Hi Si
Your last few posts have been very reasoned out. Thanks.
I want to draw you into , not science vs religion (which I deem to be a very redundant topic), but what are the affects of such changes.
I have defended this point vigorously. Not because I want to see religion make a come back, but because the interim period of change is where my kids are educated, have kids , and raise families. So what happens next , will affect me a very great deal.
For your information I am an Australian living in New Zealand. Here it is possible for government policy to change the country overnight. it's a good snapshot of what will occur in other western nations. Religion had undergone changes that occurred through the Pentecostal/charismatic movement that swept the world. This actually increased the numbers of believers in churches dramatically and probably reflects the figures I presented best.
Once the initial ardor died down, numbers returned to normal across all faiths. But now there were other (very successful) competitors in the market for "bums on seats".Something the pent/char movement did very poorly was vetting their leaders.
In any business that I have been involved in , when the managers and experience is lost or not present, the more dominant personalities assume the role.
Once again , if you look to my figures(and I mean them to be representative, not necessarily totally accurate) Much of the leadership is drawn from the "I believe I believe" category.
This was rarely the case in traditional churches. Even though their leaders made huge numbers of human mistakes and choices, there was an overall structure that minimized the "rogue" element.
Now on to a specific consequence......under traditional churches , there was a consequence to everything. "you will go to hell" or "you will have to spend time in purgatory" or "If you commit suicide , you will not go to heaven"
It's the last that I can comment on here.........The numbers of suicides increasing in New Zealand in the last 20 years has reached epidemic proportions. These are from all walks of life and mostly between 15-25 years old.
one of all the possible causes is that as a society, we didn't realize there was a service that had been provided that was a necessary function......That was not that we should replace "If you commit suicide you will go to hell" , But realizing that no one even considered we NEEDED to say to our young people DON'T COMMIT SUICIDE....
This is one of the challenges that the emerging "fact based " education system needs to understand. Some of our psychology is/was controlled by the structure that is being replaced...I'm not saying don't do it . Just be careful you don't lose the players during the game..
Cheers
Iseason[B]
Hi iseason and all,
In regards to the void that may be left in the absence of Religious doctrine and instruction, I think you again highlight possibly a crucial element that distorts rational thinking. It is sad to hear the suicide rates you refer to, and in Wales UK, recently there appears to be a similar depressing phenomena taking place.
The root cause is not yet clear, and there is some controversy in regards to the connections between the deaths. however according to a BBC news program:
I'm not sure what the causes are in this case however there have been other cases where small groups have made a suicide pact in the firm belief that they would meet again in Heaven.
(IMO) One of the more subtle but emerging legacies of Supernatural belief is that people (especially younger people) seem to find it much more difficult to deal with the harshness and competitive nature of Human Reality. Nature appears mundane and can be overlooked in favor of a Supernatural Utopia. It becomes very difficult to appreciate the simple beauty of a Donkey if you have been lead to believe in Unicorns.
In this fantasy the real World can appear bleak and unrewarding, dirty, random and pointless.
I myself in my Youth have wrestled with these concepts. Fortunately for me I had distraction in Art & Music a channel for fantasy. I've somehow managed to re-compartmentalize my thinking to separate fantasy from reality and appreciate both for what they really are as best as I can tell. This is an ongoing movement that I am now enjoying.
I can study and learn from mythology with the ability to accept that which is almost certainly not real. I can learn from biblical, Islamic, Jewish text's and choose that which I feel is relevant and useful, whilst not believing on faith that any of it is necessarily true or real. This is empowering and allows me more freedom and open mindedness in this context. Now I no longer have that feeling of failure, disappointment or fear, or if I do then I know and realize that I am responsible for it. I am the intelligence, I am the power and the glory. I am more free to choose my own purpose and I am responsible for it. This translates to 'We are responsible'. I do not need to get to Heaven or avoid Hell, this is MY time and MY life.
Some Supernatural beliefs may prove beneficial in many respects, so I do not let them go, rather I keep them there as pure information. Call it arrogance but I feel that I draw the same power as a believer, just from a different source, understanding and endless wonder. Be brave, be responsible. If I can do it anyone can!
