Page 27 of 32 FirstFirst ... 172223242526272829303132 LastLast
Results 521 to 540 of 639
  1. #521  
    Im too lazy to check the whole thread but there is a video of robert gibbs mocking sarah palin where he writes egg, milk and other funny stuff on his palm.
  2. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #522  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    So, Scientology, to you is a valid and reputable religion and it's story of creation and Xenu is as legit and valid as your religions? If no, then why not? Is it because the story of Scientology was started by a man? Who started the story of Christianity? How is Dianetics any less true than the Bible?
    Well, no, I do not think it is reputable, nor do I think it is mainstream. Others however might. However, besides being MUCH less mainstream, it has various other markings of a cult. I'm not here to proclaim it as a cult however.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    For a large part, yes. And what we currently do not understand will be figured out in time through scientific discoveries. I just recently went to the Griffith Observatory here in LA. They had a great demonstration of how our universe was formed and how it is evolving, all with scientific evidence to explain it. I would suggest to anyone to see it if you are in the area.
    I would suggest that while we know many things, our understanding of even the physical universe is poor. In 100 years, they will likely laugh at out level of knowledge.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Who's to say our physical world has an end? The universe may just go on forever, without "walls". Maybe there are more universes beyond ours. As wacky as all this sounds, this is still more reasonable than the belief in a mythical "god".
    I wasn't actually referring to physical limits of distance. My point was that if you go back in time, there are physical things we were simply unaware of--it was outside of our understanding. What is "wacky" is fooling yourself into thinking that because you cannot prove something is any indication that it doesn't exist--and that's the physical world.

    I mentioned thought--can you prove it exists? Are you "wacky" for believing that there is thought?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Your religion is your own. It is your personal relationship with god. Nobody is taking that away from you and nobody should. You can freely express it all you want. I would just like it to not be a part of my government.
    How would you know one way or the other? Further--I'll ask again--why would you even care? If an idea is something you agree with, why are you insisting on creating some test as to the reasoning behind it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Most conservatives have a problem with homosexuality because "it is thrown in their face". That is one of the biggest gripes about gay marriage and gays in the military. Why is it OK for you to express your christian way of life when it is not OK for gays to express their way of life.
    When have I ever said it is not ok for Gays to express their way of life? What's interesting however (which I alluded to in my last post) was that if you substitute your position regarding Religion for some with Homosexuality you would be called a Religio-Phob (of Theophobe I suppose). In other words, you seem to be the equivalent of a Homophobe--in regards to Religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Sorry. I personally see more similarities than differences...
    Perhaps it is due to suffering from Theophobia?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    No. Do not murder is common sense, not a religious belief.
    No, for me it is both.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    So religion is the only reason you do not commit murder? What about all of the wars that over religion?
    Don't you people have a better argument than this tired old thing? More people have died due to Godless Communists than anything else in recent history, but we've got morons walking around in Che Guevera T-shirts.

    Almost every "war over Religion" you will find is linked to secular purposes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    What about the guy that killed Dr. Tiller, in his church? Was his use of murder justified because it was an abortion doctor and he did it in the name of the lord? Is that still so even after the killer pointed his gun at 2 boys in the church as he was trying to make his escape? If it a justified murder, should you even have to "escape"? I guess you religion only tells you not to murder and tells others to murder. How does god decide who kills and how does not? Oh free will! Well if god gave you free will but told you not to murder, isn't that mixed signals? Which one of those signals is the right one?
    Wow, you are ranting at me about something I never supported in any way. What makes you think that this murder was acting in accordance with a Religion? He wasn't acting in accordance with MY religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    My point is, religion should not have to tell you not to murder. If you only base your reason for NOT killing people because a book told you not to, you have problems.
    Well, guess what...it did--some 6000 or so years ago. What's interesting is that you don't seem to be able to evaluate being in a modern society today and where our roots came from, versus older societies upon which we are (in one form or another built).
    I don't engage in murder because it is wrong, and that belief system is formed at least partially by a Religion that was in existence thousands of years ago.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    I say that religion is only instilling common sense into those who may not have it...
    The weight you put on "common sense" I think is very quaint. See how well "common sense" holds things together where there isn't law/punishment or morals.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    I did not say keep it to yourself. I said keep it out of my laws and government.
    Actually in post 394 you said: If it was just for you to formulate your beliefs, then it is fine, just keep that to yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    So by calling you me a leftist, you meant to call me a protestant? Sorry, not the definition I was referring to when I posted that...
    No, that's not what I meant. What it does however is illustrate that you can grab some definition in order to distort a word's common and reasonable use--such as you've done by attempting to label mainstream religions as cults.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    No again, helping the underprivileged, if you are able to do so, to me strikes of common sense and just being a decent human being.
    That may be your view, but what if my view of that is derived from Religion. I need to "keep that to myself" and "out of your government."
    What you are really doing now is agreeing with what I said in the first place--that the basis doesn't matter to a third party--what it actually is or does is what matters.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    No phobia or hate at all. In my real life. I keep my beliefs, and lack thereof, to myself. It is nobodies business but my own. I do bring it up here because here we are just anonymous blips on a screen.
    And I said I will take you at your word, but as you brought up above--what I see posted here would be called "homophobia" if the topic was homosexuality instead of religion. People that hold views of homosexuality similar to what you state here about Religion are labeled haters, and homophobes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    I do not want government to be anti-religion, just void of it...
    Yes, I understand your stance quite clearly. My view is that there is nothing that allows you to make any such demands. I guess you are free to demand anything you want, but no requirement that anyone follow them.

    We cannot establish a Religion in the United States, which essentially means the government itself is secular, but there is no restriction from mentioning, referencing or being inspired by Religion in government or political action. It simply has never been this way, despite the attempts of modern atheists to try and pretend it has. To believe that, we would have to assume (wrongly) that hundreds of years of history have been an improper mixture of Religion and Government and that is simply not the case.

    I appreciate the constructive exchange however.
    KAM
  3. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #523  
    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    It's an accepted cult but a cult nonetheless. Whether it's mainstream or not, imo, is irrelevant.
    Then you are ignoring one of the most important points that define a cult--for your own purposes.

    O
    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    course I have, however I never expected you to accept it. If you did, you would see religion the way I see it. You admitted the belief in a supreme being is illogical but at the same time is claiming that logic can't disprove it????
    I believe I said that Religion wasn't a matter of logic. And if you think you've proven anything, I find that claim to be ridiculous.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    I never said you were trying to prove anything. I said the burden of proof is with you, not me. I don't expect you to try to prove it because I KNOW you can't.
    So, the burden of proof is with me, but you don't expect me to prove anything? That doesn't make any sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    This is the same ridiculous argument I've encountered over and over. Science is based on actual research and experiment. It's not built on a foundation of faith. The mechanisms are very different. And please, I have no reason to doubt the mechanisms by which a scientist may arrive at a theory.
    Yes, science is very different. YOUR belief in what is claimed in science is not. You believe many things on faith alone--that is, if you are like everyone else, you simply have so much faith that you don't even consider it can't be wrong--as you say "You have no reason to doubt."

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    By your logic, I can simply say I strongly believe an alien spaceship is hiding behind the asteroid Eros gently nudging it in a collision course with earth. And because it can't be proven (as in we can't send a spaceship to investigate), it should be considered a possibility. How ridiculous does that sound?
    No, that is not at all what my logic is saying.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Here you are again trying to equate Religion with scientific method. Sorry but here you are really reaching.
    No, I'm sorry you just aren't following what I'm saying. I am not equating Religion with Science. I am equating your faith in things with the faith of others in other things. If you can't understand that distinction, it would explain why you are misunderstanding what I'm telling you.

    What I'm saying is that you believe a great many things (again, assuming you are like anyone else) on nothing more than faith and trust--not due to actual scientific analysis that you perform or even understand. You simply accept that it is true--you BELIEVE that it is true on faith (non-religious, but faith nontheless).

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    No, my point is, the existence of a supernatural all poweful being is simply not logical. Which means, he/she/it cannot exist as far as I'm concerned.
    And again, I suggest there are many things that you logically do not comprehend or never have bothered to apply logic to that you accept. Many things have been found to exist that were previously unproven, and according to your logic, that would mean that at each point prior you insist that they could not have existed--being wrong each time. In other words--your methodology if applied to the physical world would be constantly wrong, because of the logical fallacy that absence of evidence is equal to evidence of absence. That is simply not true, yet it seems to be essentially what your position is.


