Page 29 of 32 FirstFirst ... 19242526272829303132 LastLast
Results 561 to 580 of 639
  1. #561  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    ...I'm still not sure what all this has to do with Palin writing on her hand?
    Hey dude, can you prove that she wrote on her hand? (That seems like an extremely large leap of faith for you to take without any proof!)
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  2. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #562  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    Hey dude, can you prove that she wrote on her hand? (That seems like an extremely large leap of faith for you to take without any proof!)
    Good point. Do we know it isn't photoshopped?
  3. #563  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    Hey dude, can you prove that she wrote on her hand? (That seems like an extremely large leap of faith for you to take without any proof!)
    She had SPIN by SPIN directions of her agenda written on her hand! Prove me wrong!
    "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
  4. #564  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    Hey dude, can you prove that she wrote on her hand? (That seems like an extremely large leap of faith for you to take without any proof!)
    You know I did think about that....but....on the video she does appear to be looking at her hand....and....I don't believe she has denied it.
    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
  5. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #565  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    You know I did think about that....but....on the video she does appear to be looking at her hand....and....I don't believe she has denied it.
    She said she can't spend time with baseless accusations and needs to stay focused on doing the people's work. (it pains me how well I know this stuff)
  6. #566  
    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.
    No, I don't believed a Supreme Being deifies logic.
    I believe to some it defies 'logic' as they see things now.
    As far as Science goes, it's a Progressive understanding for wherever we are in time. From what I've seen 'Logic' changes with understanding.
    Honestly; 'Logic' is relative.
    Maybe God looks down here and says;
    'Look at all those people acting illogical.'
    Just call me Berd.
  7. #567  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Scientology? Murder? The Congo?

    ... is this still the bash Sarah Palin thread?
    "It's a Free for All" - Ted Nugent.
    Just call me Berd.
  8. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #568  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    I am just curious, what are the "markings of a cult" that you feel that Scientology possess?
    There is an element of secrecy to it, tiers which only high ranking members are privy to, a tendency to separate members from non-members (see Katie Holmes), and especially treatment of members who leave.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    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.
    My point--we don't know nearly as much as we give ourselves credit for.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    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.
    Actually, the supernatural element is beside the point. It is a system that espouses certain behavior. These "stories" that you are so quick to dismiss are in fact, accounts of what occurred. While I stated, I am not a bible literalist, one cannot dismiss accounts simply because they are adopted by a religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    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.
    Yes, I am asking you to prove it if you can.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    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 )
    I understand what you are saying I think.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    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.
    No--you are misrepresenting my stated views. I'm not sure why, because what I actually said is that EVERYONE (gay, straight or otherwise) are entitled to a legal arrangement called a Civil Union, and EVERYONE is entitled to marriage--assuming that they belong to a Religion that includes homosexual marriage. There is no discernment on the basis of sexual preference--equal for all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    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.
    No, just my opinion.

    I'll take you at your word.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    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.
    In other words--they kill their own whenever it benefits them.
    Morals are not the same as instincts. I hope you never have to learn that hard lesson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    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.
    Yes, and they are thrown in prison for having a contrary views. This is nonsense, and I'm guessing that the people who risk their lives to flee that Paradise would tend to agree with me.
    Better off today? That's an unsubstantiated claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    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.
    No, that is a ridiculous comparison to make.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    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.
    Capitalists have massacred Millions over the years? Really--who, where, when? What Capitalist Revolution starved millions of people as a political practice as Communism did? How many capitalist gulags can you name?
    Please, I'd love to hear your version of history that I supposedly am not grasping. Communist regimes have directly caused the deaths of nearly 100 million people in the 20th Century. I defy you to find anything CLOSE to this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Yes like territory and natural resources. But I stated most RECENT wars where the result of religion.
    What are you considering Recent? What wars are you referring to?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    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.
    This is pure nonsense. You are citing a very rare extremist case that VIOLATES the religion to attack the Religion. Laughable, truly laughable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    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?
    Actually, science thought that the world was flat. People today believe witches are real, some people actually use leeches, and there is some medical indication that circumcision is beneficial (arguable). Science as we noted above is wrong all the time.
    Also--your claim that they are wrong about a Supernatural being is not a fact--its merely a claim that you can't disprove any more than they can prove.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Like I said, see the animal kingdom...
    Yes, and you are wrong about that too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    I was referring to politicians. I personally don't need to know if god told them to increase taxes on vehicle registration...
    Well, if they happen to mention that, its just something you'll have to tolerate, but of course, you can simply chose not to listen too.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    I stand by my belief that ALL religions are some variation of a cult.
    So, you're essentially claiming that there is no difference, and yet there is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    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.
    Well, there is no requirement that someone state that, and likewise no prohibition against mentioning it. I'm not sure why you fail to understand that Religion is for many people part of what forms their moral sense of 'the right thing to do.'