Kind Regards.
In regards to the void that may be left in the absence of Religious doctrine and instruction, I think you again highlight possibly a crucial element that distorts rational thinking. It is sad to hear the suicide rates you refer to, and in Wales UK, recently there appears to be a similar depressing phenomena taking place.
The root cause is not yet clear, and there is some controversy in regards to the connections between the deaths. however according to a BBC news program:
QUOTE
NO Internet suicide cults, no pacts, no criminal link and yet 17 youngsters from a small Welsh borough have apparently taken their own lives.
I'm not sure what the causes are in this case however there have been other cases where small groups have made a suicide pact in the firm belief that they would meet again in Heaven.
(IMO) One of the more subtle but emerging legacies of Supernatural belief is that people (especially younger people) seem to find it much more difficult to deal with the harshness and competitive nature of Human Reality. Nature appears mundane and can be overlooked in favor of a Supernatural Utopia. It becomes very difficult to appreciate the simple beauty of a Donkey if you have been lead to believe in Unicorns.
In this fantasy the real World can appear bleak and unrewarding, dirty, random and pointless.
I myself in my Youth have wrestled with these concepts. Fortunately for me I had distraction in Art & Music a channel for fantasy. I've somehow managed to re-compartmentalize my thinking to separate fantasy from reality and appreciate both for what they really are as best as I can tell. This is an ongoing movement that I am now enjoying.
I can study and learn from mythology with the ability to accept that which is almost certainly not real. I can learn from biblical, Islamic, Jewish text's and choose that which I feel is relevant and useful, whilst not believing on faith that any of it is necessarily true or real. This is empowering and allows me more freedom and open mindedness in this context. Now I no longer have that feeling of failure, disappointment or fear, or if I do then I know and realize that I am responsible for it. I am the intelligence, I am the power and the glory. I am more free to choose my own purpose and I am responsible for it. This translates to 'We are responsible'. I do not need to get to Heaven or avoid Hell, this is MY time and MY life.
Some Supernatural beliefs may prove beneficial in many respects, so I do not let them go, rather I keep them there as pure information. Call it arrogance but I feel that I draw the same power as a believer, just from a different source, understanding and endless wonder. Be brave, be responsible. If I can do it anyone can!
Kind Regards.
That is just my point. As adults who have seen before what was in place, all we see is "that" in general is not the answer. It's two fold in it's affect. We grew up while there was this other series that controlled various attitudes within some sections of society....
Now we are calling them out and our education system hasn't quite understood what basics were already covered quite well by the previous system...Several of the base religions worked hard at the basics...
1. though shalt not steal
2. Honor your father and your mother
3. respect thy neighbor
4. take at least one day out of seven to rest
5. be kind and truthful
6. be sure and have confidence
7. obedience
This was much of the indoctrination in early childhood teaching and was an overlap to education that gave reasons behind the rules......I'm not saying modern equivalents don't do this , but when it comes to young education, we should look there first. If there was something I said religion did better than science in previous posts, this was it.
At the age when these lessons were taught , the concepts i highlight above were taught alongside legends and fantasy....the school system is just beginning to use this same "story telling " method of teaching in mainstream...
Cheers
Iseason
Now we are calling them out and our education system hasn't quite understood what basics were already covered quite well by the previous system...Several of the base religions worked hard at the basics...
1. though shalt not steal
2. Honor your father and your mother
3. respect thy neighbor
4. take at least one day out of seven to rest
5. be kind and truthful
6. be sure and have confidence
7. obedience
This was much of the indoctrination in early childhood teaching and was an overlap to education that gave reasons behind the rules......I'm not saying modern equivalents don't do this , but when it comes to young education, we should look there first. If there was something I said religion did better than science in previous posts, this was it.
At the age when these lessons were taught , the concepts i highlight above were taught alongside legends and fantasy....the school system is just beginning to use this same "story telling " method of teaching in mainstream...
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (DB+)
Not exactly. Atheists have BELIEFS and FAITH as well. No more and no less than people of religion. You and they are merely deluding yourselves.
