tell a lie. Keeping some secretes in plain sight.

    The Idea of the Freedom of Speech is that wording can take on a life of its own. Both verbally and when it is placed in writing. It is why it is set with file grievance in the First change placed on United States Constitution. Something is free only when it has not self-value or cost. Something is a grievance when it has a either self-value, cost, or both.

  • CYDdharta said:
    @TTKDB why not put an elephant on a unicycle on all our money? Or lil Wayne? Or beelzebub?

    Our nation wasn't founded on issues related to elephants or unicycles.  It was founded on the belief of a God.
    If it was founded on the belief of a god then why isn’t Christianity the national religion 
    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Blues and Raptors handed two very toxic teams embarrassing losses, 95% of the sports world is rejoicing in the news

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • Zombieguy1987Zombieguy1987 439 Pts
    edited December 2018
    @TTKDB Ask the people who said no. I voted yes for free speech and cultural reasons.
    It isn’t free speech if you’re shoving Christianity down those who aren’t Christian throats 
    CYDdharta
    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Blues and Raptors handed two very toxic teams embarrassing losses, 95% of the sports world is rejoicing in the news

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • @Zombieguy1987

    "It isn’t free speech if you’re shoving Christianity down those who aren’t Christian throats."

    Show the evidence, where the printed words:

    "In God We Trust" be on American money?"

    Is being shoved down anyone's windpipe?

    Do you have any evidence to support the supposed "discrimination" being expressed towards the anti religious, because of the phrase, (In God We Trust) being printed on currency? 


    Zombieguy1987
  • TTKDB said:
    @Zombieguy1987

    "It isn’t free speech if you’re shoving Christianity down those who aren’t Christian throats."

    Show the evidence, where the printed words:

    "In God We Trust" be on American money?"

    Is being shoved down anyone's windpipe?

    Do you have any evidence to support the supposed "discrimination" being expressed towards the anti religious, because of the phrase, (In God We Trust) being printed on currency? 


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_the_United_States#Situation_of_atheists
    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Blues and Raptors handed two very toxic teams embarrassing losses, 95% of the sports world is rejoicing in the news

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • @WordsMatter

    Why do, words matter? 

    What inspired your name? 
    Zombieguy1987
  • TTKDB said:
    @WordsMatter

    Why do, words matter? 

    What inspired your name? 
    And off topic again...
    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Blues and Raptors handed two very toxic teams embarrassing losses, 95% of the sports world is rejoicing in the news

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1076 Pts
    edited December 2018
    If it was founded on the belief of a god then why isn’t Christianity the national religion 


    Such a belief is not specific to Christianity; many, if not most, religions, believe in a single omnipotent Creator.
    Zombieguy1987
  • CYDdharta said:
    If it was founded on the belief of a god then why isn’t Christianity the national religion 

    Because most religions, not just Christianity, believe in a single omnipotent God.
    Regardless, why hasn’t Congress passed an act that makes the US have a National religion if the nation was founded on the belief of god
    CYDdharta
    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Blues and Raptors handed two very toxic teams embarrassing losses, 95% of the sports world is rejoicing in the news

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/

  • Regardless, why hasn’t Congress passed an act that makes the US have a National religion if the nation was founded on the belief of god

    How many different ways do I have to say this, BECAUSE THERE IS NO SINGLE RELIGION OF GOD!!!  There are many religions that are founded on the belief of a single all-powerful God. 
    Zombieguy1987
  • @Zombieguy1987

    Situation of atheistsEdit

    A 2006 study at the University of Minnesotashowed atheists to be the most distrusted minority among Americans. In the study, sociologists Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerties and Douglas Hartmann conducted a survey of American public opinion on attitudes towards different groups. 40% of respondents characterized atheists as a group that "does not at all agree with my vision of American society", putting atheists well ahead of every other group, with the next highest being Muslims (26%) and homosexuals (23%). When participants were asked whether they agreed with the statement, "I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group," atheists again led minorities, with 48% disapproval, followed by Muslims (34%) and African-Americans(27%).[83][84] Joe Foley, co-chairman for Campus Atheists and Secular Humanists, commented on the results, "I know atheists aren't studied that much as a sociological group, but I guess atheists are one of the last groups remaining that it's still socially acceptable to hate."[85] A University of British Columbia study conducted in the United States found that believers distrust atheists as much as they distrust rapists. The study also showed that atheists have lower employment prospects.[86][87]