    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    I don't know why you keep thinking that I'm ok with other forms of rights encroachment or restrictions. Didn't I state clearly that NO encroachment is ok? Yes I have a beef with Religion but it doesn't mean I give the OK to everything else that may encroach on other's rights.
    If your position is that no encroachment of any kind is ok regardless of source, then I have no argument with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Well there's one more place where you and I differ. I care about the reasons as well.
    Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    So if blaming religion isn't terribly accurate, I'm going to assume it's 'somewhat' accurate? You're basically saying, well communism, and secular differences caused a lot of deaths too, so it's ok to give the many more deaths caused by religious beliefs over the centuries a pass.
    Religion deserves whatever accurate level of blame it does. I'm merely pointing out that the distortions common amongst anti-religious people that distort reality are dishonest and inaccurate.
    Exactly how many deaths were caused by Religions over the centuries? "many more" huh? I challenge you to prove (since proof is you standard) that Religious conflicts have caused nearly 100 million deaths? Keeping in mind that you have to PROVE that Religion is the cause, rather than the excuse. If not, then by you standards, you should recant this claim.

    BTW--I am choosing 100 million as a good approximation of the deaths caused by non-religious political conflicts (majority of which are communism) in the 20th century.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Where did I say we did?
    This in response to my statement: You and I do not have the right to encroach on anyone else's rights.

    Where did you say that we did? Well it seems to me that your post #355 is an attempt to justify that exactly--see below.

    In post # 355 in response to my post that said:
    Why is a protected thing (religion) proper to restrict in your view?
    You said: Because religion (especially when organized) tend to divide and perpetuate hatred in some form or another. And proof of that can be seen literally everywhere.

    I challenged you why it is appropriate to restrict religion and you responded in the affirmative "Because..." So, it sounds exactly like you advocate the restriction Religion.

    So, exactly how am I misinterpreting what you said?

    You also said in post 355 in response to my statement:
    Why should anyone have to restrict their political activities because of Religious beliefs?--KAM1138
    You Said: If they however are able to influence a political figure into enacting laws that go against the majority view, including mine, I have a problem with that. If they put up banners and ads in public places in an attempt to propagandize their religious beliefs, I have a problem with that. No one religious group should have that amount of influence.

    So, again--it seems quite clear that you do believe there should be some restriction, in conflict with saying there should be no encroachment of rights. So, you seem to be contradicting yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Read above, I hate having to repeat myself.
    As do I.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Like I said before, I care about both but yes the end result of what the law does is more important.
    Again--why? Unless someone tells you, you wouldn't even know what motivated them. You can like or dislike anything for any reason--it just doesn't have any validity in what someone else can or cannot do.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    I clearly stated 'political influences'. I know we can't restrict people's beliefs and I'm not advocating that we should. However we could and should restrict political infuences of relgious GROUPS.
    You are aware of course that groups are simply collections of individuals.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    True but the difference is, it is healthy to our economy and the State's well being to have differing political views, and we cannot progress, or our form of government exist without politics. However the same can't be said for religion.
    That might be your opinion. I think we can get along just fine without certain political views. In fact--certain political views are demonstrably harmful. Still--we cannot demand they be silenced.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Well the question of the whether the negative coverage was damaging or not is an entirely different debate altogether.

    However, your initial claim was that there was hardly any negative coverage which simply wasn't true.
    Let me clarify if I may. My position is that Candidate Obama was given fawning media coverage--despite there being some negative (actually, I'm not sure that factual discussions can be called negative--just factual), and that he was protected by the media from these various issues at different times, resulting in a net boost to his campaign. In short--I think the Media as a whole helped the Obama Campaign, through direct positive coverage or simply not asking the hard questions.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    The same can be asked of ALL so-called Christians, not just Obama. For many, just the label is proof enough. If I took that stance, then yes he's a Christian. However, for me, actions speak louder than words. Being a 'true' Christian isn't easy if the Bible is to be taken at face value. I don't believe anyone's truly Christian, (or Muslim or Catholic etc). It's just too much to live up to. Are you a 'true' Christian? Personally, I doubt it.
    I'm not sure you understand what a "True" Christian is. You seem to be referring to a PERFECT Christian, and if that is the question, then I certainly am not. However, it doesn't mean that is just a meaningless label.


    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Seems like you are contradicting yourself here.
    How so?

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    I never claimed that. There is a such a thing as flawed logic. However religion isn't based on any kind of logic.
    Yes, there is for certain such a thing as flawed logic. Religion is not based on logic, but again--it doesn't mean that an idea that is inspired by religion is illogical.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Because they label themselves Christians doesn't mean they are automatically ready to give up their rights to whomever.
    Who said that was the case?

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    hmmm, you believe murder is wrong because God said so? Well, I have a hard time buying that. So if your Religion supported murder, would you agree?To me, common sense would be the primary source and that's the source I actually believe fuels your belief.
    I likely wouldn't be part of a religion that advocated murder. Common sense is the source for not murdering? We could probably have a whole thread on this, but I suggest that one could justify that murdering someone might in fact make great sense for someone in a particular situation. I would argue that it is universally true--murder is bad, because you wouldn't want to be subject to murder.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Why do you constantly put words in my mouth? While I would certainly like religion to magically disappear, I never demanded that others not believe in religion.
    As you can see above--you appear to deny saying things that you actually did say, but I am not seeking to put words into your mouth in any case.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    My main problem with it is its possible influence on our laws and the consequences. If you want to believe and practice every religion on earth I could care less.... unless it becomes a problem for me.
    Well, that's what I'm saying, it doesn't matter if it is a "problem" for you or not--you have no right to put limits of any kind on anyone thinking anything for any reason and engaging in political activities.

    I see that you've said you are for no encroachment, but then seem to be saying "unless its a problem for me." So, I've got to say I'm a bit confused. However, if the bottom line is that you acknowledge you cannot rightfully restrict anyone's political motivations or actions no matter the source (including Religion), then we've got no issue. Obviously, ALL political actions are restricted by the Constitution, but I trust that is well understood.

    KAM
  4. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #524  
    Quote Originally Posted by redninja View Post
    Kam...
    I have said I dont care what someone believes. But when the entire GOP scoffs at global warming, because the bible says so,(which it doesn't btw), that effects me.
    That statement doesn't strike me as even approaching accurate.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    When gays can't get married because the bible says so, that effects them. Using someting like murder is a swipe at sillyness. We know without the help of god, that we shouldn't do that.
    Again--you mistake thousands of years of culture BASED on this idea from the past as being just something everyone should know. Right TODAY, we think that.

    Quote Originally Posted by redninja View Post
    When someone says they fasted for 3 days and god told them to run for office, that is outside of unreasonable. When my president goes to the ranch for a month, to pray about going to war, thats unreasonable. When Palin stands in front of her church, and asks them to pray because this war is Gods plan, that is unreasonable. When A congressman states global warming is fake because the bible says so, that is unreasonable.
    I'd love to see your documentation for this, because honestly--I think you are at best distorting these situations.

    Regardless--even if these were exactly literal...so what? You have no basis to exclude them because you think their reasoning is flawed. You can oppose them freely, but you can't demand they be excluded.

    I think many ideas and reasons stated by politicians are utter nonsense, but I have to tolerate them anyway.

    KAM
  5. #525  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Then you are ignoring one of the most important points that define a cult--for your own purposes.
    According to webster a cult has one of several definitions:


    "a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents"

    No where does it say it has to be mainstream. Although you may find one that mentions a small group. So yes I can fit religion into the definition of a cult.



    I believe I said that Religion wasn't a matter of logic. And if you think you've proven anything, I find that claim to be ridiculous.
    If it's not a matter of logic then it's illogical. And like I said before, I don't expect you to accept my conclusion.

    So, the burden of proof is with me, but you don't expect me to prove anything? That doesn't make any sense.
    Of course it does. Can you prove that something that clearly doesn't exist, exists? If you can I'm all ears. Prove to me that God exists.