You pick a few trees in religion that you disagree with, God and whatever, but ignore the FOREST that is belief and faith.
Grumpy,
You forget who you are debating with. Deadbeat is using definition games yet again. According to her, any and all examples of faith and belief are the same as the religious variety.
It is a very cheap and intellectually dishonest way of trying to make anything and everything equal to religion. Usually this point of view is adopted once religion has shown to be lacking or limited which in the realm of scientific pursuits, it has been.
Also remember, this is the same woman who uses such a “special” broad definition of religion that political parties would be considered a religion.
I can have belief and faith based upon the tangible and the predictable and it will have nothing to do with the blind faith and unsubstantiated beliefs based upon mythology, superstition and ignorance that is religion.
You pick a few trees in religion that you disagree with, God and whatever, but ignore the FOREST that is belief and faith.
Grumpy,
You forget who you are debating with. Deadbeat is using definition games yet again. According to her, any and all examples of faith and belief are the same as the religious variety.
It is a very cheap and intellectually dishonest way of trying to make anything and everything equal to religion. Usually this point of view is adopted once religion has shown to be lacking or limited which in the realm of scientific pursuits, it has been.
Also remember, this is the same woman who uses such a “special” broad definition of religion that political parties would be considered a religion.
I can have belief and faith based upon the tangible and the predictable and it will have nothing to do with the blind faith and unsubstantiated beliefs based upon mythology, superstition and ignorance that is religion.
And there is no reason why these tried and tested methods need to end. But we also need to encourage Independence, creativity, critical thinking. There is no reason to indoctrinate children into a Religion that believes it has all the answers. If a child/adult chooses to believe something then fine, we can ask why 'that choice' and encourage questioning. it's one thing to tell a child eg; 'thou shalt not steal' but we also want them to understand why it is important and that it's not just to avoid punishment from God.
I cannot imagine a single Moral or Ethic that requires Religion for it to be effective, can you?.
I don't see why a child must respect their neighbor, more that a child should not disrespect a neighbor or anyone perhaps. Respect is earned and granted. Teach what is respectable, if possible.
Story telling, fairy tales etc were very effective and remain so, but children soon see through these as fictional, and are encouraged to do so because adults admit they are not real. The confusion can emerge from learning creationism and Noah at Sunday school from respected adults that believe it to be true or literal and whom know probably little or nothing about biology and then learning evolution on Monday at state school. The teachers of biology have an extra hurdle in these instances. It is little wonder there are so many deluded and confused Adults as a result.
Teach what we know and admit that which we do not, our children and their children might be the ones who solve the riddles.
regards
I cannot imagine a single Moral or Ethic that requires Religion for it to be effective, can you?.
I don't see why a child must respect their neighbor, more that a child should not disrespect a neighbor or anyone perhaps. Respect is earned and granted. Teach what is respectable, if possible.
Story telling, fairy tales etc were very effective and remain so, but children soon see through these as fictional, and are encouraged to do so because adults admit they are not real. The confusion can emerge from learning creationism and Noah at Sunday school from respected adults that believe it to be true or literal and whom know probably little or nothing about biology and then learning evolution on Monday at state school. The teachers of biology have an extra hurdle in these instances. It is little wonder there are so many deluded and confused Adults as a result.
Teach what we know and admit that which we do not, our children and their children might be the ones who solve the riddles.
regards
GeneSplice
I know it would be more productive to argue with a fence post, at least then any reply received would not be totally wrong!!!
Isn't it ironic that those who know the least are dead sure they have all the answers, while scientists know that the more they learn, the more questions they have yet to answer!!!
Grumpy
I know it would be more productive to argue with a fence post, at least then any reply received would not be totally wrong!!!
Isn't it ironic that those who know the least are dead sure they have all the answers, while scientists know that the more they learn, the more questions they have yet to answer!!!
Grumpy
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Mar 31 2008, 09:28 AM)
Teach what we know and admit that which we do not, our children and their children might be the ones who solve the riddles.
From my experience it has usually been clear which is known and which is speculation.