    Several private organizations, the most notable being the Boy Scouts of Americado not allow atheist members.[88] However, this policy has come under fire by organizations who assert that the Boy Scouts of America do benefit from taxpayer money and thus cannot be called a truly private organization, and thus must admit atheists, and others currently barred from membership. An organization called Scouting for All, founded by Eagle Scout Steven Cozza, is at the forefront of the movement.

    Court casesEdit

    In the 1994 case[89] Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, Supreme Court Justice David Souter wrote in the opinion for the Court that: "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion".[90] Everson v. Board of Education established that "neither a state nor the Federal Government can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another". This applies the Establishment Clause to the states as well as the federal government.[91] However, several state constitutions make the protection of persons from religious discrimination conditional on their acknowledgment of the existence of a deity, making freedom of religion in those states inapplicable to atheists.[19][20][21] These state constitutional clauses have not been tested. Civil rightscases are typically brought in federal courts, so such state provisions are mainly of symbolic importance.

    In Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow(2004), after atheist Michael Newdowchallenged the phrase "under God" in the United States Pledge of Allegiance, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found the phrase unconstitutional. Although the decision was stayed pending the outcome of an appeal, there was the prospect that the pledge would cease to be legally usable without modification in schools in the western United States, over which the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction. This resulted in political furor, and both houses of Congress passed resolutions condemning the decision, unanimously.[92] On June 26, a Republican-dominated group of 100–150 congressmen stood outside the capital and recited the pledge, showing how much they disagreed with the decision.[92] The Supreme Court subsequently reversed the decision, ruling that Newdow did not have standing to bring his case, thus disposing of the case without ruling on the constitutionality of the pledge. 

  • @Zombieguy1987

    When religious moms and dads take their kids to a religious building, are they being discriminatory against their own kids, by taking them to church with them, or when talking about religion, with them under the roofs of their own homes? 

    When a printing press, prints out US currency, and the words (In God We Trust) gets printed on that currency, do you maybe view that printing press, or the currency itself, as being discriminatory towards you personally? 

    If you turn on your TV or your radio, and you accidentally hear, or accidentally see a Televangelist expressing religious dialogue from your TV or radio, do you maybe view your radio or TV as being discriminatory towards you, because you're anti religious? 

    I'm curious about your interpretation of the word "discriminatory" when it comes to your anti religious views? 
    Zombieguy1987
  • @TTKDB ;

    The use of GOD can be explained as axiom which by understanding can become self-evident to independent of the religious dominance placed on it by opinion. Oddly enough the Federal Reserve Dollar may lose the legal right to say in “ IN GOD WE TRUST.” As this saying is related to the idea of creating legal tender in the form of a registered receipt which can hold itself impartial in the economy.

    This impartiality can be question by addressing a question of counterfeiting of Federal Reserve Notes by use of plagiarizing and not the printing of a replica note. If a Dollar is not printed on paper can it be tested by pen to its authenticity by all?



  • TTKDB said:
    @Zombieguy1987

    When religious moms and dads take their kids to a religious building, are they being discriminatory against their own kids, by taking them to church with them, or when talking about religion, with them under the roofs of their own homes? 

    When a printing press, prints out US currency, and the words (In God We Trust) gets printed on that currency, do you maybe view that printing press, or the currency itself, as being discriminatory towards you personally? 

    If you turn on your TV or your radio, and you accidentally hear, or accidentally see a Televangelist expressing religious dialogue from your TV or radio, do you maybe view your radio or TV as being discriminatory towards you, because you're anti religious? 