    Yes, science is very different. YOUR belief in what is claimed in science is not. You believe many things on faith alone--that is, if you are like everyone else, you simply have so much faith that you don't even consider it can't be wrong--as you say "You have no reason to doubt."
    I don't need to prove the experiments myself. Yours is an extremely silly argument. Many of our technology that we take for granted exists because of science. There is proof the mechanisms work. Religion is based on beliefs with no proof and no mechanisms by which to prove them. It was a product of an ignorant society. In a nutshell, Science is about knowing, Religion is about guessing and faith.

    No, that is not at all what my logic is saying.
    What's the difference between that and believing in God? There is none. Both are based on strong beliefs and faith only.




    No, I'm sorry you just aren't following what I'm saying. I am not equating Religion with Science. I am equating your faith in things with the faith of others in other things. If you can't understand that distinction, it would explain why you are misunderstanding what I'm telling you.

    What I'm saying is that you believe a great many things (again, assuming you are like anyone else) on nothing more than faith and trust--not due to actual scientific analysis that you perform or even understand. You simply accept that it is true--you BELIEVE that it is true on faith (non-religious, but faith nontheless).
    I believe that it is true because of the results of their hard work. Even this computer I'm typing on is a product of science. It works. I don't kneed to prove every scientific principle involved, someone already did it and it's obvious they work. Again, what a silly argument to even consider, not sure why I'm even involved to this stage.




    And again, I suggest there are many things that you logically do not comprehend or never have bothered to apply logic to that you accept.
    And you know this how? By making wild assumptions? Please name one thing you think I accept without 'applying logic'?


    Many things have been found to exist that were previously unproven, and according to your logic, that would mean that at each point prior you insist that they could not have existed--being wrong each time.
    Because something hasn't been proven yet doesn't mean it can't be theorized using logic based on science. I used the example of Alien life in a reply to someone else. No one has proven it exists but it's logical, given our current knowlegde of the processes in the formation of life, to think it exists and to even go so far as to accept it.

    However the existence of an all powerful being cannot be theorized to exist logically based anything we currently know or have seen.

    In other words--your methodology if applied to the physical world would be constantly wrong, because of the logical fallacy that absence of evidence is equal to evidence of absence.
    Not necessarily, it depends on the logic involved. If you're going to start from a standpoint devoid of any logic (ie the existence of a supreme being) then I will ask you provide some evidence. It doesn't mean that I don't accept a theory that hasn't yet been proven but is based on sound science. It's a big leap of faith to explain everything away by the existence of an all-knowing, all-powerful being.




    Why?
    Why not?


    Religion deserves whatever accurate level of blame it does. I'm merely pointing out that the distortions common amongst anti-religious people that distort reality are dishonest and inaccurate.
    Exactly how many deaths were caused by Religions over the centuries? "many more" huh? I challenge you to prove (since proof is you standard) that Religious conflicts have caused nearly 100 million deaths? Keeping in mind that you have to PROVE that Religion is the cause, rather than the excuse. If not, then by you standards, you should recant this claim.
    All through history until recently Religion had a very big role in the government of a lot of societies. It's next to impossible to exclude religion from having a contributing factor in many of the conflicts through early history to even today (Middle East, Eastern Russia for example). Even Adolf Hilter used his religious faith to justify the extermination of the 'killers of God'.

    I don't need to prove some arbitrary number you made up. Even if the true number is 1/8 of 100 million, it's still too much.

    BTW--I am choosing 100 million as a good approximation of the deaths caused by non-religious political conflicts (majority of which are communism) in the 20th century.
    First off how did you arrive at that number? Secondly you can't prove to me that Religion wasn't involved in those deaths so that number is meaningless.

    This in response to my statement: You and I do not have the right to encroach on anyone else's rights.

    Where did you say that we did? Well it seems to me that your post #355 is an attempt to justify that exactly--see below.

    In post # 355 in response to my post that said:
    Why is a protected thing (religion) proper to restrict in your view?
    You said: Because religion (especially when organized) tend to divide and perpetuate hatred in some form or another. And proof of that can be seen literally everywhere.

    I challenged you why it is appropriate to restrict religion and you responded in the affirmative "Because..." So, it sounds exactly like you advocate the restriction Religion.

    So, exactly how am I misinterpreting what you said?

    You also said in post 355 in response to my statement:
    Why should anyone have to restrict their political activities because of Religious beliefs?--KAM1138
    You Said: If they however are able to influence a political figure into enacting laws that go against the majority view, including mine, I have a problem with that. If they put up banners and ads in public places in an attempt to propagandize their religious beliefs, I have a problem with that. No one religious group should have that amount of influence.

    So, again--it seems quite clear that you do believe there should be some restriction, in conflict with saying there should be no encroachment of rights. So, you seem to be contradicting yourself.

    I think I was quite clear. I was talking about political influences. Even if I didn't spell it out, it wasn't difficult to deduce. I'll repeat, I don't care what your religious belief is as long as it doesn't affect me.




    Again--why? Unless someone tells you, you wouldn't even know what motivated them. You can like or dislike anything for any reason--it just doesn't have any validity in what someone else can or cannot do.
    It becomes valid when my rights are violated or restricted. Again, I don't care what you do or believe. I also don't care for religion so I'm curious about what the motivation is. If it's religious then that influences how I feel about it.


    You are aware of course that groups are simply collections of individuals.
    Your point escapes me.




    That might be your opinion. I think we can get along just fine without certain political views. In fact--certain political views are demonstrably harmful. Still--we cannot demand they be silenced.
    You are talking about 'certain' political views and I'm talking about 'differing' political views. Of course it goes without saying certain political views (communism for example) are harmful. However seeing two sides of the same issue can have many benefits.

    And again, who's demanding anyone be silenced? You keep dancing around the main points - encroachment of rights, separation of Church and State.


    Let me clarify if I may. My position is that Candidate Obama was given fawning media coverage--despite there being some negative (actually, I'm not sure that factual discussions can be called negative--just factual), and that he was protected by the media from these various issues at different times, resulting in a net boost to his campaign. In short--I think the Media as a whole helped the Obama Campaign, through direct positive coverage or simply not asking the hard questions.
    You've said the same things in 3 different ways. Sorry I disagree. You have your position and I have mine. You can spin it any which way, it's not going to change what I saw and how I interpreted it.

    I'm not sure you understand what a "True" Christian is. You seem to be referring to a PERFECT Christian, and if that is the question, then I certainly am not. However, it doesn't mean that is just a meaningless label.
    IMO, if you're not a perfect Christian, you don't qualify.



    How so?
    If religious belief is born from illogic, how can they be logical?


    Yes, there is for certain such a thing as flawed logic. Religion is not based on logic, but again--it doesn't mean that an idea that is inspired by religion is illogical.
    Whatever idea that may seem logical wasn't truly inspired by Religion. It was more than likely inspired by common sense. The 10 commandments? Pure common sense. Religion wasn't needed for that.

    Name one logical idea inspired my Religion?





    I likely wouldn't be part of a religion that advocated murder. Common sense is the source for not murdering? We could probably have a whole thread on this, but I suggest that one could justify that murdering someone might in fact make great sense for someone in a particular situation.
    Yes, when common sense is ditched in favor of emotion, bad things can happen.After all we are human and some people have defects that allow for bad judgement at the worst possible time. However that doesn't take away from the fact that pretty much everyone knows murder is bad. Religion is not needed for that.

    I would argue that it is universally true--murder is bad, because you wouldn't want to be subject to murder.
    ??


    As you can see above--you appear to deny saying things that you actually did say, but I am not seeking to put words into your mouth in any case.
    Well you appear to read whatever you want from what I wrote. I can't control that. I was quite clear as far as I'm concerned.


    Well, that's what I'm saying, it doesn't matter if it is a "problem" for you or not--you have no right to put limits of any kind on anyone thinking anything for any reason and engaging in political activities.
    Engaging in political activities that result in an encroachment of my rights is a problem for me and I have a right to voice my opposition and demand that it stops.


    So, I've got to say I'm a bit confused. However, if the bottom line is that you acknowledge you cannot rightfully restrict anyone's political motivations or actions no matter the source (including Religion), then we've got no issue.
    As long as it doesn't restrict my rights / beliefs, then we have no issue.
    Last edited by darreno1; 02/14/2010 at 10:53 PM.
    Sony Clie --> Tungsten t2 --> iPhone3g --> Palm Pre --> Droid
  6. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #526  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    I looked very hard. All of 2 minutes on Google.

    BTW We are apparently the same person on here. Groovy can not comprehend that there may be more than one person on here that would not buy into his neoconservatism...
    What?
  7. #527  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    What?
    Sorry about that! I meant to refer to "Woof" and not you. It must be the double O's that threw me off!!!
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  8. #528  
    Not sure where this thread took a hard right turn, but seems like it isn't about writing on Palin's hand. In addition, what do you people do for a living? LOL I know I post on here a fair amount, and it certainly eats into my life some, but holy cow, how do you guys have time to work? Are you independently wealthy?
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  9. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #529  
    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    According to webster a cult has one of several definitions:

    "a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents"

    No where does it say it has to be mainstream. Although you may find one that mentions a small group. So yes I can fit religion into the definition of a cult.
    Yes, you can find an uncommon use of the term to apply it in a distorted way to apply to mainstream religions, contrary to the common usage and meaning--including other definitions. Congratulations--you've demonstrated your anti-religious stance.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    If it's not a matter of logic then it's illogical. And like I said before, I don't expect you to accept my conclusion.
    No. Illogical means that it contradicts logic. Saying that logic is not applicable doesn't mean it is illogical--it means logic is not a tool that can be applied properly. Given your tendency to use uncommon meanings for words, I'm sure you can find some definition which fits.

    Trying to prove or disprove Religion with logic is like trying to measure distance with a Thermometer. You can't blame distance because you you are using the wrong tool. Logic applies to a matter of logic, which Religion is not. It is neither logical or illogical.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Of course it does. Can you prove that something that clearly doesn't exist, exists? If you can I'm all ears. Prove to me that God exists.
    Perhaps you didn't listen to me in the first place. My premise was that you couldn't prove or disprove Religion by logic, so OBVIOUSLY I can't prove it--I already stated that as my position. YOU claimed otherwise and have utterly failed to back up YOUR claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    I don't need to prove the experiments myself. Yours is an extremely silly argument. Many of our technology that we take for granted exists because of science. There is proof the mechanisms work. Religion is based on beliefs with no proof and no mechanisms by which to prove them. It was a product of an ignorant society. In a nutshell, Science is about knowing, Religion is about guessing and faith.
    Actually, if you knew anything about Religion, you would find that many of the reasons people believe what they do are due to events that actually occurred in the real world.

    Secondly, you are right--you don't have to prove things to believe them--and I'm sure you believe many things without proof of any kind--which is my point. My argument is simply one that you cannot accept, because it points out that what you criticize is the same mechanism in which you accept many things in your life. If you accept this premise, then your foundational criticism for your anti-religious stance falls away, so I don't expect that you are eager to do that.
    In reality--it seems to me that you are perfectly willing to accept things without even attempting to verify any proof whatsoever, but are eager to criticize others for using that same mechanism. You claim there is a distinction because something physical CAN be proven, and while that is true it isn't the point.

    The point is that YOU, who claim to be some creature of logic, believe many things without using logic to make those determinations. You simply believe what you are told.

    Its likely that you believe some scientific theory which is not proven, and in fact, one cannot actually prove something--you can only disprove it. So, your entire position is a fallacy--that you believe things only if they are proven.
    More accurately, your reasoning for why it is impossible for you to believe in Religion is contradicted if you believe anything that is not proven. In other words--you claim it is ridiculous to believe in God, because it isn't proven, but ignore the fact that people believe all sorts of thing that are unproven. This criteria is selected to meet the goal.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    I believe that it is true because of the results of their hard work. Even this computer I'm typing on is a product of science. It works. I don't kneed to prove every scientific principle involved, someone already did it and it's obvious they work. Again, what a silly argument to even consider, not sure why I'm even involved to this stage.
    You are cherry picking things while ignoring others. It is clear that a computer works, because you are directly experiencing it. Unless you can claim that everything you believe to be true has been directly experienced by you, then it is highly likely that you believe at least SOMETHING based on faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    And you know this how? By making wild assumptions? Please name one thing you think I accept without 'applying logic'?
    I am not really sure what exactly you accept, so that is hard to say, but there are numerous scientific theories out there that are not proven--do you believe in any theories?
    Do you believe that Alexander the Great Existed? Prove it.
    Do you believe that Thought exists? Prove it.
    Which theory about the origin of the Universe do you believe if Any? Prove it.

    What I'm suggesting is that you accept things, and don't even bother to prove them to yourself. You mentioned using a computer. You probably know why a computer works--but have you ever actually looked into the electronics, mechanics and science behind it (for example)? Do you really KNOW how it works, or are you simply satisfied that it does.

    Do you believe in evolution? Have you investigated this and verified that what is claimed is true, or do you simply believe what you are told about it--or any scientific issue for that matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Because something hasn't been proven yet doesn't mean it can't be theorized using logic based on science. I used the example of Alien life in a reply to someone else. No one has proven it exists but it's logical, given our current knowlegde of the processes in the formation of life, to think it exists and to even go so far as to accept it.
    So, as you point out here--people believe something that isn't proven.

    Christianity is based on the belief that this person existed, and did various things, including returning from the dead. This is noted in the bible for example. Now, you can choose to believe that these events were real (evidence) and take them to have further meaning, which requires a degree of faith. I always find it interesting that people (perhaps you) like to refer to the "invisible man" or some other childish jab, but actually, Christianity is based on the idea that God actually walked the Earth (as Jesus)--a physical event. Now, of course it is impossible to verify if any of that ever occurred, but that's no different than any historical event. An account is all we can ever have of most events in history.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    However the existence of an all powerful being cannot be theorized to exist logically based anything we currently know or have seen.
    Well, it would be accurate to say that we have no means of testing that theory, so it cannot be judged by the scientific method. Of course, one could conceive of the possibility of a Being showing up and demonstrating its abilities in a scientifically verifiable way, but the conclusion as to what that means would remain a matter of belief.

    Whether you believe it or now, some people believe that Jesus walked the Earth, died and returned to life, and it is further believed that people witnessed this, and told others about it--resulting today in Christianity having a billion or more adherents. Now, like any other historical claim, it is very difficult or impossible to verify, but I'm guessing that you accept many historical events as true without any proof that meets scientific or logical muster.

    Perhaps I'm wrong--perhaps you believe almost nothing, except what you have yourself experienced and/or verified, but I highly doubt it.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Not necessarily, it depends on the logic involved. If you're going to start from a standpoint devoid of any logic (ie the existence of a supreme being) then I will ask you provide some evidence. It doesn't mean that I don't accept a theory that hasn't yet been proven but is based on sound science. It's a big leap of faith to explain everything away by the existence of an all-knowing, all-powerful being.
    Please feel free to present me your logical proof of how life began? Can you prove it? What makes you believe that believing one unproven thing vs another is "explaining away everything."
    The only difference is that you actively seek to deny anything that you cannot fit into your chosen criteria of acceptable proof, despite likely believing many things without it.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Why not?
    If you don't want to explain yourself, you don't have to. My answer however, would be (as it has been) that the actual thing affects you or it doesn't, and the reasoning does not. My suggestion is that the "why" is simply an exercise in meaningless prejudice.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    All through history until recently Religion had a very big role in the government of a lot of societies. It's next to impossible to exclude religion from having a contributing factor in many of the conflicts through early history to even today (Middle East, Eastern Russia for example). Even Adolf Hilter used his religious faith to justify the extermination of the 'killers of God'.
    Yes, so what you seem to be admitting is that you are singling our Religion as the cause, while ignoring the fact that in many cases it might be nothing more than an excuse. You've admitted that you cannot separate these things in many cases, but point to Religion to blame--another exercise in your prejudice.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    I don't need to prove some arbitrary number you made up. Even if the true number is 1/8 of 100 million, it's still too much.
    Arbitrary number? Look up the deaths caused by direct action of Communists, and perhaps you will see how not arbitrary that is. Of course you are again side-stepping the point. The deaths that occur under Communist (specifically anti-religious) regimes is verifiable--and count easily in the tens of millions, yet you ignore these to persist at your attack (inaccurate as it may be) on Religion.