Maybe I had good teachers. Maybe I paid attention.
From my experience it has usually been clear which is known and which is speculation.
Maybe I had good teachers. Maybe I paid attention.
QUOTE (gmilam+Mar 31 2008, 02:58 PM)
From my experience it has usually been clear which is known and which is speculation.
Maybe I had good teachers. Maybe I paid attention.
Perhaps, you are one of the lucky ones, imagine being taught Biology by Ken Hovind
Maybe I had good teachers. Maybe I paid attention.
Perhaps, you are one of the lucky ones, imagine being taught Biology by Ken Hovind
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Mar 31 2008, 10:05 AM)
Perhaps, you are one of the lucky ones, imagine being taught Biology by Ken Hovind
That is a scary thought.
I must admit that High School biology made no sense to me at all. This was in Texas in the mid 1970's... a predominantly Baptist school district.
I later realized that it was because we never covered evolution. We were fed an endless stream of definitons to learn without the underlying concept of evolution to tie it together.
That is a scary thought.
I must admit that High School biology made no sense to me at all. This was in Texas in the mid 1970's... a predominantly Baptist school district.
I later realized that it was because we never covered evolution. We were fed an endless stream of definitons to learn without the underlying concept of evolution to tie it together.
QUOTE (gmilam+Mar 31 2008, 03:30 PM)
That is a scary thought.
I must admit that High School biology made no sense to me at all. This was in Texas in the mid 1970's... a predominantly Baptist school district.
I later realized that it was because we never covered evolution. We were fed an endless stream of definitions to learn without the underlying concept of evolution to tie it together.
I got the 'full on' Sunday School Creationist, 'Pandas and People' education.
Fortunately I was handed down a set of encyclopedias and books about Animals etc, which I could virtually recite.
And was subsequently thrown out for asking to many stupid questions about Noah's Ark.
I can't believe I was upset about it at the time
I must admit that High School biology made no sense to me at all. This was in Texas in the mid 1970's... a predominantly Baptist school district.
I later realized that it was because we never covered evolution. We were fed an endless stream of definitions to learn without the underlying concept of evolution to tie it together.
I got the 'full on' Sunday School Creationist, 'Pandas and People' education.
Fortunately I was handed down a set of encyclopedias and books about Animals etc, which I could virtually recite.
And was subsequently thrown out for asking to many stupid questions about Noah's Ark.
I can't believe I was upset about it at the time
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Mar 31 2008, 01:47 PM)
QUOTE (DB+)
Not exactly. Atheists have BELIEFS and FAITH as well. No more and no less than people of religion. You and they are merely deluding yourselves.
You pick a few trees in religion that you disagree with, God and whatever, but ignore the FOREST that is belief and faith.
Grumpy,
You forget who you are debating with. Deadbeat is using definition games yet again. According to her, any and all examples of faith and belief are the same as the religious variety.
It is a very cheap and intellectually dishonest way of trying to make anything and everything equal to religion. Usually this point of view is adopted once religion has shown to be lacking or limited which in the realm of scientific pursuits, it has been.
Also remember, this is the same woman who uses such a “special” broad definition of religion that political parties would be considered a religion.
I can have belief and faith based upon the tangible and the predictable and it will have nothing to do with the blind faith and unsubstantiated beliefs based upon mythology, superstition and ignorance that is religion.
HAHAH you fail to see the truest advantage of my assertion, but it is probably because it defeats yours.
Your assumption that somehow "science" will come up with the "right answer" to all ethical and moral questions is just silly. That you cannot see that Psychology in any form is subjective is also silly. Your failure is trying to assume that your ethical and moral basis is SUPERIOR to any one else' definitively. That is just impossible. It may be the best you know of, the one that you prefer and best fits the "right" and "good" as you see it. But there is no one answer. Someone else can easily find that their sense of right and good makes for different choices (like abortion, war, self defense, gun control, an infinite number).
The true advantage of my assertion, is that there IS no right answer, no single correct objectively proven answer for any moral or ethical question.
The best we can do is try to agree. Find commonalities, and use those. Think up rules to help the overall fitness. When is societies needs more important than an individuals needs? When can the individuals rights override those of society?Whether it is religious guidance, or some atheists choices for ethical and moral conduct, there can never be one truly "right" answer.
THAT is why I laugh at your simplistic remonstration of hubris. That your much beloved science could solve everything.
You pick a few trees in religion that you disagree with, God and whatever, but ignore the FOREST that is belief and faith.
Grumpy,
You forget who you are debating with. Deadbeat is using definition games yet again. According to her, any and all examples of faith and belief are the same as the religious variety.
It is a very cheap and intellectually dishonest way of trying to make anything and everything equal to religion. Usually this point of view is adopted once religion has shown to be lacking or limited which in the realm of scientific pursuits, it has been.
Also remember, this is the same woman who uses such a “special” broad definition of religion that political parties would be considered a religion.
I can have belief and faith based upon the tangible and the predictable and it will have nothing to do with the blind faith and unsubstantiated beliefs based upon mythology, superstition and ignorance that is religion.
HAHAH you fail to see the truest advantage of my assertion, but it is probably because it defeats yours.
Your assumption that somehow "science" will come up with the "right answer" to all ethical and moral questions is just silly. That you cannot see that Psychology in any form is subjective is also silly. Your failure is trying to assume that your ethical and moral basis is SUPERIOR to any one else' definitively. That is just impossible. It may be the best you know of, the one that you prefer and best fits the "right" and "good" as you see it. But there is no one answer. Someone else can easily find that their sense of right and good makes for different choices (like abortion, war, self defense, gun control, an infinite number).
The true advantage of my assertion, is that there IS no right answer, no single correct objectively proven answer for any moral or ethical question.
The best we can do is try to agree. Find commonalities, and use those. Think up rules to help the overall fitness. When is societies needs more important than an individuals needs? When can the individuals rights override those of society?Whether it is religious guidance, or some atheists choices for ethical and moral conduct, there can never be one truly "right" answer.
THAT is why I laugh at your simplistic remonstration of hubris. That your much beloved science could solve everything.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Apr 1 2008, 06:16 PM)
The best we can do is try to agree. Find commonalities, and use those. Think up rules to help the overall fitness. When is societies needs more important than an individuals needs? When can the individuals rights override those of society?Whether it is religious guidance, or some atheists choices for ethical and moral conduct, there can never be one truly "right" answer.
Glad to see you finally admit that religion is not a prerequisite for morals and ethics.
There may be hope for you yet.
Glad to see you finally admit that religion is not a prerequisite for morals and ethics.
There may be hope for you yet.
QUOTE (DB+)
HAHAH you fail to see the truest advantage of my assertion, but it is probably because it defeats yours.
And what assertion would that be? Are you talking about the fact that science has proven the claims of religion to be erroneous time after time? Or is it the fact that religious organization saw fit to execute and murder those who discovered that those religious claims were false? No matter how many time you claim to the contrary, try to make excuses for such action or simply walk away from the topic, it will not and does not change those facts.
And where did I state such an assertion? You continue to make blindingly erroneous claims about what I have posted. Either that or you are confusing me with another poster(s) again. Unless you can cite where I stated that science will come up with the right answer, as you put it, then this is yet another strawman posting of yours.
And where did I state such an assertion? You continue to make blindingly erroneous claims about what I have posted. Either that or you are confusing me with another poster(s) again. Unless you can cite where I stated that science will come up with the right answer, as you put it, then this is yet another strawman posting of yours.
That you cannot see that Psychology in any form is subjective is also silly.
Again, where have I made a comment about psychology? If you are going to try to debate someone, it would be very helpful to actually argue points that the person you are debating made rather than your unfounded assumption of what you think they are debating.
I do not assume anything. I can cite that my ethics and morals are superior or inferior on a case by case basis. Based upon what you have posted here, I can safely state that my ethics and moral are superior to yours. I do not seek to force my religion onto others as you do. I do not see women and homosexuals as inferior or second-class citizens as you and your religion does. I do not seek to limit science or scientific research based upon mythology, superstition and ignorance.
