Page 30 of 32 FirstFirst ... 202526272829303132 LastLast
Results 581 to 600 of 639
  1. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #581  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    She had SPIN by SPIN directions of her agenda written on her hand! Prove me wrong!
    You just wish it was your phone number! ADMIT IT!
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  2. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #582  
    Quote Originally Posted by berdinkerdickle View Post
    No, I don't believed a Supreme Being deifies logic.
    deifies? pun intended?
    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.
    Ok, now I have to ask why you used the term Progressive understanding. It's capitalized... you're saying that science is at odds with Conservatism? Probably not, but it threw me. I think you meant evolving understanding?
    Honestly; 'Logic' is relative.
    Relative to what? It's a process of reasoning. I submit to you that belief in God is based on faith, and any reasoning that's associated with it is purely personal and subjective.
    Maybe God looks down here and says;
    'Look at all those people acting illogical.'
    Maybe you're right
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  3. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #583  
    Quote Originally Posted by berdinkerdickle View Post
    "It's a Free for All" - Ted Nugent.
    "Cat Scratch Fever" might be more appropriate
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  4. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #584  
    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.
    They're quoted as saying it's logical? Or are you drawing a conclusion based on the fact that these were philosophers who also believed in God?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  5. #585  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    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.
    See also Mormonism, Catholicism... etc...

    My point--we don't know nearly as much as we give ourselves credit for.
    Difference is back then we were flat out wrong about things. Now with the scientific method and our advances, we are not wrong but will learn and answer many of our current hypothesis'.

    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.
    Prove that they are facts...

    Yes, I am asking you to prove it if you can.
    We are having this conversation. Conversations require though.

    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.
    An thus, we have religion interfering with law...

    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.
    When do animals kill their own? Even battles for territory and dominant status in their pride, herd, pack, etc RARELY if ever result in death. Only humans have the ability to go against their natural instincts. You are wrong on this one.

    This is pure nonsense. You are citing a very rare extremist case that VIOLATES the religion to attack the Religion. Laughable, truly laughable.
    Well, Christians claim the bible is open to interpretation do they not? Some see it as "love thy neighbor" and "good will unto all", some see it as a justification for racism and bigotry. Whose interpretation is right?


    Actually, science thought that the world was flat.
    In 1632 the Roman Catholic church banished Galileo for suggesting that the Earth revolved around the Sun.

    People today believe witches are real,
    Are they wrong? I personally think they are, but do you? With the predisposition of believing in a supernatural being, why not witches?

    some people actually use leeches,
    And science has proved this ineffective and and actually dangerous in practice.

    and there is some medical indication that circumcision is beneficial (arguable).
    Yes, because of religion, we justify cutting off body parts of babies. Makes perfect sense. If we are made in god's likeness, why would we have to remove anything? Why are you pointing out that "some medical indication that circumcision is beneficial?" Medicine is science and science is wrong, is it not?

    Science as we noted above is wrong all the time.
    Oh, you answered my question!

    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.
    You're right. I can not disprove something that there is absolutely no evidence of ever existing. technically I can not disprove Santa Clause either but I know it is not true.

    Yes, and you are wrong about that too.
    Yes, I am wrong. Animals do not follow their instincts, they are ingrained with the guidance of the lord.

    So, you're essentially claiming that there is no difference, and yet there is.
    That is a matter of opinion

    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.
    And when did I ever display any negativity towards homosexuals?

    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.
    Please re-read what you just wrote and bask in the irony of your words. You find that LEFTISTS like to label things they don't agree with. I will leave it at that...

    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.
    Actually it is very much in the constitution. I posted it in the very post you responded to. I will re-post it again: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Those are the exact words from our constitution.