    I'm curious about your interpretation of the word "discriminatory" when it comes to your anti religious views? 
    A better phrase  for all this is called forcing it on people who don't follow Christianity or aren't religion.


    And then it becomes discriminatory when those who stand up and say 


    "Hey! stop shoving this stuff on us because we don't follow your religion!"

    And then they get silenced and then discriminated


    CYDdharta
    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Blues and Raptors handed two very toxic teams embarrassing losses, 95% of the sports world is rejoicing in the news

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • @Zombieguy1987

    Is the below video an example of these points of view from you?

    "A better phrase  for all this is called forcing it on people who don't follow Christianity or aren't religion.


    And then it becomes discriminatory when those who stand up and say 


    "Hey! stop shoving this stuff on us because we don't follow your religion!"

    And then they get silenced and then discriminated"


    CYDdhartaZombieguy1987

  • Oh wow...

    Simply because of ONE person= all atheists aren't discriminated against!

    TTKBD logic at it's finest here. 

    Also, the video has a CLEAR anti-atheist bias, so you're using ANOTHER biased source again... as always
    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Blues and Raptors handed two very toxic teams embarrassing losses, 95% of the sports world is rejoicing in the news

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • @Zombieguy1987

    "Simply because of ONE person= all atheists aren't discriminated against!

    TTKBD logic at it's finest here."

     (Did you Google, "California news media outlets/ and social justice warriors," and see what some of the things that appeared, in regards to the social justice warrior phrasing showed?)


    "Also, the video has a CLEAR anti-atheist bias, so you're using ANOTHER biased source again... as always"

    @Zombieguy1987

    Prove it, prove it to the forum, that you know personally, that that video is from a biased source? 

    Did you witness anyone paying the social justice warrior, a fee for the words that came directly from his own mouth? 

    Or does it appear that every word that he expressed, he voluntarily expressed them all on his own? 

    Did you see the police officers in the video, maybe get coached in what to say to the guy? 

    Did you witness any of the people in the crowd, while watching the social justice warrior expressing himself, maybe get coached as well, in what to say to the guy? 

    I've watched that video half a dozen times, and from as far as I can tell, the various actions in the video, clearly all speak for themselves.

    So, as to it appearing to be bias, I don't see any evidence to that whatsoever. 
  • TTKDB said:
    @Zombieguy1987

    "Simply because of ONE person= all atheists aren't discriminated against!

    TTKBD logic at it's finest here."

     (Did you Google, "California news media outlets/ and social justice warriors," and see what some of the things that appeared, in regards to the social justice warrior phrasing showed?)


    "Also, the video has a CLEAR anti-atheist bias, so you're using ANOTHER biased source again... as always"

    @Zombieguy1987

    Prove it, prove it to the forum, that you know personally, that that video is from a biased source? 

    Did you witness anyone paying the social justice warrior, a fee for the words that came directly from his own mouth? 

    Or does it appear that every word that he expressed, he voluntarily expressed them all on his own? 

    Did you see the police officers in the video, maybe get coached in what to say to the guy? 

    Did you witness any of the people in the crowd, while watching the social justice warrior expressing himself, maybe get coached as well, in what to say to the guy? 

    I've watched that video half a dozen times, and from as far as I can tell, the various actions in the video, clearly all speak for themselves.

    So, as to it appearing to be bias, I don't see any evidence to that whatsoever. 
    Because why did you show an atheist doing something NEGATIVELY!? sounds pretty biased to me... But given your track record (and off topic track record) I'm not surprised you would show an atheist doing something stupid 
    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Blues and Raptors handed two very toxic teams embarrassing losses, 95% of the sports world is rejoicing in the news

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • CYDdharta
    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Blues and Raptors handed two very toxic teams embarrassing losses, 95% of the sports world is rejoicing in the news

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/

  • This is why religion in America is separated from the state! And putting "In God we trust" is hypocritical to what the founding fathers wanted (And why if I was president I would abolish religion)

    You keep saying that, but have yet to provide a shred of evidence of what the Founding Fathers, God-fearing to a man, wanted.