I do not assume anything. I can cite that my ethics and morals are superior or inferior on a case by case basis. Based upon what you have posted here, I can safely state that my ethics and moral are superior to yours. I do not seek to force my religion onto others as you do. I do not see women and homosexuals as inferior or second-class citizens as you and your religion does. I do not seek to limit science or scientific research based upon mythology, superstition and ignorance.
That is just impossible.
Not so. I have just cited how it is fact in your case. Again, when faced with fact that undermined your claims, you take the often-used last resort claims of some xian apologists I have encountered and try to claim that all are just equal opinions.
Depending on the situation, yes there is. And again, how typical of the theistic mindset. Like science, the rational point of view would be to take everything on a case by case basis. No one would seek “one answer” to everything unless they view the world in such a simplistic view.
Depending on the situation, yes there is. And again, how typical of the theistic mindset. Like science, the rational point of view would be to take everything on a case by case basis. No one would seek “one answer” to everything unless they view the world in such a simplistic view.
Someone else can easily find that their sense of right and good makes for different choices (like abortion, war, self defense, gun control, an infinite number).
And some of what you list supports my argument of case by case basis which you do not support. By what you have posted and citing your religion, you would impose upon society the “one answer” dictated by your particular flavor of the faith. That sort of “answer” simply isn’t and isn’t rational nor superior to an outlook that is based upon the freedoms of the individual that I support.
And your assertion is, again, an erroneous one. You seek a blanket right or wrong and in life there is rarely such a thing. And again, this outlook is material to the simplistic polarized view many faithful carry.
And your assertion is, again, an erroneous one. You seek a blanket right or wrong and in life there is rarely such a thing. And again, this outlook is material to the simplistic polarized view many faithful carry.
The best we can do is try to agree. Find commonalities, and use those. Think up rules to help the overall fitness.
And a majority of these rules are for the right of the one over the demands of the many. This is something that you have stated you stand against since you wish to limit scientific research based upon your religion, restrict right based upon your religion and destroy one of the fundamental principles of the U.S. Constitution because it prevents you form forcing others to live by your religious laws.
“Needs” are irrelevant unless you are trying to make a plea to emotions like fear rather than to rational examine a situation.
“Needs” are irrelevant unless you are trying to make a plea to emotions like fear rather than to rational examine a situation.
When can the individuals rights override those of society?
Most of the time given the foundation of the right of the one over the mob. Again, case in point, the right of the one to be free of religious laws forced upon him or her by a religion whose representative seek to rule by mob.
Again, that would be predicated on the situation.
Again, that would be predicated on the situation.
THAT is why I laugh at your simplistic remonstration of hubris.
I am not the one seeking a simplistic and polarized “one” answer for everything or seeking to violate personal freedoms and force religious laws onto everyone.
Laugh all you will, but you have only provided material proof of why your wishes of mob religious rule is diametrically opposed to what this country is founded upon and the desires of the founding fathers.
Again, where have I stated that it would? All I have cited was how your claim of science never proving religion wrong as another erroneous statement of yours. Science has and will continue to prove the claims of religion wrong.
You can choose to ignore this fact and the facts that science reveals in favor of your superstitious outlook and desire to limit if not stifle science, but you desires are meaningless in the free and open secular society we live in.
Next time you wish to argue what I have posted, try to actually cite what I have posted. You keep embarrassing yourself when you try to take me to task for things I have never stated.
And where did I state such an assertion? You continue to make blindingly erroneous claims about what I have posted. Either that or you are confusing me with another poster(s) again. Unless you can cite where I stated that science will come up with the right answer, as you put it, then this is yet another strawman posting of yours.
Fine I need not. Then you admit that your ethical and moral basis and judgements founded from them are no more authoritative or valid than any other ethical and moral system. Why would I not agree to that?
Again, where have I made a comment about psychology? If you are going to try to debate someone, it would be very helpful to actually argue points that the person you are debating made rather than your unfounded assumption of what you think they are debating.
It would help if you mentioned what you DID believe once in a while I would guess. You atheist apologist mental giants are busily espousing every form of insipid and factually devoid arguments, it is hard to keep up. But I do not hear a single one of you correcting or arguing with anyone but me, so I easily assume you agree with each other.
I do not assume anything. I can cite that my ethics and morals are superior or inferior on a case by case basis. Based upon what you have posted here, I can safely state that my ethics and moral are superior to yours. I do not seek to force my religion onto others as you do. I do not see women and homosexuals as inferior or second-class citizens as you and your religion does. I do not seek to limit science or scientific research based upon mythology, superstition and ignorance.
HAHA and then you defeat your own idiotic assertion of my misattribution BY ASSERTING IT IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH. Next you will tell me that Psychology is "science" and therefore superior to religion hehe.
Not so. I have just cited how it is fact in your case. Again, when faced with fact that undermined your claims, you take the often-used last resort claims of some xian apologists I have encountered and try to claim that all are just equal opinions.
Uh no, that so called last resort is conveniently the truth. Further resort is therefore unecessary, as you slam into the wall of your own constucted ignorance.
Since your ethical and moral system can never be any more authoritative, valid or correct than any other, the argument devolves into simple subjective comparison, which you cannot win.
Depending on the situation, yes there is. And again, how typical of the theistic mindset. Like science, the rational point of view would be to take everything on a case by case basis. No one would seek “one answer” to everything unless they view the world in such a simplistic view.
HAHAHAHAH And here you flip flop IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH. Insisting that there IS a right answer to "some situations", and then saying later that it is "simplistic".
Wow a new low.
And some of what you list supports my argument of case by case basis which you do not support. By what you have posted and citing your religion, you would impose upon society the “one answer” dictated by your particular flavor of the faith. That sort of “answer” simply isn’t and isn’t rational nor superior to an outlook that is based upon the freedoms of the individual that I support.
Exactly, I never said it was SUPERIOR, just in my subjective opinion, it was the best. Your mileage of course may vary.
And your assertion is, again, an erroneous one. You seek a blanket right or wrong and in life there is rarely such a thing. And again, this outlook is material to the simplistic polarized view many faithful carry.
Okay if you actually are trying to UNDERSTAND (not agree) with me, DO ATTEMPT TO READ THIS. Again I do not SEEK a blanket right or wrong. I AM POINTING OUT THERE IS NO SUCH THING. Do you actually try to even read what I type? The fact there is no such possible outcome means that all outcomes are subjective choices of necessity. We all needs must make subjective choices, based on our experiences and learning, and what references we choose to give credibility to.
If you actually understood that, you would see that I am not a simplistic religious *****, I just have different beliefs than you, and I FULLY SUPPORT AND DEFEND YOUR RIGHT TO HAVE THEM. I do not wish to force you to adopt my beliefs. I simply wish for you to recognize that religious people can be no less reasonable and intelligent than you. That your ethical and moral basis does NOT MAKE YOU SUPERIOR. Just different.
Like Obama's Reverend Wrong. he has every right to believe and say traitorous and seditionist things in this country. They are blatantly that to be sure. But my opinion is not superior to his, (unless he exceeds mere speech and violates the law), and he (and many Americans) have every right to believe as they wish. Superiority in this case is adjudged by the democratic process, and it may well be that his views are more popular than mine. I would view it as a terrible loss, while he would view it as an incredible affirmation. Only history and a subjective later judgement will define who was "right" by examing the consequences. And the decision can go either way STILL depending on the subjective views of the judge.
And a majority of these rules are for the right of the one over the demands of the many. This is something that you have stated you stand against since you wish to limit scientific research based upon your religion, restrict right based upon your religion and destroy one of the fundamental principles of the U.S. Constitution because it prevents you form forcing others to live by your religious laws.