    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.
    That makes you an exception to the rule. Hence the unbridled hate and fear for our president with a Muslim name.
    "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
  6. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #586  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    You might want to take back that about Einstein:

    ...
    You need to separate the concept of God with the type of God. Einstein clearly did not believe in a personal God of the Christian or Jewish sort but he did believe in God:

    "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

    "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

    "I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."
  7. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #587  
    Quote Originally Posted by redninja View Post
    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.
    I can use Google. Thanks. I'd prefer to debate you on those assertions you made. If you can't argue the point, I understand. Just don't pretend you are.
  8. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #588  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    They're quoted as saying it's logical? Or are you drawing a conclusion based on the fact that these were philosophers who also believed in God?
    Both Aristotle and Aquinas formulated logical arguments for the existence of God. The latter actually based his arguments in part on the former's. Einstein made quotes about God that show he thought about it in a logical manner but to my knowledge didn't formulate formal arguments for such.
  9. #589  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    deifies? pun intended?
    typo

    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Ok, now I have to ask why you used the term Progressive understanding. It's capitalized... you're saying that science is at odds with Conservatism? Probably not, but it threw me. I think you meant evolving understanding?
    I guess we could use 'evolving'.
    I used progressive to emphasize the advancement science has made.
    Science considered things facts that later were found to be wrong.
    So at any given time in history, scientific 'logic' was accepted.


    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Relative to what? It's a process of reasoning.
    Yes, but the process of reasoning that is considered logic later was found to be foolish - relative to greater or revised understanding.

    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I submit to you that belief in God is based on faith
    I, myself haven't been arguing that belief in God isn't based on faith. I've been arguing against the claims that to Believe in God is illogical.


    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    and any reasoning that's associated with it is purely personal and subjective.
    But not necessary illogical. Not necessarily untrue. Many things in Science started as theories and were subject to needed proof. Many things in the medical field were accepted and considered the logical procedure that were later found to be wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Maybe you're right
    As I learn more about the vastness of everything. As science makes more and more discoveries, it actually strengthens my faith. And I consider myself a very logical person.

    Sometimes the confusion is in what some consider faith to mean.
    Some feel the less we understand the more it requires faith. But every time archeology unearths something that confirms a bible account that was before dismissed by the 'Smart and Learned'... Whenever science digs deeper and discovers how things are so amazing intricate and complex....
    Yes, as we learn even more, A powerful forever living God seems very Logical.

    So, because this thread started about Palin and evolved into just about anything. I'd like to try and reconcile something. Some remarks by Palin about God's will for her is one of the big reasons people see belief in God as illogical. Maybe that's how some of this thread got going this direction.
    Just call me Berd.
  10. #590  
    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.
    So I should take your word over the matter, other than that of Albert Einstein's? You think awfully high of yourself.
    "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. #591  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    You need to separate the concept of God with the type of God. Einstein clearly did not believe in a personal God of the Christian or Jewish sort but he did believe in God:

    "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

    "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

    "I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."
    You should probably go back and look at the last quote on my post...
    "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. #592  
    wow all this crap from just a couple words written on her hand as a reminder.... I commend her. I'm sick of telepromters! I just wish my tax money went to a bic rather than teleprompters per representative lol
    the palm profile loss of contacts issues at launch was a pain and a bic solved that problem for me.
  13. #593  
    Quote Originally Posted by toyotast165 View Post
    wow all this crap from just a couple words written on her hand as a reminder.... I commend her. I'm sick of telepromters! I just wish my tax money went to a bic rather than teleprompters per representative lol
    the palm profile loss of contacts issues at launch was a pain and a bic solved that problem for me.
    Is 1.4 out yet?
    Just call me Berd.
  14. #594  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    So I should take your word over the matter, other than that of Albert Einstein's? You think awfully high of yourself.
    Same could be said for you. How do you know I am not as smart as Einstein? Sounding a little like an Albert fan boy you are.
    Here's the thing, neither of us can prove or disprove God no more than you can prove or disprove life on other planets. If you cant admit that your not terribly bright.
    So that said the difference between you and Ninja la Rouge and pretty much the rest of us here is that you don't have an open mind to the possibility of god. For some reason the two of you are so anti-god. Not sure why.

    Something for you to consider. God can be whatever you want him/her to be. Some have written books about what god is to them others have read those books an adopted those ideas. Everyone has the ability to choose what God is to them. Many would claim that I blaspheme but if that were true, wouldn't there just be one camp and all the others would cease to exist.
    The beauty of that scenario is that you don't have to play (and youre clearly not) but you have to let others play. In this country at least.
    The least you could do is stop acting like youre somehow smarter than those who believe in God. It's not very becoming. Plenty of smart folks believe in God. Logic isn't the answer to all things either.
    "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)
    Ya and I could say you seem like an ***** but that is hardly definitive or very likely true, right? Stenger was guessing and you know it.
    You can argue about God in politics all you want but as KAM said earlier, you cant make someone not use their religion to influence their decisions and more that I can make you change your mind about God. Not that I would. Free country yunno.
    “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
  15. #595  
    btw. ken and ninja aren't the same individual.

    One thing I sympathize with them about, is the imposing in Politics strong religious leanings. I'm not saying people should keep God to themselves, but rather don't try and change National Law to suit one's Religious convictions. I don't have any examples, but I think that's the concern.
    Just call me Berd.
  16. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #596  
    Quote Originally Posted by berdinkerdickle View Post
    btw. ken and ninja aren't the same individual.

    One thing I sympathize with them about, is the imposing in Politics strong religious leanings. I'm not saying people should keep God to themselves, but rather don't try and change National Law to suit one's Religious convictions. I don't have any examples, but I think that's the concern.
    But don't you think each of us tries to change laws to suit our own convictions? Take health care reform. The people who want nationalized health care may or may not want it on religious grounds but they certainly want to change the law based on their convictions nonetheless.
  17. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #597  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    You should probably go back and look at the last quote on my post...
    I did read it. You and Mr. Stenger might want to read the last quote in my post.

    Mr. Stenger:

    "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."
    Mr. Einstein:

    "I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."
  18. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #598  
    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    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.
    With this, you once again prove that you have absolutely zero idea what I've been talking about, or are engaging in willful ignorance, perhaps because you have no argument to make, but have a need to argue anyway.

    You've run from every challenge you've been presented, while claiming that you've not been challenged, and have demonstrated that in several cases that you haven't even been able to grasp what's been said--instead thinking that it is some justification for religion, when its all really been about your supposed "logic." You've also denied what you actually said, because you can't even maintain consistency in your own statements.

    Your "logic" (and you have a VERY generous definition of this as applied to your reasoning) is apparently leading you make nonsensical claims like above, and you've clearly demonstrated an inability to break from your preconceived script and respond to what I've actually said, so, you'll excuse me if I don't spend any more time on your so-called "logic."

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 02/16/2010 at 08:10 AM.
  19. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #599  
    Quote Originally Posted by berdinkerdickle View Post
    typo

    I guess we could use 'evolving'.
    I used progressive to emphasize the advancement science has made.
    Science considered things facts that later were found to be wrong.
    So at any given time in history, scientific 'logic' was accepted.
    What you are describing is scientific method "a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge" (source - wikipedia), not logic. Logic would most certainly be involved in scientific method, but it's simply a reasoning tool.
    Yes, but the process of reasoning that is considered logic later was found to be foolish - relative to greater or revised understanding.
    Again, you're talking about scientific method.
    I, myself haven't been arguing that belief in God isn't based on faith. I've been arguing against the claims that to Believe in God is illogical.
    Would you agree that faith does not necessarily depend on logical reasoning? Would you also agree that scientific method has no room for faith?
    But not necessary illogical. Not necessarily untrue. Many things in Science started as theories and were subject to needed proof. Many things in the medical field were accepted and considered the logical procedure that were later found to be wrong.
    Who said that illogical equates to untrue? If I were to guess your religion, I'd say you hold the faith that on one day you'll be in heaven. That faith is not dependant on logical reason, but simply... faith. You seem to think that I'm saying that if it's not based on logic, it's untrue. I'm not. Maybe I'm misreading you?
    As I learn more about the vastness of everything. As science makes more and more discoveries, it actually strengthens my faith. And I consider myself a very logical person.
    Again, one does not necessarily depend on the other. You can, in fact, have faith that isn't supported by logic, but by belief.
    Sometimes the confusion is in what some consider faith to mean.
    Some feel the less we understand the more it requires faith. But every time archeology unearths something that confirms a bible account that was before dismissed by the 'Smart and Learned'...
    Can you name one of these archeological events that were dismissed by the 'Smart and Learned'? I'm struggling to come up with one. Thanks.
    Whenever science digs deeper and discovers how things are so amazing intricate and complex....
    For the scientist, I'd call this job security
    Yes, as we learn even more, A powerful forever living God seems very Logical.
    Can I quote you on that?
    So, because this thread started about Palin and evolved into just about anything. I'd like to try and reconcile something. Some remarks by Palin about God's will for her is one of the big reasons people see belief in God as illogical. Maybe that's how some of this thread got going this direction.
    I don't think that anything Palin has said has moved anyone towards or away from their own belief system. That sounds to me to be a very defensive statement.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  20. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #600  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    See also Mormonism, Catholicism... etc...
    No, these don't seem similar at all, of course, I suspect you probably would have responded in the exact same way regardless of what I said. That's what I get for trying to give an honest answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Difference is back then we were flat out wrong about things. Now with the scientific method and our advances, we are not wrong but will learn and answer many of our current hypothesis'.
    Actually, we are still wrong--all the time. There is this faith placed in science that is really bizarre in my view. This sense of arrogance about our knowledge is very misplaced in my view. I'm not knocking science--I just think it is important to understand what it is and isn't. People make the mistake of treating anything that can be called science "fact" when it is really just some point along a continuing process of learning.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Prove that they are facts...
    Prove any historical event? Why are things related to religion held to some standard that others are not? Do you deny most every historical event with decreasing levels of trust the older they get, because like the bibilcal claims, these are simply accounts--ultimately from people who claimed to witness something.

    What I'm saying is that I see an inconsistency in criteria that is applied, which makes me question the sincerity of the people who do this. It seems that people are very willing to accept accounts of something called history, but deny the same sorts of things if they are related to Religion (even from a non-religious perspective).

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    We are having this conversation. Conversations require though.
    Yes, I believe that, however, does this meet the standards of scientific proof? After all--you are talking about "voices in your head" essentially aren't you, and you can only assume that I have 'voices in my head' as well, you have zero proof of this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    An thus, we have religion interfering with law...
    No--you've got this exactly backwards. How can you be so blatantly inconsistent? What I've suggested is very specifically the separation of church and state. Legal arrangements which are mixed with Religious ones are to be separated under my suggestion. Religion and Law are CURRENTLY combined. Forget what the labels are placed on each--that is not relevant--call them A and B.
    I'm very confused as to why you are advocating the mixture of Church and State, while claiming that this is unacceptable. I'm advocating the type of separation that you claim is required, and yet you somehow claim this is religion interfering with law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    When do animals kill their own? Even battles for territory and dominant status in their pride, herd, pack, etc RARELY if ever result in death. Only humans have the ability to go against their natural instincts. You are wrong on this one.
    Animals kill their own whenever they find it suits their needs, period, unfettered by morality.

    You say humans go against our instincts...that is true--we can reason and have the capability to understand morality, which can override basic instincts. Morals are not the same as instincts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Well, Christians claim the bible is open to interpretation do they not? Some see it as "love thy neighbor" and "good will unto all", some see it as a justification for racism and bigotry. Whose interpretation is right?
    Individuals make their own decisions and have free will. Some people justify killing people because they listened to a Beatles Record--that doesn't make it the Beatles fault.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    In 1632 the Roman Catholic church banished Galileo for suggesting that the Earth revolved around the Sun.
    No, that's just a popular distortion of the actual situation. In actuality a Clergyman (Copernicus) suggested this long before Galileo adopted this theory as his own. Galileo did run afoul of the Church, but you aren't aware of why--or rather you are parroting the dumbed down reasoning why. Additionally--Galileo was contradicting other SCIENTISTS--the accepted "consensus" of the day. The conflict was much more about process than the scientific issue itself. It was at its core, a political affair, more than anything. I'm not saying it was good, rather this "poster child" for supposed anti-science has a lot more to it than people bother to learn.
    Its actually a very interesting topic, and I recommend reading up on it in full.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Are they wrong? I personally think they are, but do you? With the predisposition of believing in a supernatural being, why not witches?
    I really don't have proof one way or the other, but I guess I also really am not concerned with it, and wouldn't spend my time arguing against something that was meaningless to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    And science has proved this ineffective and and actually dangerous in practice.
    Leeches Cleared for Medical Use by the FDA

    I'm not really well versed on the topic, but it may be that your claim isn't quite so solid as you think.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Yes, because of religion, we justify cutting off body parts of babies. Makes perfect sense. If we are made in god's likeness, why would we have to remove anything? Why are you pointing out that "some medical indication that circumcision is beneficial?" Medicine is science and science is wrong, is it not?

    Oh, you answered my question!
    Are you really going to pretend that you don't understand what I said? Please. Obviously, what I was referring to is that many things in science are in fact found to be incorrect. If you've somehow interpreted that to mean that "science is always wrong" which is not what I said, let me take this opportunity to firmly correct you. Perhaps it would have been easier for you to understand if I said "Science is often found to be in error, and that we are in a constant state of developing and changing knowledge."

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    You're right. I can not disprove something that there is absolutely no evidence of ever existing. technically I can not disprove Santa Clause either but I know it is not true.
    Well, no evidence that you accept at least. Other people might say that it is a historical fact that Jesus rose from the Grave--that there are eyewitness accounts. I'm guessing that you believe historical events with less "evidence", but that's only a guess.

    Is there any evidence that a particular thought you had existed? Does that mean I should KNOW it was impossible to have existed? Again--this is all based on the fallacy that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. There is some need you and others have to insist that others beliefs are untrue. Isn't it more important that its simply not something YOU believe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Yes, I am wrong. Animals do not follow their instincts, they are ingrained with the guidance of the lord.
    I have no idea why you insist on this sort of nonsense. I said nothing of the sort. You've equated instinct and morality, which is simply not true, and then default to some totally irrelevant attempt at mockery--badly imagined mockery at that, because I said nothing of the sort.
    Do you want to have a conversation or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    That is a matter of opinion
    Actually, it isn't. The words are different, and have different meanings, despite having some crossover. Your dedication to making a petty swipe at religion is really...well distasteful. That's the sort of thing that poisons honest discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    And when did I ever display any negativity towards homosexuals?
    My apologies--I probably needed a comma in there or something. What I intended to say is that if someone held negative views of homosexuals akin to your negative views of religion, they would be labeled as "haters"

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Please re-read what you just wrote and bask in the irony of your words. You find that LEFTISTS like to label things they don't agree with. I will leave it at that...
    Yes, apparently I needed a Tongue in Cheek Icon of some sort for you to understand where I had been going with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Actually it is very much in the constitution. I posted it in the very post you responded to. I will re-post it again: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Those are the exact words from our constitution.
    Yes, you will notice that it doesn't say the words "Separation of Church and State." That is attributed to Jefferson I believe--his belief of what is proper. Others have stated similar reasoning, but it doesn't actually change the actual Constitutional text. I'm not sure why you aren't able to understand the difference, despite posting the actual text yourself. Clearly, you can see what is an isn't in there, yet you argue that these are actually the same (kind of like you wrongly argue that a cult and a Religion are the same thing). Its important to understand relationships between things, without thinking they are the same thing--and you've now demonstrated at least twice an inability or unwillingness to make these distinctions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    That makes you an exception to the rule. Hence the unbridled hate and fear for our president with a Muslim name.
    See--that's merely an accusation that you forward--a strawman if you will. You create a situation where those you disagree with are "haters" so you can attack them for that--whether or not this applies to them or not. I'm sure it does apply to some people, but your practice is to use a broadbrush to smear everyone so you can attack them--regardless of whether it is true or not.

    This practice which you've demonstrated is the exact sort of thing I (apparently failed to) mock above. Of course, I was dealing with one person--specifically your statements, and not saying that anyone who doesn't share my views of religion are ALL haters--that would be closer to what you've just demonstrated here for example.

    KAM

Posting Permissions