    And do you notice something about these links?

    NOT A SINGLE ONE IS FOCUSED ON AN ATHEIST WEBSITE! These are NEUTRAL sources

    Vice?  Dailykos?  Huffpo?  Please, those are all anti-Christian sites.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @Zombieguy1987

    I'm sorry, but why are you expressing a biased perception towards me?

    "Because why did you show an atheist doing something NEGATIVELY!? sounds pretty biased to me... But given your track record (and off topic track record) I'm not surprised you would show an atheist doing something stupid."

    My track record?  I didn't know that you were mindfully keeping a tally on me? 

    "But given your track record (and off topic track record) I'm not surprised you would show an atheist doing something stupid"

    Am I maybe in your opinion, fitting appropriately well on your atheist cross? 

    Are you maybe trying to make an example of me, to make your point of view with? 

    I'm ok with money saying (In God We Trust)

    Because (In most of Humanity We Trust) seems to lack in some basic principles, being that man wages crimes against man every day, but some want to be picky about who and what they choose to protest over? 
    Zombieguy1987
  • @Zombieguy1987

    What about my points of view, do you view as a fallacy? 
  • @Zombieguy1987

    Here are some alternative ideas to put in place of (In God We Trust)

    In Atheism We Trust? 

    Or, In The Separation Of Church And State WeTrust?
  • @Zombieguy1987 ;

    " IN GOD WE TRUST" 
    Was added with religious intention by a President of the United States. The idea is can it be defended by the United States Constitution past that limit set by a person as violation of United States Constitution, meaning proven publicly as a none religious statement of fact, and whole truth and nothing but truth. In preservation of United States Constitution before it is subject to abolishment.

    It may be a religious statement, however it does not mean it is only that, it is also a demonstration of an numerical axiom as a none religion mathematic problem. Basic in principle as it is simply a group of numbers demonstrating a mathematic process of shared understanding. An understanding that can be readily misinterpreted by hasty judgment. Historical G can be proven to be the number 400 while O can be established as 11, and finally the D is equal to 500. The sum of the equation as a total can be the number 89.


    Is it so far fetch to believe a banking industry may be subject to a believe in mathematic equation? Is it so hard to believe that others can not see past their own obstacles of religious beliefs?
  • TTKDB said:
    @Zombieguy1987

    Here are some alternative ideas to put in place of (In God We Trust)

    In Atheism We Trust? 

    Or, In The Separation Of Church And State WeTrust?
    "In Liberty We Trust"
    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Blues and Raptors handed two very toxic teams embarrassing losses, 95% of the sports world is rejoicing in the news

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • Zombieguy1987Zombieguy1987 439 Pts
    edited December 2018
    CYDdharta said:

    This is why religion in America is separated from the state! And putting "In God we trust" is hypocritical to what the founding fathers wanted (And why if I was president I would abolish religion)

    You keep saying that, but have yet to provide a shred of evidence of what the Founding Fathers, God-fearing to a man, wanted.

    And do you notice something about these links?

    NOT A SINGLE ONE IS FOCUSED ON AN ATHEIST WEBSITE! These are NEUTRAL sources

    Vice?  Dailykos?  Huffpo?  Please, those are all anti-Christian sites.
    burden of proof is on you for the anti-christian claim 
    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Blues and Raptors handed two very toxic teams embarrassing losses, 95% of the sports world is rejoicing in the news

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • Nest we are getting into evidence of the powers of a united state creating a legal tender by way of fixed receipt of value given in writing. The written value of the receipt being an independent axiom based on its own mathematic principles held by a second set of numbers as registration identification to those who hold the receipt.


  • @Zombieguy1987

    "In Liberty We Trust"

    No, because the word liberty already gets treated with a double standards premise by millions of various individuals, who are anti law, anti society, and other various types of anti situational situations.

