Page 28 of 32 FirstFirst ... 1823242526272829303132 LastLast
Results 541 to 560 of 639
  1. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #541  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    That's my observation also.
    Yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    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.
    That's a major failing on my part. I keep thinking that there is this chance that various exchanges CAN be productive, but in most cases...that's just wishful thinking on my part.

    KAM
  2. #542  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    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.
    I'm not sure I'd rule out logic in acceptance or selection of religion. I use logic quite a bit in sorting out whether having any religion is practical, and if so, which of many religions might have the best chance of "being correct". Yes, in the end a leap of faith is needed, but I see taking such a leap of faith as a logical method of attempting to better understand what science alone cannot explain. After all, isn't this exactly how science works?
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  3. #543  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    That's a major failing on my part. I keep thinking that there is this chance that various exchanges CAN be productive, but in most cases...that's just wishful thinking on my part.
    Some of us have to keep pushing on and trying when others get tired. I admire your stamina!
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  4. rjwerth's Avatar
    Posts
    16 Posts
    Global Posts
    23 Global Posts
    #544  
    I heard a great homily several years ago about some of the miracles in the Bible and how many of them could be easily proven to be possible without "divine intervention." I found it to actually INCREASE my faith, though some of my protestant friends I shared the homily with had quite the opposite reaction.

    The point of the homily was that even though we can, with all our modern knowledge, be able to understand things that were just hocus-pocus back then doesn't diminish the fact that they were miracles-not unlike childbirth.
  5. #545  
    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    ...snip...
    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.

    Are you seriously trying to say that if someone isn't told murder is bad, that they'd go around murdering? Silly.
    ...snip...
    These two statements in your long exchange with KAM caught my eye.
    We'll call them 1 and 2 for ease of discussion ok.

    1.
    Whether dictated or not, people still kill.
    Killing is not the same as murder. I say this because you interchange the terms and they are not the same.

    People that kill don't do it because they didn't get the memo. Generally it's because they lack control or are insane.
    Would you mind providing data on this. Also please define this control you speak of.

    Many of these very same people KNOW it's wrong to murder.
    Again, your data? Has there actually been a measurable study done on whether or nor murderers(not killers) knew what they were doing was wrong?
    Rules exists to try to keep order in the form of punishment.
    I hate to split hairs here because you were likely just going fast but... Rules exist to try to keep order. Punishment exists as a consequence to rules being broken.

    2.
    Are you seriously trying to say that if someone isn't told murder is bad, that they'd go around murdering? Silly.
    I would say this isn't silly. How would you explain why someone knows murdering is bad if they weren't told? I recognize that we come out of the womb knowing certain things, but that murder is bad would hardly be on that list. Murder, like logic, is a human construct and not one we are blessed with at birth. Someone needs to teach us this concept.
    Humans do stuff because and killing is no exception. People must be taught that killing (or murder) is bad, they don't just come out knowing that.

    If they do come out knowing this "common sense' where did they get that knowledge?
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  6. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #546  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    Some of us have to keep pushing on and trying when others get tired. I admire your stamina!
    Anyone can feel free to take over for me at any time.

    KAM
  7. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #547  
    I love homily! Especially homily grits!
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  8. rjwerth's Avatar
    Posts
    16 Posts
    Global Posts
    23 Global Posts
    #548  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    I would say this isn't silly. How would you explain why someone knows murdering is bad if they weren't told? I recognize that we come out of the womb knowing certain things, but that murder is bad would hardly be on that list. Murder, like logic, is a human construct and not one we are blessed with at birth. Someone needs to teach us this concept.
    Humans do stuff because and killing is no exception. People must be taught that killing (or murder) is bad, they don't just come out knowing that.

    If they do come out knowing this "common sense' where did they get that knowledge?
    I think there is another layer that you are not addressing. I would guess that most people who murder know full well that it is wrong and that society says that it is. And yet, some will do so not just once, but repeatedly.

    Looking at the extremes, you will find people who will NEVER kill, even if their lives depend on it, and the one's who kill for fun and profit. The bottom line is, one can only be taught so much, the rest of it is ingrained in one's DNA.
  9. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #549  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    I would say this isn't silly. How would you explain why someone knows murdering is bad if they weren't told? I recognize that we come out of the womb knowing certain things, but that murder is bad would hardly be on that list. Murder, like logic, is a human construct and not one we are blessed with at birth. Someone needs to teach us this concept.
    Humans do stuff because and killing is no exception. People must be taught that killing (or murder) is bad, they don't just come out knowing that.

    If they do come out knowing this "common sense' where did they get that knowledge?
    Looking at a modern snapshot of a society, based on thousands of years of prior development and declaring something that is natural to us "just common sense" is really problematic in my view. Clearly at some point, society developed and established rules for itself--borne out of necessity. So it seems that at some point, there was a need to prohibit murder--with one example being the Ten Commandments. If it we had an inherent natural born knowledge (common sense) that Murder was unacceptable, then we probably wouldn't need any rules to define that in a society.

    Back in caveman days, I would guess that murder was probably somewhat common. You probably did whatever your survival instinct told you to do, and if that meant murdering someone to benefit yourself...well, it probably happened. Even today--look at places with societal breakdowns, like various places in Africa--today. People are murdered by the hundreds of thousands. Do these people lack common sense, or are they acting outside of what we take for granted in terms of morality and law? People not guided by a moral sense, or without a legal system that effectively punished or threatens punishment DO engage in Murder, with common sense in full effect. These people don't lack common sense--they lack morality or law or both.

    Why do they murder? Because it suits some purpose--which they likely determine with "common sense." They kill their enemy or terrorize their families, because it benefits them in some way. If anyone thinks "oh that couldn't happen here" I suggest they are fooling themselves.

    I am quite certain that if we found ourselves in a state of anarchy for whatever reason, people would very quickly resort to killing (murder or not)--all with our much vaunted common sense perfectly intact. People with some sense of morality would probably still kill to protect themselves and their families and their best interests. People without a moral sense or who are desperate would likely murder others in order to survive.

    This notion that we simply wouldn't do that, and even wilder claim--that we STARTED with common sense to not do that is quite ridiculous if one thinks about it within most any realistic context. One wouldn't go out and simply start murdering people randomly, but rather if it served their needs. Common sense as I alluded to could easily point someone without moral or legal barriers to engage in murder. Denial of this possibility is insanely dangerous in my view.

    KAM
  10. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #550  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I love homily! Especially homily grits!
    I would LOVE some Grits with my homily.

    KAM
  11. #551  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    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.
    I am just curious, what are the "markings of a cult" that you feel that Scientology possess?

    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.
    I agree, but I feel in 100 years we are going to have a more detail understanding of what we know now. 500 years ago, we thought the world was flat because we could see no further than that. With the technology we have now, we can see the universe and we can explore outside of or own planet. I think the next hundred years we will have answers to many of the the hypothesis' that we have now.

    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.
    My opinion is that fooling yourself into believing in the supernatural and miracles as a way to teach yourself right from wrong is a bit "wacky" not in that it can not be proven, but because there is not even any evidence of it, other that in stories.

    I mentioned thought--can you prove it exists? Are you "wacky" for believing that there is thought?
    Are you asking if I can prove the concept of thought? I have thought process and I am human, therefore all other humans have thought processes as well.

    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?
    I think we are going down a road using 2 different routes here. To clarify myself, when I say I want religion out of government, I mean that I do not policies and laws passed based on religion. If a politician can use their religion with a law that is pretty common sence, such as, don't run red lights. I am OK with that. But if they come up with a law that says you can run red lights on the sabath, that is where I have a problem. I have less of a problem if beliefs are used in the process of voting on a law, but not if the law is directly related to a spiritual belief. (My analogy is a little weird but please forgive me. It was a long eventful weekend )

    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.
    A way for gays to express their way of life is through marriage, which you are against. You have stated you are for civil unions. I see no reason not to let them be married, and I see no reason to create some new title just for them.

    I don't "fear" religions and I do not discriminate against its followers. I just do not believe their stories of our origin. Homophobes do not deny the existence of gays, but they fear and discriminate them based on their beliefs.

    Perhaps it is due to suffering from Theophobia?
    No, just my opinion.

    No, for me it is both.
    Lets look at it this way. Animals rarely kill their own species and when they do kill, it is for survival and sustenance. Now do these creatures follow the bible and gods teachings of right and wrong? No, it is their instinct not to kill their own kind like it is with us. I think "morals" are the same as "instincts". An animals instincts are to not hurt it's own and do what's best for it's herd. Our morals are to not hurt our fellow man and do what's best for our family.

    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.
    The significance of Ernesto Guevara or the impact of the Cuban Revolution. Che represents freedom to millions of people. The countries of Central and South America have long been exploited and continue to be exploited and Che rose up against the oppressors of the world, fighting in Cuba, the Congo, and Bolivia. Say what you like about Cuba or Castro, but the people of Cuba are better off today under the Communist Party than they were under Batista. People have access to food, education, health care and other social programs. The Mafia, which really ran Cuba, was driven out. Racism no longer plays the strong role it once did under the capitalists. I am not even supporting Castro or the Communist Party, but these are the facts. Do you even know how many people Che "killed?" Most of the people Che supposedly killed were thugs from Batista's regime who were sentenced to death in court by juries of the Cuban people. Che merely served as one of many judges at these trials. With that being said, what other country still uses the death penalty? Oh right, the United States. Following your logic, every single judge and every single president is a mass murderer.

    You don't even have a grasp of history. How many people have capitalists massacred over the years? Millions. Yet when a socialist does anything deemed violent or immoral (and this is not a defense of those actions and I am not saying that I oppose the death penalty) you conservatives just attack socialism and its followers while continuing to murder people all over the world.


    Almost every "war over Religion" you will find is linked to secular purposes.
    Yes like territory and natural resources. But I stated most RECENT wars where the result of religion.

    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.
    Your religion is not all religions. He was acting on his christian beliefs, no mater how extremist. To him, the bible said it was OK to kill. If a book that is supposed to guide you and instill morals, tells you to be good person, but some other guy, reading the same exact book, says he is to hate or kill, I would say that book is flawed. You wouldn't buy a DVD player with instructions that are "open to interpretation" why would you rely on "interpretation" to guide your life.

    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.
    They also believed that the world was flat, witches were real, leeches cure illness and the foreskin in unnecessary. Why was it OK for them to be wrong about that but not about some supernatural being that "created" everything from nothing and is supposedly guiding their lives?

    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.
    Like I said, see the animal kingdom...

    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.
    I was referring to politicians. I personally don't need to know if god told them to increase taxes on vehicle registration...

    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.
    I stand by my belief that ALL religions are some variation of a cult.

    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.
    Why must it be known that the only reason someone is helping another person is because religion told him to do so? I would rather here that it was because it was just the right thing to do.

    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.
    Have I told you or anyone els here not to believe in the bible? Nope. I have just been explaining my opinions on why it is not true. If you want to believe in it, that is your right to do so. Also I have been saying is that religion and government do not mix, just like it states in our constitution.Don't try to paint me as some "hater" when I am not.

    [quote]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.[/quote}

    This does: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." aka, separation of church and state.

    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.
    For the most part you are right with some exceptions. We are mostly a christian nation so when christian politicians speak on religion, it goes unchallenged. As soon as we get politicians from fringe religions like Romney and Lieberman and even when you get someone that is perceived as a fringe religion, Obama, Christians get all up in arms about it. (Not saying you personally, but in general) "A Muslim/Mormon/*** in my white house?!?!?!" Why not just eliminate the religious labels, and judge them all on their policies, and not on what religion they are.

    I appreciate the constructive exchange however.
    KAM
    I do as well. Thank you.
    Last edited by Kenanator; 02/15/2010 at 04:18 PM.
    "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
  12. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #552  
    Quote Originally Posted by rjwerth View Post
    I heard a great homily several years ago about some of the miracles in the Bible and how many of them could be easily proven to be possible without "divine intervention." I found it to actually INCREASE my faith, though some of my protestant friends I shared the homily with had quite the opposite reaction.

    The point of the homily was that even though we can, with all our modern knowledge, be able to understand things that were just hocus-pocus back then doesn't diminish the fact that they were miracles-not unlike childbirth.
    Yeah, you know, I've never understood the opposition. I mean, a miracle involves more than just the mechanics of the action. For example, lightning is natural and it's not unheard of for it to strike people. Also, people get shot with, unfortunately, some regularity and there's certainly nothing miraculous about that. However, if lightening strikes an person just as they're about to pull the trigger and shoot you, you're not likely to see it as a purely natural coincidence.
  13. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #553  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I love homily! Especially homily grits!
    Isn't that what Ralph Kramden used to say? Homily, homily, homily.

    What? No?
  14. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #554  
    Scientology? Murder? The Congo?

    ... is this still the bash Sarah Palin thread?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  15. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #555  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Isn't that what Ralph Kramden used to say? Homily, homily, homily.

    What? No?
    lol. Wasn't that hummerna-hummerna-hummerna?

    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  16. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #556  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    lol. Wasn't that hummerna-hummerna-hummerna?
    Yikes!
  17. #557  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I love homily! Especially homily grits!
    Now you're talking.....grits....sprinkle some bacon on them, maybe some cheese....oh yes....must be close to dinner time....getting hungry.
    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
  18. #558  
    Quote Originally Posted by micael View Post
    scientology? Murder? The congo?

    ... Is this still the bash sarah palin thread?
    hahahahahaha :d
    "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
  19. rjwerth's Avatar
    Posts
    16 Posts
    Global Posts
    23 Global Posts
    #559  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Scientology? Murder? The Congo?

    ... is this still the bash Sarah Palin thread?
    and, apparently, grits. I'm sure this will all circle back at some point.
  20. #560  
    Not going to get into all this religion, is it real or crap stuff, other than to say it is faith. Except for the folks that take religion to the extreme (particularly some Muslims), I don't see where believing in God or Jesus, or really whatever god you want to believe in, hurts anyone, and likely helps most. There are many aspects of the Bible that I certainly question, particularly the Old Testament, but I have decided to put my faith in the New Testament and the message of Jesus Christ. Belief....or faith....in Jesus is one way to keep yourself on track for life. Can you do that without Jesus? I guess so....but sure is easier with him. Just saying.....

    Edit: I'm still not sure what all this has to do with Palin writing on her hand?
    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

Posting Permissions