    So, 1/8th the number of deaths that you accuse Religion of is important but 8/8th due to anti-Religious things aren't. Totally illogical.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    First off how did you arrive at that number? Secondly you can't prove to me that Religion wasn't involved in those deaths so that number is meaningless.
    I don't suggest that the following is definitive, but through this you can easily verify for yourself that that 100 million number is anything but Arbitrary.
    The Black Book of Communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Religion wasn't involved? You are getting ridiculous here. Communism in the Soviet Union and China are specifically anti-Religious atheist systems. You tell me how Religion was involved.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    I think I was quite clear. I was talking about political influences. Even if I didn't spell it out, it wasn't difficult to deduce. I'll repeat, I don't care what your religious belief is as long as it doesn't affect me.
    You asked where you said something and I pointed it out, but if you say you meant something else, ok.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    It becomes valid when my rights are violated or restricted. Again, I don't care what you do or believe. I also don't care for religion so I'm curious about what the motivation is. If it's religious then that influences how I feel about it.
    Something violates your rights or it doesn't regardless of the reasoning. Reasoning isn't an effect that affects you. I suggest your position regarding rights is irrational. You make a distinction based on your hatred of something, accepting or rejecting the same thing (which determines if you are affected or not) based on reasoning. Totally illogical.


    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Your point escapes me.
    Yes. I was pointing out that groups are made up of individuals whose rights you cannot restrict, so claiming that you want to restrict the rights of a group is equally contradictory. Just because someone shares a belief (and hence forms a group) doesn't mean you can restrict them.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    You are talking about 'certain' political views and I'm talking about 'differing' political views. Of course it goes without saying certain political views (communism for example) are harmful. However seeing two sides of the same issue can have many benefits.
    Right, and if I said--oh you can think or talk about a particular political point of view...as long as it doesn't influence government, how would you feel about that? That's the exact argument you seem to be making in regards to a Religion inspired viewpoint.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    And again, who's demanding anyone be silenced? You keep dancing around the main points - encroachment of rights, separation of Church and State.
    Actually, you've stated clearly that you aren't interested in encroachment of rights alone--that you want to judge it based on the inspiration, so, I'm responding to that.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    You've said the same things in 3 different ways. Sorry I disagree. You have your position and I have mine. You can spin it any which way, it's not going to change what I saw and how I interpreted it.
    Ok--it isn't terribly relevant to the rest of this discussion anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    IMO, if you're not a perfect Christian, you don't qualify.
    And again--a wonderful demonstration that you don't understand Christianity at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    If religious belief is born from illogic, how can they be logical?
    I didn't say that Religious belief was born from Illogic. I said that Religion isn't a matter of logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Whatever idea that may seem logical wasn't truly inspired by Religion. It was more than likely inspired by common sense. The 10 commandments? Pure common sense. Religion wasn't needed for that.

    Name one logical idea inspired my Religion?
    Ah, so in other words--I must accept your claim. It's your way, because you say it is. If this were common sense, they why would anyone have to dictate these things as rules?

    Obviously, if someone had to dictate something be limited (like murder) it was OBVIOUSLY not governed by common sense. Further--your claim is illogical, because these things ARE part of a Religion that defined these rules at some point in the past (regardless of whether you believe the source is God or not). So, denying that these things were born of, and part of a Religion is nonsense. They were, and are today.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Yes, when common sense is ditched in favor of emotion, bad things can happen.After all we are human and some people have defects that allow for bad judgement at the worst possible time. However that doesn't take away from the fact that pretty much everyone knows murder is bad. Religion is not needed for that.
    Who said anything about Emotion?
    You say Religion is not needed for that? Again, you are ignoring that the society we have today is built on this foundation which came from Religion (the Ten Commandments for example). You claim that Religion isn't needed for that...right, law is, and "the law" and Religion in Judaism was largely the same thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    ??
    Look up the 'Golden rule' and it might help you understand.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Well you appear to read whatever you want from what I wrote. I can't control that. I was quite clear as far as I'm concerned.
    The references are above--I dealt directly with what you actually posted, and listed those references. I asked you to explain yourself and the apparent contradiction, and you declined. Don't pretend that your contradictions or attempts to deny what you posted are my fault.


    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Engaging in political activities that result in an encroachment of my rights is a problem for me and I have a right to voice my opposition and demand that it stops.
    True, but it seems you've said that you determine this based on the reasoning and not the actual effect it has on you. Reasoning does not encroach upon you--only the effect does, but you persist at refusing to acknowledge this. You have stated that the reasoning influences how you "feel" about something, which I take to mean it influences your approval or disapproval.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    As long as it doesn't restrict my rights / beliefs, then we have no issue.
    Yes, and this is determined only by effect, not whether you are emotionally bothered by Religion or not. If all you were trying to say is that you dislike Religion, there is no further need to discuss anything, because you've made that clear.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 02/15/2010 at 10:06 AM.
  10. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #530  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Not sure where this thread took a hard right turn, but seems like it isn't about writing on Palin's hand. In addition, what do you people do for a living? LOL I know I post on here a fair amount, and it certainly eats into my life some, but holy cow, how do you guys have time to work? Are you independently wealthy?
    Well, the better question is why there seems to be an continuous chain of attacks from leftists and are considered valid topics. Turning off into actual issues is a welcome change in my view.

    KAM
  11. #531  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Well, the better question is why there seems to be an continuous chain of attacks from leftists and are considered valid topics. Turning off into actual issues is a welcome change in my view.

    KAM
    It might be good to branch the diversions into separate threads, but it's hard to know in advance which ones will become extended discussions. It's kind of fun that the thread is living on. I know it's getting hard to read. The strategy I've taken for this thread is to scan the posts and only respond to or an area where I think I can shed more light than what has already been said.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  12. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #532  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    It might be good to branch the diversions into separate threads, but it's hard to know in advance which ones will become extended discussions. It's kind of fun that the thread is living on. I know it's getting hard to read. The strategy I've taken for this thread is to scan the posts and only respond to or an area where I think I can shed more light than what has already been said.
    Well, It seems like most thread that has lasted is based off of some attack of some sort and in my view, the accusation is usually petty or next to meaningless, but that's just my opinion.

    In essence there seems to be little more going on here than an attack and response sessions with people well entrenched in their ideological positions. Having different views is fine, but any sort of constructive exchange is difficult to do in this environment.

    KAM
  13. #533  
    Regarding darreno1's and KAM's dicussion on religion vs government, I think we can summarize by saying it would be difficult/impossible (and actually repressive) to eliminate the basing of our laws on religious or other sets of beliefs. The only important thing in a democratic society is that each member gets an equal voice. I agree with darreno1 that religions should not "force" their views on others (at least in their government). Individuals (regardless of any group affiliation) have a right to free speech and darreno1's suggestion that some groups should keep their views to themselves is preposterous and anti-American.

    Regarding the "logic vs faith" discussion, I believe both are needed in mostly everything we do in life. We are lucky to be the most informed creatures on the planet, but that doesn't mean we know everything. Also we can't put all religions into a box that says they all either are or are not logical. In fact most people would view many religions (other than their own) as illogical similarly to how darreno1 boxes (seemingly) all religions. My personal view is that science cannot prove religion wrong (if there is one God who created everything). When you go back and consider our human understanding that "all causes have a causer", it's clear for me that at least my human understanding is more finite than than what my intellect says is logical and possible. This leaves me open to the very logical possibility that something in my world/universe might be more powerful than what I can understand. Humans throughout history have attributed this character to one or more gods. Therefore, to me, the concept of religion is not illogical.
    Last edited by sudoer; 02/15/2010 at 11:31 AM.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  14. #534  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Well, It seems like most thread that has lasted is based off of some attack of some sort and in my view, the accusation is usually petty or next to meaningless, but that's just my opinion.
    That's my observation also.

    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    In essence there seems to be little more going on here than an attack and response sessions with people well entrenched in their ideological positions. Having different views is fine, but any sort of constructive exchange is difficult to do in this environment.
    That's really up to each of us to be open minded. I simply won't participate in discussions that I believe will be non-productive.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  15. #535  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Yes, you can find an uncommon use of the term to apply it in a distorted way to apply to mainstream religions, contrary to the common usage and meaning--including other definitions. Congratulations--you've demonstrated your anti-religious stance.
    Thanks.


    No. Illogical means that it contradicts logic. Saying that logic is not applicable doesn't mean it is illogical--it means logic is not a tool that can be applied properly. Given your tendency to use uncommon meanings for words, I'm sure you can find some definition which fits.
    Believing in a supreme being contradicts logic. My point all along.

    Trying to prove or disprove Religion with logic is like trying to measure distance with a Thermometer. You can't blame distance because you you are using the wrong tool. Logic applies to a matter of logic, which Religion is not. It is neither logical or illogical.
    Distance can be measured and do exist, that's the difference. Your analogy fails. And just to play devil's advocate, what would be the correct 'tool' by which to measure Religion?

    Perhaps you didn't listen to me in the first place. My premise was that you couldn't prove or disprove Religion by logic, so OBVIOUSLY I can't prove it--I already stated that as my position. YOU claimed otherwise and have utterly failed to back up YOUR claim.
    Thank you! And where did I claim you could prove it? Do you even read what you write? - this is in reference to your last sentence.


    Actually, if you knew anything about Religion, you would find that many of the reasons people believe what they do are due to events that actually occurred in the real world.
    It's very hard to accept many of the 'events' in the Bible at face value. I do believe some of these characters existed. However given the lack of scientific knowledge and the heavy belief in religion and superstition that existed at the time, it's unlikely many of these events occurred as described.

    Secondly, you are right--you don't have to prove things to believe them--and I'm sure you believe many things without proof of any kind--which is my point. My argument is simply one that you cannot accept, because it points out that what you criticize is the same mechanism in which you accept many things in your life.
    What are you babbling on about? What mechanism? You stated clearly you cannot prove the existence of God and it isn't a matter of logic (basically a nice way of saying it's illogical). In science, there are experiments (cause and effect). What is there in Religion? Just faith - not good enough.

    If you accept this premise, then your foundational criticism for your anti-religious stance falls away,
    No it doesn't. And you are again trying to equate religion with Science.

    You claim there is a distinction because something physical CAN be proven, and while that is true it isn't the point.
    It is exactly the point. I accept many of the scientific theories because there are results leading up to the them that can be proven. The ones that can't are still based on sound logic.


    The point is that YOU, who claim to be some creature of logic, believe many things without using logic to make those determinations. You simply believe what you are told.
    No this is YOUR fabrication and twist, a result of your illogic.

    Its likely that you believe some scientific theory which is not proven, and in fact, one cannot actually prove something--you can only disprove it.
    Where'd you get that from?


    More accurately, your reasoning for why it is impossible for you to believe in Religion is contradicted if you believe anything that is not proven. In other words--you claim it is ridiculous to believe in God, because it isn't proven
    No I claimed it was illogical.


    You are cherry picking things while ignoring others. It is clear that a computer works, because you are directly experiencing it. Unless you can claim that everything you believe to be true has been directly experienced by you, then it is highly likely that you believe at least SOMETHING based on faith.
    Faith in science and the scientific method, yes.



    I am not really sure what exactly you accept, so that is hard to say, but there are numerous scientific theories out there that are not proven--do you believe in any theories?
    Do you believe that Alexander the Great Existed? Prove it.
    Do you believe that Thought exists? Prove it.
    Which theory about the origin of the Universe do you believe if Any? Prove it.

    What I'm suggesting is that you accept things, and don't even bother to prove them to yourself. You mentioned using a computer. You probably know why a computer works--but have you ever actually looked into the electronics, mechanics and science behind it (for example)? Do you really KNOW how it works, or are you simply satisfied that it does.
    You're being ridiculous, sorry. I'm not going waste my time. You want proof? Google it.

    Do you believe in evolution? Have you investigated this and verified that what is claimed is true, or do you simply believe what you are told about it--or any scientific issue for that matter.
    Google is your friend. Search for fossils, evolution.




    Christianity is based on the belief that this person existed, and did various things, including returning from the dead. This is noted in the bible for example. Now, you can choose to believe that these events were real (evidence) and take them to have further meaning, which requires a degree of faith. I always find it interesting that people (perhaps you) like to refer to the "invisible man" or some other childish jab, but actually, Christianity is based on the idea that God actually walked the Earth (as Jesus)--a physical event. Now, of course it is impossible to verify if any of that ever occurred, but that's no different than any historical event. An account is all we can ever have of most events in history.
    No the biiiiiiiiig difference is the 'hokus pokus' i.e the walking on water, parting the sea etc. Would it surprise you if I told you I believe there was a Jesus? I do believe he existed. What I have a hard time believing, is what they claimed he did and who they claim he was. I prefer to err on the side of rationality.


    Well, it would be accurate to say that we have no means of testing that theory, so it cannot be judged by the scientific method. Of course, one could conceive of the possibility of a Being showing up and demonstrating its abilities in a scientifically verifiable way, but the conclusion as to what that means would remain a matter of belief.
    It's not even a theory, just a belief, there is a difference.

    Whether you believe it or now, some people believe that Jesus walked the Earth, died and returned to life, and it is further believed that people witnessed this, and told others about it--resulting today in Christianity having a billion or more adherents. Now, like any other historical claim, it is very difficult or impossible to verify, but I'm guessing that you accept many historical events as true without any proof that meets scientific or logical muster.
    Here you are totally incorrect. There are many historical claims / events that have been verified by hard evidence. But again you are bringing that 'hokus pokus' into the discussion again that completely defies logic and therefore impossible to accept.

    Perhaps I'm wrong--perhaps you believe almost nothing, except what you have yourself experienced and/or verified, but I highly doubt it.
    I don't believe in hokus pokus. If it's part of the storyline I automatically reject it.


    Please feel free to present me your logical proof of how life began? Can you prove it? What makes you believe that believing one unproven thing vs another is "explaining away everything."
    The only difference is that you actively seek to deny anything that you cannot fit into your chosen criteria of acceptable proof, despite likely believing many things without it.
    Well sorry If I don't accept the existence of a all-knowing, all-powerful being who made everything.

    If you don't want to explain yourself, you don't have to. My answer however, would be (as it has been) that the actual thing affects you or it doesn't, and the reasoning does not. My suggestion is that the "why" is simply an exercise in meaningless prejudice.
    If it's born from religion I give it more scrutiny. Sorry call it prejudice if you want to. That's me and I have my reasons.


    Yes, so what you seem to be admitting is that you are singling our Religion as the cause, while ignoring the fact that in many cases it might be nothing more than an excuse. You've admitted that you cannot separate these things in many cases, but point to Religion to blame--another exercise in your prejudice.
    Correction, I'm singling out Religion as a contributing factor.


    Arbitrary number? Look up the deaths caused by direct action of Communists, and perhaps you will see how not arbitrary that is. Of course you are again side-stepping the point. The deaths that occur under Communist (specifically anti-religious) regimes is verifiable--and count easily in the tens of millions, yet you ignore these to persist at your attack (inaccurate as it may be) on Religion.
    Two wrongs don't make a right. You seem to be admitting Religion has caused countless deaths but it's ok because it's not as bad as communism. I never said communism was good. They're BOTH bad.

    So, 1/8th the number of deaths that you accuse Religion of is important but 8/8th due to anti-Religious things aren't. Totally illogical.
    That's your conclusion, not mine.


    I don't suggest that the following is definitive, but through this you can easily verify for yourself that that 100 million number is anything but Arbitrary.
    The Black Book of Communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    There is controversy as to the exact numbers. Read the article yourself. Yes it's still a lot but does this somehow excuse the deaths caused by Religion over the centuries or that are occuring even today?

    Religion wasn't involved? You are getting ridiculous here. Communism in the Soviet Union and China are specifically anti-Religious atheist systems. You tell me how Religion was involved.
    Ok so communism is bad, and...?

    You asked where you said something and I pointed it out, but if you say you meant something else, ok.
    No you didn't, you pointed out something that you interpreted in your own way.


    Something violates your rights or it doesn't regardless of the reasoning. Reasoning isn't an effect that affects you.
    You don't know me, how can you be so sure?

    I suggest your position regarding rights is irrational. You make a distinction based on your hatred of something, accepting or rejecting the same thing (which determines if you are affected or not) based on reasoning. Totally illogical.
    Wow what a convoluted statement. The only thing I see that's irrational is your trying to justify your belief in the illogical.