    In other words, the words liberty, laws, and freedom of choice, gets abused by various individuals, day in and day out 

    Thus treating the word, "Liberty" with various types of discrimination. 

    It wouldn't be fair to the word "Liberty" itself.

    How about, In Humanity We Trust?




    Zombieguy1987
  • Zombieguy1987Zombieguy1987 439 Pts
    edited December 2018
    TTKDB said:
    @Zombieguy1987

    "In Liberty We Trust"

    No, because the word liberty already gets treated with a double standards premise by millions of various individuals, who are anti law, anti society, and other various types of anti situational situations.

    In other words, the words liberty, laws, and freedom of choice, gets abused by various individuals, day in and day out 

    Thus treating the word, "Liberty" with various types of discrimination. 

    It wouldn't be fair to the word "Liberty" itself.

    How about, In Humanity We Trust?


    Well "In God, We Trust" is also a double standard because there are people who DO NOT trust a god!

    thus treating the word "God" with various types of discrimination.

    And about "In Humanity We Trust". 

    That wouldn't work because the SJW's would think that means the U.S is ignoring the race issues and then BLM would start rioting and then thats another issue the government has to deal with
    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Blues and Raptors handed two very toxic teams embarrassing losses, 95% of the sports world is rejoicing in the news

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • The translation would read more like “ IN THE AXIOM WE SAVE.”

  • The United State created in religion as a public shared belief is mathematics by basic principle. Mathematics is a form of religion that is legally shared with other religions, and non-religions alike.

    Again the issue is that a means of defending an impartial state of the registration by receipt is placed in writing giving a basic principle upon study to those who use The Federal Receipt Note accountable for way of fare savings economically. TRUST economically meaning a method of saving held by trusty (The people) for the beneficiaries (the posterity). The maintaining of the balance in the logical, or illogical ratio of numerical value can control the overall cost of the receipt in the economy while the public holds their proof of exchange in the form of registered rescript.


  • @Zombieguy1987

    "Well "In God, We Trust" is also a double standard because there are people who DO NOT trust a god!"

    Again, can a God, or God do anything to you in real life?

    If a God in general, has zero influence in your life, or influences how you live your life, then why would you or anyone else feel some sort of need to place any "trust" whatsoever in your life, if you have nothing to do with a God to begin with? 

    Prayer gets a court ruling, driving it out of schools.

    (Some atheists, hear a public prayer being said for some kids, who were affected by gun violance, and then afterwards, filed a lawsuit over that prayer being said in public?)
    Is this another example of the separation of the church and state conversation? 

    (A memorial shaped like a cross, is getting grief over it's shape, because some individuals are upset over a grave stone shaped like a cross, and want the grave stone visually amended to suit the anti religious individuals?)
    Is this another example of the separation of church and state conversation? 

    Is taking the (In God We Trust) wording off of US currency, another example of the separation of church and state conversation? 






    Zombieguy1987
  • @Zombieguy1987

    When religious moms and dads take their kids to a religious building, are they being discriminatory against their own kids, by taking them to church with them, or when talking about religion, with them under the roofs of their own homes? 

    When a printing press, prints out US currency, and the words (In God We Trust) gets printed on that currency, do you maybe view that printing press, or the currency itself, as being discriminatory towards you personally? 

    If you turn on your TV or your radio, and you accidentally hear, or accidentally see a Televangelist expressing religious dialogue from your TV or radio, do you maybe view your radio or TV as being discriminatory towards you, because you're anti religious?  

    "A better phrase  for all this is called forcing it on people who don't follow Christianity or aren't religion.


    And then it becomes discriminatory when those who stand up and say 


    "Hey! stop shoving this stuff on us because we don't follow your religion!"

    And then they get silenced and then discriminated"

    So, are you saying that the religious parents, the printing press, the currency itself, and your radio and TV when you accidentally heard, or saw religion on the TV?

    That all of the above, they purposefully forced religion on you, and personally discriminated against you with religion as well? 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch