Why do American Atheists Believe in the Constitution?

[Thumpalumpacus]

For the record, you are correct that the word "believe" can be a synonym for "support”. The word basically has two meanings: to assent to the truth of a proposition, e.g. "I believe there is life on Mars." or: to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something, e.g. "I believe in equal rights for women." We currently don't have equal rights for women in a lot of places, but I hold that we really should. Therefore I believe in them. 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/believe

I believe religion wields influence, but I do not believe that influence is beneficial. Your interlocutor should take the time to separate the two connotations. But somehow, he prefers conflating them.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

For the record, you are correct that the word "believe" can be a synonym for "support”. The word basically has two meanings: to assent to the truth of a proposition, e.g. "I believe there is life on Mars." or: to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something, e.g. "I believe in equal rights for women." We currently don't have equal rights for women in a lot of places, but I hold that we really should. Therefore I believe in them. 

There’s a difference between ‘believe’ and ‘believe in’.  ‘Believe’ is not a synonym for support. ‘Believe in’ can be a synonym, but it ain’t necessarily so. Consider:

‘I believe pizza is a food’ doesn’t mean ‘I support the idea of pizza as a food.’

‘I believe in the Bible’ can mean ‘I support the Bible’ or ‘The Bible exists.’

See?

Boru

[Secular Heckler]

OP is trolling, looking for a fight. Move along.

I am not a troll. I am trying to advance American atheists from the Constitutional dogma that they share with the theists.
I am not looking for a fight. I am looking for agreement. You are looking to advance your standing in the oligarchy of this forum's community.

So I'm guessing mom and dad couldn't get enough together for summer camp, so you've got a boring summer ahead?

I suggest nature walks or the local library

This is an example of trolling. This shithead is not considered a troll because he has advanced his standing in the oligarchy of this forum's community - you are friends, and have the privilege of challenging newbies, like me.

By the way. The Dewey Decimal and Library of Congress classification systems are lousy tables of contents to the realms of knowledge. If they were any good, then we would be memorizing at least the general categories. Try this:
Reality
Nature
Technology
Life
Society
Culture
Time

That is a delusion derived from the favorable aspects of representative governing theory but nullified by the unidentified inadequacies of the three-branch government.

I guess that ends our discussion, then. Your commitment to rudeness makes it clear that this won't be a productive interchange.

I am not going to miss you. if you were what you claim to be, then you would recognize that what I stated was not personal. Your statement is held by a lot of other people, and you know it, because you did not devise it by yourself - you heard it from others. It is a common complaint, and political science has not solved the problem described in the complaint.

You are another of the forum's oligarchy trolls.

If he really wanted intelligent conversation, he wouldn't be trolling.

You are another of the forum's oligarchy trolls.

You have to possess some modicum of intelligence in order to truly desire intelligent discourse. I see no signs from this loon.

You are another of the forum's oligarchy trolls.

Anyone for an over/under date?

You are another of the forum's oligarchy trolls.

Ah, I see, we've got one of those jackasses who hasn't thought their pet idea through and can't answer the most basic questions about it.  As though the cracking and packing of power centers hasn't been tried six ways to sunday, most notably in context by the very ruling classes we're supposed to be outmaneuvering through the harebrained complication of bureaucracy.  

No matter how far I advance my idea, it will still have to go through a review process - a graduated series of constitutional conventions. What I have presented so far is more than enough to obligate law and political science scholars into such discussions. You have nothing. Just some slick rhetorical device that you cannot prove, much less devise a solution. Quit jerking-off and do the work.

The correct adjustment has already been devised: direct democracy with universal suffrage. 

You, as well. Quit jerking-off, and devise the charter system for a direct democracy with universal suffrage, because nobody else is; and if you can do it, then you will be awarded handsomely - stupid.

[Secular Heckler]

If I'm understanding your argument, it's that the three-branch system of government which the Founding Fathers gave us has failed to prevent corruption. It has allowed an oligarchy to take over, displacing the intended democracy.

The oligarchy I am defining is the principal officials in the government, not the shadow oligarchy of lobbyists and donor class that I think Thumphead is trying to refer to as "our owners."

As I recall, the Founding Fathers were concerned about these very points. They would probably not be surprised to see how far things have fallen in our own time. They knew the dangers of political parties that work for the perpetuation of party power, and of corporations, who benefit from oligarchy (or Inverted Totalitarianism, as Sheldon Wolin called it).

So I think if Thomas Jefferson heard that it had all fallen apart by 2025, he's say something like, "It lasted that long? Really?"

Yes. Contrary to the popular rhetoric, the American Founders are not turning over in their graves because of the misuse or abuse of the Constitution, but rather, because of the continued use of the not-perfect, but better than any other, Constitution.

So far I am less clear on the restructuring you're proposing to alleviate the problems. Here's what seems like one proposal:

The undetected problem is that the bicameral legislative assemblies are not commissioned exclusive jurisdictions of law to guard (principles of action), and that miscalculation surrendered the entire system to flawed partisanship.

So if I'm reading you right, you think it would be better to divvy up jurisdictions with specified fields of law that they are tasked with protecting. I'm not sure how that would work (if your link were allowed the article you pointed us to would probably explain it in more detail.) But I certainly agree that partisanship is not working to give us what works best for the people -- it gives us what works best for whoever it is that a particular party works for -- which is not you and me. 

As I say, I am far from expert in all of this. If you are so inclined, I'd be interested to read in more detail how these government reforms could work. In particular, how they can avoid the kind of partisanship or oligarchic-takeover which has infested our current system.

You're not allowed to post links yet, but if you tell me the name of the journal and the title of the article (without a link) I can probably Google it. 

I have difficulty convincing the law and political science review associations to review my treatise, because I have no standing with them. I imagine that they are jealous, and I continue to advance my treatise. It is very difficult to compose. I have websites where I link, publish, and distribute the treatise on the subject, but I lack the funding for an advertising campaign. I just tried searching my keywords and they are not coming up as high as they did several months ago:

Administrator Notice
List of advertising other sites removed per rule 13. Read the rules.

Give those a try

[Secular Heckler]

There’s a difference between ‘believe’ and ‘believe in’.  ‘Believe’ is not a synonym for support. ‘Believe in’ can be a synonym, but it ain’t necessarily so. Consider:

‘I believe pizza is a food’ doesn’t mean ‘I support the idea of pizza as a food.’

Yes it does - genius.

‘I believe in the Bible’ can mean ‘I support the Bible’ or ‘The Bible exists.’

You are just trying to "split the hair." You, like most atheists, do not "see" it correctly, because it shifts your understanding of the definition of theism and atheism, because the dictionaries use the ambiguous term "belief" in the definitions. Theists like the term, because it suggests a supernatural phenomenon that has to occur in cognitive processing. And that is what atheists like to use to counter by suggesting that the cognitive phenomenon does not occur in them. Atheists are correct when they explain that belief in god is indoctrinated, but fail to understand that that means that it is a doctrine that the theist really "believe in" - support of the doctrine.

SEE?

Put on your critical thinking hat!

[arewethereyet]

There’s a difference between ‘believe’ and ‘believe in’.  ‘Believe’ is not a synonym for support. ‘Believe in’ can be a synonym, but it ain’t necessarily so. Consider:

‘I believe pizza is a food’ doesn’t mean ‘I support the idea of pizza as a food.’

Yes it does - genius.

‘I believe in the Bible’ can mean ‘I support the Bible’ or ‘The Bible exists.’

You are just trying to "split the hair." You, like most atheists, do not "see" it correctly, because it shifts your understanding of the definition of theism and atheism, because the dictionaries use the ambiguous term "belief" in the definitions. Theists like the term, because it suggests a supernatural phenomenon that has to occur in cognitive processing. And that is what atheists like to use to counter by suggesting that the cognitive phenomenon does not occur in them. Atheists are correct when they explain that belief in god is indoctrinated, but fail to understand that that means that it is a doctrine that the theist really "believe in" - support of the doctrine.

SEE?

Put on your critical thinking hat!

Do you believe your rudeness is endearing?  Or do you just believe in being a complete asshole?

[The Architect Of Fate]

Nope belief and support are separate things one is epistemic the other is normative.

[Alan V]

People who drop into the forum fast and hot typically leave the same way.

[Nay_Sayer]

So before you hit the sewer SH. What are your actual beliefs? Are you too afraid to discuss them?

Thoughts and prayers. RAmen

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

@Secular Heckler

You, as well. Quit jerking-off, and devise the charter system for a direct democracy with universal suffrage, because nobody else is; and if you can do it, then you will be awarded handsomely - stupid.

Ok. Keep your three branches as they are, but limit them. The Executive proposes legislation, the Legislative creates bills, and the Judicial decides what is or is not constitutional.

Through a group of secure websites and servers, everyone over the age of 14 (‘universal’ suffrage was an exaggeration) gets to vote. Bills receiving a 2/3 majority will become law.

I’ll take my money in cash, please. Small, unmarked bills.

Boru