    Yes. I was pointing out that groups are made up of individuals whose rights you cannot restrict, so claiming that you want to restrict the rights of a group is equally contradictory.
    Since when is encroaching on other's rights, a right?

    Just because someone shares a belief (and hence forms a group) doesn't mean you can restrict them.
    Of course you can restrict their influence.... when its obvious their belief is going to be a problem for others.


    Right, and if I said--oh you can think or talk about a particular political point of view...as long as it doesn't influence government, how would you feel about that?


    That's the exact argument you seem to be making in regards to a Religion inspired viewpoint.
    No I'm not. That's your twist.



    Actually, you've stated clearly that you aren't interested in encroachment of rights alone--that you want to judge it based on the inspiration, so, I'm responding to that.
    Judging it does not equal silencing it.



    And again--a wonderful demonstration that you don't understand Christianity at all.
    It's either you are or you aren't, there's no in between. But that's ok, you can continue to use that label if it makes you feel better or should I say 'superior'.



    I didn't say that Religious belief was born from Illogic. I said that Religion isn't a matter of logic.
    And I said it before and will repeat, if it's not a matter of logic, it's illogical.



    Ah, so in other words--I must accept your claim. It's your way, because you say it is. If this were common sense, they why would anyone have to dictate these things as rules?
    Whether dictated or not, people still kill. People that kill don't do it because they didn't get the memo. Generally it's because they lack control or are insane. Many of these very same people KNOW it's wrong to murder. Rules exists to try to keep order in the form of punishment.

    Obviously, if someone had to dictate something be limited (like murder) it was OBVIOUSLY not governed by common sense.
    Are you seriously trying to say that if someone isn't told murder is bad, that they'd go around murdering? Silly.


    Further--your claim is illogical, because these things ARE part of a Religion that defined these rules at some point in the past (regardless of whether you believe the source is God or not).
    And you know this how? Because it appears in the Bible? LOL, sorry but you'll have to do a whole lot better than that.

    So, denying that these things were born of, and part of a Religion is nonsense. They were, and are today.
    You're so brainwashed you deny even what your own common sense tells you.


    Who said anything about Emotion?
    You say Religion is not needed for that? Again, you are ignoring that the society we have today is built on this foundation which came from Religion (the Ten Commandments for example). You claim that Religion isn't needed for that...right, law is, and "the law" and Religion in Judaism was largely the same thing.
    None of what you said invalidates the claim that the 10 commandments are common sense laws. Man invented them just like he invented Religion.








    The references are above--I dealt directly with what you actually posted, and listed those references. I asked you to explain yourself and the apparent contradiction, and you declined. Don't pretend that your contradictions or attempts to deny what you posted are my fault.
    No you simply interpreted them incorrectly and it seems more and more to be on purpose.



    True, but it seems you've said that you determine this based on the reasoning and not the actual effect it has on you. Reasoning does not encroach upon you--only the effect does, but you persist at refusing to acknowledge this. You have stated that the reasoning influences how you "feel" about something, which I take to mean it influences your approval or disapproval.
    I merely stated the reasoning matters as well. You seem to adding your own padding and twists but you can carry on, it's actually pretty funny.


    Yes, and this is determined only by effect, not whether you are emotionally bothered by Religion or not. If all you were trying to say is that you dislike Religion, there is no further need to discuss anything, because you've made that clear.
    For you it is, not me. And yes I do dislike religion.
    Sony Clie --> Tungsten t2 --> iPhone3g --> Palm Pre --> Droid
  16. #536  
    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    .
    Believing in a supreme being contradicts logic. My point all along.
    That's a perspective view.

    If it appears to be illogical.

    What if the Supreme Being is real?

    Who now will appear illogical?
    Just call me Berd.
  17. #537  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    In addition, what do you people do for a living? LOL I know I post on here a fair amount, and it certainly eats into my life some, but holy cow, how do you guys have time to work? Are you independently wealthy?
    We're all outta work.
    And we feel the most good can be accomplished posting here at T|C.
    Just call me Berd.
  18. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #538  
    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Thanks.
    I give credit where credit is due.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Believing in a supreme being contradicts logic. My point all along.
    You've yet to prove or disprove any element of Religion. My claim was that you could not, and you haven't.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Distance can be measured and do exist, that's the difference. Your analogy fails. And just to play devil's advocate, what would be the correct 'tool' by which to measure Religion?
    There is no tool that I'm aware of--my point all along. Religious belief is a matter of faith. The analogy doesn't fail--you're just ignoring it.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Thank you! And where did I claim you could prove it? Do you even read what you write? - this is in reference to your last sentence.
    I find myself constantly asking myself the same of you. To remind you, AGAIN, my claim was that you could not prove or disprove religion with logic, because it is not a logical issue, which relates to the issue of attempting to use an improper tool to measure something. Again--you disputed that claim (making your position you CAN use the wrong tool to measure something) and you've yet to support your claim in any way, except to make declarations.

    For someone who claims to be so governed by logic, you surely aren't demonstrating that. You've proven nothing, while claiming that you both can and have.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    It's very hard to accept many of the 'events' in the Bible at face value. I do believe some of these characters existed. However given the lack of scientific knowledge and the heavy belief in religion and superstition that existed at the time, it's unlikely many of these events occurred as described.
    I understand that's your chosen view, I see no indication that you have any proof whatsoever to support that view.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    What are you babbling on about? What mechanism? You stated clearly you cannot prove the existence of God and it isn't a matter of logic (basically a nice way of saying it's illogical). In science, there are experiments (cause and effect). What is there in Religion? Just faith - not good enough.
    You are really confusing yourself.
    The "mechanism" I'm talking about is the process in which you believe something. You've stated that you cannot believe in God (or whatever) because it isn't proven. My position is that of course it cannot be proven because it isn't an issue of faith. You claim it is a matter of logic that can be proven or disproven--which again, you have failed to demonstrate in any way.

    I then questioned your consistency, claiming that you (and everyone else) believes many things with little or no proof--in other words, you simply believe it. You have Faith that it is true, in the same way that a religious person has faith that their beliefs are true. The object of your faith is not the issue (which you clearly are not understanding), but the means in which you choose to believe something.

    You simply choose the things you scorn (in this case religion) and issue a reason, while not applying that same reasoning in a uniform way (Again--unless you believe very few things, and demand evidence and proofs for everything in your life, which I highly doubt).

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    No it doesn't. And you are again trying to equate religion with Science.
    No, I'm not. I'm merely pointing out the inconsistency in your listed reasoning.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    It is exactly the point. I accept many of the scientific theories because there are results leading up to the them that can be proven. The ones that can't are still based on sound logic.
    No, not "Can be proven" which is an assumption you might adopt, but unless it is proven, it is just a belief. Proven or NOT proven is the question. Can you honestly say that you have independently evaluated whatever "proof" is being forwarded for everything you believe? I would say anyone claiming that is a liar. Thus, without doing this, you simply believe that the proof exists and is valid. Do you know these things or do you simply believe them? Surely there are things that you (and everyone) knows, but there are many others that they simply accept--they believe them without even asking about proof of any kind. Its also likely that if you've believed any high-power scientific theories you've likely been proven wrong, because they change all the time and things that were believed to be true are proven false.

    Again--do you believe in that thoughts exist? Prove it. If not, then by your standards, you would have to conclude that thoughts do not exist correct? Thoughts if not provable are then illogical by your reasoning.


    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    No this is YOUR fabrication and twist, a result of your illogic.
    Ok, put up or shut up. Does time exist? Prove it. Since, it is a FABRICATION of mine to claim that you believe things, then you can of course provide proof for everything that you believe correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Where'd you get that from?
    Someone that claims to be such a student of logic would understand this. Simply stated you can have 1000 indications of any theory being true, but the next one always stands the possibility of being false--and if so, the theory is disproven (or at a minimum incorrect).

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    No I claimed it was illogical.
    I said it could not be proven or disproven and you said it could. You then just declared it illogical.