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    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.
    Actually, I'm trying to resolve the different things you say. I do not have the goal of painting you as a hater, but as I mentioned above--someone with your negative views of homosexuality would most definitely be called a hater. I've found that leftists routinely label those that they disagree with as haters, and I don't wish to do that, other than to point out that disparity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    This does: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." aka, separation of church and state.
    Ah--there's your mistake. "separation of Church and State" is NOT enshrined in the Constitution as you imagine. Separation of Church and State is a tradition we have. The first amendment is NOT contained in the First amendment, EXCEPT in regards to establishment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    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.
    An individual can choose for themselves whether they wish to display their religion. There is no requirement that they hide this. I'm happy to hear that you excluded me, because I do not hold any prejudice against people of other Religions solely because they have a different religion from mine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    I do as well. Thank you.


    KAM
  9. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #569  
    Quote Originally Posted by berdinkerdickle View Post
    No, I don't believed a Supreme Being deifies logic.
    I believe to some it defies 'logic' as they see things now.
    As far as Science goes, it's a Progressive understanding for wherever we are in time. From what I've seen 'Logic' changes with understanding.
    Honestly; 'Logic' is relative.
    Maybe God looks down here and says;
    'Look at all those people acting illogical.'
    Aristotle thought believing in God was logical 2300 years ago. Over 700 years ago, Thomas Aquinas thought it was logical. 60 years ago Einstein thought it was logical. Today we know better.
  10. #570  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Aristotle thought believing in God was logical 2300 years ago. Over 700 years ago, Thomas Aquinas thought it was logical. 60 years ago Einstein thought it was logical. Today we know better.
    You might want to take back that about Einstein:

    "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
    -- Albert Einstein, in a letter responding to philosopher Eric Gutkind, who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt; quoted from James Randerson, "Childish Superstition: Einstein's Letter Makes View of Religion Relatively Clear

    "I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."
    -- Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955

    "I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."
    -- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side

    "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
    -- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science,"

    "Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being."
    -- Albert Einstein, 1936, responding to a child who wrote and asked if scientists pray. Source: Albert Einstein: The Human Side

    "I am convinced that some political and social activities and practices of the Catholic organizations are detrimental and even dangerous for the community as a whole, here and everywhere. I mention here only the fight against birth control at a time when overpopulation in various countries has become a serious threat to the health of people and a grave obstacle to any attempt to organize peace on this planet."
    -- Albert Einstein, letter, 1954

    "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
    -- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side

    "Laws alone cannot secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be a spirit of tolerance in the entire population."
    -- Albert Einstein, Out Of My Later Years (1950)

    "Both deism and traditional Judeo-Christian-Islamic theism must also be contrasted with pantheism, the notion attributed to Baruch Spinoza (d. 1677) that the deity is associated with the order of nature or the universe itself. This also crudely summarizes the Hindu view and that of many indigenous religions around the world. When modern scientists such as Einstein and Stephen Hawking mention 'God' in their writings, this is what they seem to mean: that God is Nature."
    -- Victor J Stenger, Has Science Found God? (2001)
    "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
  11. #571  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    You might want to take back that about Einstein:

    "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
    -- Albert Einstein, in a letter responding to philosopher Eric Gutkind, who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt; quoted from James Randerson, "Childish Superstition: Einstein's Letter Makes View of Religion Relatively Clear

    "I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."
    -- Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955

    "I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."
    -- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side

    "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
    -- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science,"

    "Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being."
    -- Albert Einstein, 1936, responding to a child who wrote and asked if scientists pray. Source: Albert Einstein: The Human Side

    "I am convinced that some political and social activities and practices of the Catholic organizations are detrimental and even dangerous for the community as a whole, here and everywhere. I mention here only the fight against birth control at a time when overpopulation in various countries has become a serious threat to the health of people and a grave obstacle to any attempt to organize peace on this planet."
    -- Albert Einstein, letter, 1954

    "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
    -- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side

    "Laws alone cannot secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be a spirit of tolerance in the entire population."
    -- Albert Einstein, Out Of My Later Years (1950)

    "Both deism and traditional Judeo-Christian-Islamic theism must also be contrasted with pantheism, the notion attributed to Baruch Spinoza (d. 1677) that the deity is associated with the order of nature or the universe itself. This also crudely summarizes the Hindu view and that of many indigenous religions around the world. When modern scientists such as Einstein and Stephen Hawking mention 'God' in their writings, this is what they seem to mean: that God is Nature."
    -- Victor J Stenger, Has Science Found God? (2001)
    And since Einstein said it must be so. One guy, one opinion. I feel so much better now. One guy said God doesnt exist and because he was smart a scientist you can believe him. Great. Doesn't make it so. Fact is more people believe in God than don't.
    “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
  12. #572  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    You might want to take back that about Einstein:
    You think he meant Albert Einstein? (He did not specifically say Albert. He might have been talking about his pet turtle or something!)

    A quick Google search turned up an interesting Apologetics Discussion on "Did Albert Einstein Believe in a Personal God?". (This looks like a very interesting website but not one I will vouch for. You might find it interesting nonetheless.)
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  13. #573  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    Hey dude, can you prove that she wrote on her hand? (That seems like an extremely large leap of faith for you to take without any proof!)
    Come on now. Would Fox News lie?
  14. #574  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    And since Einstein said it must be so. One guy, one opinion. I feel so much better now. One guy said God doesnt exist and because he was smart a scientist you can believe him. Great. Doesn't make it so. Fact is more people believe in God than don't.
    Yeah did you ever explain, how obama was roughshodding over the constitution? Still waiting for that.
  15. #575  
    Quote Originally Posted by redninja View Post
    Yeah did you ever explain, how obama was roughshodding over the constitution? Still waiting for that.
    You can't talk about Obama and Einstein in the same post. It's unpatriotic to upstage the President!
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  16. #576  
    Quote Originally Posted by redninja View Post
    Yeah did you ever explain, how obama was roughshodding over the constitution? Still waiting for that.
    Read the thread Forrest.

    Is roughshodding a word?
    “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
  17. #577  
    Quote Originally Posted by rjwerth View Post
    If you don't want me to call you out on something, don't say it. OK? Also, color is NOT just created from refraction. Keep trying.
    Sorry I was with my girlfriend and her girlfriend yesterday, yes what a valentines day .. So what is color then?
    also, Here are some links i dug up within a few minutes, in response to my earlier statements. You know, those crazy assertions.

    The Lost Books of the Bible - Hidden Truth - Introduction

    REINCARNATION IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY

    Reincarnation and the Bible

    I read books, usually not online articles like above, they were just a quick search. Check em out, do some reading, and if you want to discuss it, ok.
  18. #578  
    By definition, the Catholic Church determines what is heretical. This will be a long thread if we have to go through all of the heresies which the Church has had to defend! Is there a specific heresy (or perhaps a list of your "top 3") that you want to begin discussion about?
    When Jesus himself says to beware of the churches, should we trust what they determine?

    What does Constantine have to do with anything the Church teaches? He was the first Roman Emperor supportive of the Church, but he certainly was not a voice of the Church itself. Do you believe in reincarnation? (The idea of reincarnation sounds very beautiful to me but it was never a teaching in either the OT or by Jesus.) Constantine may have been a bit of a zealot, but we should keep him separate from the Church itself.
    Not sure if my links refer to this, but it was under Constantine that reincarnation was voted out of christianity. His wife also feared returning as a commoner.

    Also, about the jesus part,

    John (9:2-4) the disciples asked Jesus whether a blindman had sinned or his parents that he had been born blind. Jesus replied that it was in order that the works of God may be made manifest in the blind man, that is, that the law of cause and effect might be fulfilled. Or, as St. Paul phrased the thought: we reap what we sow. The blind man could not have sown the seeds of his blindness in his present body, but must have done so in a previous lifetime.

    Sudoer, if his disciples were closest to him, then they well knew his teachings and philosophies, there is no doubt that they would know these things better than us. 2000 yrs later in america, so why would they even ask this?

    Do you trust Jesus or you are just recommending that I do this? Logic tells me you're suggesting what I should do rather than what you believe. I believe you gave me good advice here. Thanks.
    I think jesus was an enlightened man. I think he probably performed many of the "miracles" in the bible. I dont think he was god. I dont believe in heaven and hell. I believe there is more god in quantum phsyics than in the bible. I believe we all have the spark of godness in us by way of quantum mechanics. I believe in ancient astronauts. I say i'm atheist because it's alot easier to not explain what i think. I dont recommend for you to think anything, I recommend you to research what you believe in. And come to your place with god that way, not with what an institution tells you. The gnostics, the essines, the pagans, ancient sumarians, nag hamadi library, dead sea scrolls... all good stuff.
    Last edited by redninja; 02/15/2010 at 10:43 PM.
  19. #579  
    [QUOTE=KAM1138;2222941]

    You've yet to prove or disprove any element of Religion. My claim was that you could not, and you haven't.
    I'll repeat, the burden of proof is with you. I have reality and logic on my side. Faith is just that faith, it doesn't prove or disprove anything.

    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.
    You said I'm using the wrong tool then you say there is no tool. Using the word 'wrong' would naturally imply there is a right one. And here you are yet again equating religion with something that can be meaured and proven. Like I said, your analogy failed.

    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.
    Here you are again referencing the 'wrong' tool. Well I ask again, what's the right one? Oh I forget there is no tool..... One must just believe. Sounds like a big cop out to me.


    I understand that's your chosen view, I see no indication that you have any proof whatsoever to support that view.
    I have 'faith' that my logical reasoning is accurate.


    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.
    I stated that it is illogical first and foremost.

    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 demonstrated it, you've failed to accept it, as expected.


    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.
    2nd time trying to equate religion with science.

    No, I'm not. I'm merely pointing out the inconsistency in your listed reasoning.
    Actually yes you are, you've been doing it throughout our discussions. I guess that's how you justify your irrationality.


    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.
    I'm not sure how your crazy argument valides your irrational / illogical beliefs. The cop out of Faith only works on those who choose not to know the truth but accept whatever is fed to them. Face it you are brainwashed. And again your are constanly trying to equate religion with science.

    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.
    I'll pass, this is too silly.





    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?
    More silliness.





    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).
    Thanks for the lesson.


    I said it could not be proven or disproven and you said it could. You then just declared it illogical.
    Here we go, the Faith cop-out again.




    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.
    You have yet to present anything remotely considered a challenge.


    Yes, the defense of someone who doesn't have an answer.
    I have the answer, but I'd rather not waste it on you.

    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.
    I dismiss things I consider illogical and irrational. Trying to shift the burden of proof isn't going to help your case.


    Again, you are running from the point, and refusing to answer the question.
    Like I said I'd rather not waste the time.


    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.
    Yet again trying to equate hokus pokus with science. This is what, 4 times now?

    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.
    And I guess it can be proven with Faith right?




    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.
    I reject it from both a position of absolutely no evidence ever and of course, logic.

    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.
    True but none of them were hokus pokus.






    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.
    The only things you've said that sticks out is that you believe in hokus pokus just because (Faith). Secondly, because hokus pokus cannot be disproven (although logic does a pretty good job of that) to your liking, it must be considered true. Thirdly the belief in hokus pokus is the same as the belief in science and scientific methods. I think that sums it up.







    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.
    Well if this country was to suddenly become communist, then I'd have something else to single out.




    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.
    None of the numbers can be proven definitively hence they are expressed in ranges. You chose an arbitrary number plain and simple.


    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.
    Like I said above, when / if communism becomes an issue here, I'd be just as outraged.


    I quoted you directly--deny it if you wish.
    Yeah you quoted me directly but totally missed the point.


    Because your claim is illogical. A reason is not an effect, and therefore cannot affect you--by definition.
    A reason doesn't have a to be an effect for me to pass judgement. Again that's just me.



    What makes you think that I've attempted to justify my belief at all in this entire conversation. Please stop grasping at straws.
    So all your talk of Faith was for nothing? Doesn't Faith justify your belief?

    It isn't, and I didn't say it was.
    You implied it.


    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.
    Only if their beliefs lead to an encroachment of my rights. How you fail to understand that is beyond me.



    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.
    No, here you are again putting words in my mouth. I mentioned encroachment of my rights as a reason as well. You seem to always gloss over that. Yes I hate religion and will especially scrutinize any laws born of it regardless. However if they're not infringing on my rights that's as far as I can take it. I won't be happy and will probably vote against them, but that's all I can/will do.


    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.
    Coming from someone who freely believes in hokus pokus on just Faith, that's a bold statement.

    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.
    Yeah I know, I need to have Faith.


    Yes. What if it makes perfect sense (common sense) for someone to murder someone else (let's say to avoid them informing on them).
    Choosing to murder someone for that reason isn't using common sense given the possible punishment involved.

    So, then is it or is it not common sense to not murder someone. On second though--forget it--this is going nowhere.
    Yeah I think you should quit while you're ahead. You've already dug a big hole.

    I'm telling you that you are looking at things with very little context.
    I'm just responding based on your logic.


    Actually, its well established that the Ten Commandments are part of Judaism from the distant past--a historical fact.
    Still doesn't prove the men who wrote it weren't using common sense.


    I'm merely stating historical facts, that you have a need to deny apparently in order to maintain your claims.
    You can't prove any of those 'facts'.



    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.
    You don't have a single shred of proof of any of this. And even if it were true, again there is no way to know that common sense wasn't involved.

    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.
    No you simply interpreted them wrong. And even so, I did clarify, but that wasn't enough.







    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.
    Oh you mean like the one of Faith?


    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.
    I attack religion because it's an illogical, man made, crutch born out of ignorance by an ancient ignorant society. Today it's used as a form of control and still as a crutch by the weak-minded.


    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.
    Well you could have saved us both a lot of time as well by simply stating 'I believe in Religion just because', instead of trying unsuccessfully to equate your religious beliefs with that of science. We went through all of this to find out all you need to accept an illogical entity is Faith.
    Last edited by darreno1; 02/15/2010 at 10:38 PM.
    Sony Clie --> Tungsten t2 --> iPhone3g --> Palm Pre --> Droid
  20. #580  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    Read the thread Forrest.

    Is roughshodding a word?
    I browsed for it cledus, never saw a response from you, but I will look again.

    I have faith that roughshodding is a word, somewhere magical, so you shouldn't question it

Posting Permissions