    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Faith in science and the scientific method, yes.
    And many other things I suspect, but cannot prove, given that I cannot read your mind, and you have refused thus far to prove things challenging your claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    You're being ridiculous, sorry. I'm not going waste my time. You want proof? Google it.
    Yes, the defense of someone who doesn't have an answer.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but logical proof is the criteria you use to declare something impossible or nonexistent, but as I've been saying--you don't seem to be showing any indication that you actually follow that line of reasoning. Rather it seems its a simplistic justification to attack and dismiss something you merely dislike (Religion), which is fine. You can dislike it for any reason or no reason, but that's not good enough for you. Instead you want to pretend that you've somehow proven this, when you haven't, and cannot.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Google is your friend. Search for fossils, evolution.
    Again, you are running from the point, and refusing to answer the question.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    No the biiiiiiiiig difference is the 'hokus pokus' i.e the walking on water, parting the sea etc. Would it surprise you if I told you I believe there was a Jesus? I do believe he existed. What I have a hard time believing, is what they claimed he did and who they claim he was. I prefer to err on the side of rationality.
    That's fine with me. However, apparently, people claimed to have witnessed these incredible things, and some of us believe them. Physicists tell us about amazing, unlikely and in some cases hardly believable things too, derived by processing information using complex equations that the average person probably can't BEGIN to understand. Yet, some people believe that as well. Its not that they are the same things--but that whether a third party believes them or not is based not on proven evidence, but belief that it is true.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    It's not even a theory, just a belief, there is a difference.
    That's true--it is not a testable theory in the scientific sense, which is why it cannot be proven or disproven with logic or experimentation.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Here you are totally incorrect. There are many historical claims / events that have been verified by hard evidence. But again you are bringing that 'hokus pokus' into the discussion again that completely defies logic and therefore impossible to accept.
    Verified how? Eyewitness account?
    The Claim is that various people witnessed Jesus dying (verified as dead) and then later alive again. That's an eyewitness account. Why would an eyewitness account of some action of Alexander the Great for example be more readily accepted by you? The difference is that you just reject the possibility of 'hokus pokus' not from any position of evidence, but rather assumption. Well, I've got news for you--there are many things that were considered impossible or factual that were later proven to be very possible. Just because you make a CHOICE to believe or not believe something isn't logical proof.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    I don't believe in hokus pokus. If it's part of the storyline I automatically reject it.
    Ah, and there you've said it. You don't BELIEVE.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Well sorry If I don't accept the existence of a all-knowing, all-powerful being who made everything.
    The fact that you haven't realized this isn't about that indicates that you've understood almost nothing said here. And again--you are fleeing the point.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    If it's born from religion I give it more scrutiny. Sorry call it prejudice if you want to. That's me and I have my reasons.
    Sure, that's your preference.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Correction, I'm singling out Religion as a contributing factor.
    Yes, which is an indication of your bias.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Two wrongs don't make a right. You seem to be admitting Religion has caused countless deaths but it's ok because it's not as bad as communism. I never said communism was good. They're BOTH bad.
    Yes. My point was to point out the tendency of people who hate religion to single out Religion in a distorted way to justify their hatred/dislike/prejudice, whatever the case may be. It's selective outrage.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    That's your conclusion, not mine.
    No, rather it is just another demonstration of your bias.


    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    There is controversy as to the exact numbers. Read the article yourself. Yes it's still a lot but does this somehow excuse the deaths caused by Religion over the centuries or that are occuring even today?
    I never sought to excuse anything did I? There is some controversy, which is exactly why I said the 100 million was a rough number--you are the one who attempted to declare that arbitrary, and when I provide information indicating that is isn't you shift gears.

    The point is, I'm well aware of your bias regarding religion and your selective outrage in order to justify your position.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Ok so communism is bad, and...?
    Again--just an example of how subjective your reasoning is. Why rail against religion as a horrible thing that caused some number of deaths, when there is a much more direct example with larger verifiable numbers available. The answer of course is that you wish to attack religion, so You find a claim to support your chosen hatred.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    No you didn't, you pointed out something that you interpreted in your own way.
    I quoted you directly--deny it if you wish.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    You don't know me, how can you be so sure?
    Because your claim is illogical. A reason is not an effect, and therefore cannot affect you--by definition.


    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Wow what a convoluted statement. The only thing I see that's irrational is your trying to justify your belief in the illogical.
    What makes you think that I've attempted to justify my belief at all in this entire conversation. Please stop grasping at straws.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Since when is encroaching on other's rights, a right?
    It isn't, and I didn't say it was.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Of course you can restrict their influence.... when its obvious their belief is going to be a problem for others.
    You do not have the right to restrict someone on the basis of have a problem with their beliefs. How you fail to understand this is beyond me.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    No I'm not. That's your twist.
    No, its an indication of the inconsistency in your "logic."

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Judging it does not equal silencing it.
    That's true, but you have spoken throughout this about "restricting" influence for example on the basis of your disapproving of their belief, so you seem to want it both ways depending on what line you are responding to.


    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    It's either you are or you aren't, there's no in between. But that's ok, you can continue to use that label if it makes you feel better or should I say 'superior'.
    You have no idea what you are talking about, and I'm guessing you forgot the chain of what was said in order to make this nonsensical statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    And I said it before and will repeat, if it's not a matter of logic, it's illogical.
    If its not a matter of logic, it is neither logical or illogical, and cannot be measured with logic at all. Again, here you are attempting to measure distance with a thermometer, and failing to understand why that's not valid still.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Whether dictated or not, people still kill. People that kill don't do it because they didn't get the memo. Generally it's because they lack control or are insane. Many of these very same people KNOW it's wrong to murder. Rules exists to try to keep order in the form of punishment.
    Yes. What if it makes perfect sense (common sense) for someone to murder someone else (let's say to avoid them informing on them). So, then is it or is it not common sense to not murder someone. On second though--forget it--this is going nowhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Are you seriously trying to say that if someone isn't told murder is bad, that they'd go around murdering? Silly.
    I'm telling you that you are looking at things with very little context.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    And you know this how? Because it appears in the Bible? LOL, sorry but you'll have to do a whole lot better than that.
    Actually, its well established that the Ten Commandments are part of Judaism from the distant past--a historical fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    You're so brainwashed you deny even what your own common sense tells you.
    I'm merely stating historical facts, that you have a need to deny apparently in order to maintain your claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    None of what you said invalidates the claim that the 10 commandments are common sense laws. Man invented them just like he invented Religion.
    Regardless of who invented them--they are an inherent part of Religion--established long before our society, and serve as at least one foundational element of our society. You continue to avoid the point.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    No you simply interpreted them incorrectly and it seems more and more to be on purpose.
    I quoted them in order to give you a chance to clarify, and instead you've chosen to simply deny what was said and quoted.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    I merely stated the reasoning matters as well. You seem to adding your own padding and twists but you can carry on, it's actually pretty funny.
    Well, what matters to you is up to you. The effect is whatever it is regardless of reasoning (which differs from person to person).

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    For you it is, not me. And yes I do dislike religion.
    And thus you demonstrate exactly how little logic means to you.

    Lastly, apparently your prejudice towards religion is so great, that you weren't able to avoid drifting into nonsensical claims like my being "brainwashed" and such, which is nonsense given that no argument I made depended on religious belief at all. What it does indicate however, is how your anti-religious views distort your ability to deal with the "logic" that you tout, but apparently do not follow, except where it is a convenient means of attacking what you subjectively choose to dislike.

    You could have saved us both a lot of time and effort if you simply said "I don't like Religion, and I find various justifications for that" in the beginning, because it seems as if, you haven't really gone beyond that in anything you've said here. I say embrace your prejudice and be honest about it. I'm fine with people hating things...or strongly disliking things--whatever. I'd just prefer you spared me the so-called "logic" in favor of a simple and honest expression of opinion.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 02/15/2010 at 02:33 PM.
  19. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #539  
    Quote Originally Posted by berdinkerdickle View Post
    That's a perspective view.

    If it appears to be illogical.

    What if the Supreme Being is real?

    Who now will appear illogical?
    So you don't believe that there being a "Supreme Being" defies logic, at least, logic that's based on scientific principles? Defying logic does not mean untrue. It just means it.... defies logic. The whole religion is a faith thing, right? If it was a logic thing, we'd all be believers, and of the same faith.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  20. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #540  
    Quote Originally Posted by berdinkerdickle View Post
    That's a perspective view.

    If it appears to be illogical.

    What if the Supreme Being is real?

    Who now will appear illogical?
    Trust me--you are barking up the wrong tree here. "Logic" is apparently a very subjective thing for some.

    KAM

Posting Permissions