Uh no, completely wrong. I am all for limiting research on EMBRYONIC stem cells, and thankfully there are other alternatives. Science MUST be constrained by ethical and moral concerns of the people it serves. Objective science MUST be completely free of ethical and moral discipline in its CONDUCT, but that DOES NOT MEAN that it does not need to be constrained. It does not exist in a vacuum, and some disciplines are not acceptable. There are vast differences in shades of grey to be sure. I am sure you would agree the Nazi's experimentation on the Jews was immoral and unethical. But every issue needs discussion, and your ethical and moral basis is not the sole judge, except in your mind and your opinion. Where the government is concerned ALL of our ethics and morals deserve consideration. The government and our legal system is a reflection of ALL OF OUR ethical and moral judgements. There is no one right answer in government (otherwise TRUE unanimous democracy would actually work and be feasible), just a consensus.
“Needs” are irrelevant unless you are trying to make a plea to emotions like fear rather than to rational examine a situation.
So your ethics operate irrespective of any needs? So your own needs, those of society are irrelevant? Exactly what are you basing your judgements on then?
Most of the time given the foundation of the right of the one over the mob. Again, case in point, the right of the one to be free of religious laws forced upon him or her by a religion whose representative seek to rule by mob.
HAHAH And you would prefer rule by FIAT of the miniority? Despot much?
Again, that would be predicated on the situation.
Sure, name a SINGLE ethical or moral situation where there is an objective single right answer. If it is SUBJECTIVE, you cannot have a single right answer, but even then, do prove me wrong.
I am not the one seeking a simplistic and polarized “one” answer for everything or seeking to violate personal freedoms and force religious laws onto everyone.
Yes you are. You, as they say on Mythbusters, "I reject your reality and substitute my own". In this case, by claiming a right answer (yours presumably, as why would you claim a wrong answer), you are doing exactly that. I am stating that my opinion WHILE DIFFERENT deserves the same respect as yours. And yours deserves the same respect as mine.
Laugh all you will, but you have only provided material proof of why your wishes of mob religious rule is diametrically opposed to what this country is founded upon and the desires of the founding fathers.
Do quote a single statement FROM ANYWHERE where I advocate mob religious rule. Unless it is Democracy you object to? If you do not like our representative Democracy what are you suggesting then? If our ethics and morals in this country are predominantly religious (and they are) guess what, that is what the LAWS will reflect. But the constitutional rights of individuals should protect your freedom of expression, your right to believe what you will. Also, they sghould prevent ANY RELIGION no matter how popular or widely held, from excessive interference with your life and practices.
If you are beginning to understand what I am saying, it is a fine line, and not an easy distinction to make. It is ENTIRELY subjective, but hopefully we always err toward freedom of the individual, and not restriction, unless the societal need is great. THAT is what our country is founded upon. FREEDOM. But too much freedom is just anarchy.
Again, where have I stated that it would? All I have cited was how your claim of science never proving religion wrong as another erroneous statement of yours. Science has and will continue to prove the claims of religion wrong.
Really, punishing Murder is wrong? Adultery is right? Theft and perjury were scientifically absolved from wrong? Honor killings are okay? Wait some religions believe differently, how could ALL be wrong?
Oh you meant SOME claims of religion. Certainly not all. And SCIENTISTS have been proven wrong by science. If it is unbiased, the truth reveals the foolishness in us all, and not just religion. Your bellicose umbrage is not just misguided, but foolish.
You can choose to ignore this fact and the facts that science reveals in favor of your superstitious outlook and desire to limit if not stifle science, but you desires are meaningless in the free and open secular society we live in.
HAHA do not mistake SECULAR for ATHEIST. While the government may not PREFER any religion, it must respect and honor ALL RELIGIONS, as well as your ethical and moral beliefs, whatever you wish to call them.
Next time you wish to argue what I have posted, try to actually cite what I have posted. You keep embarrassing yourself when you try to take me to task for things I have never stated.
How is them apples?
And what assertion would that be? Are you talking about the fact that science has proven the claims of religion to be erroneous time after time? Or is it the fact that religious organization saw fit to execute and murder those who discovered that those religious claims were false? No matter how many time you claim to the contrary, try to make excuses for such action or simply walk away from the topic, it will not and does not change those facts.
QUOTE
Your assumption that somehow "science" will come up with the "right answer" to all ethical and moral questions is just silly.
And where did I state such an assertion? You continue to make blindingly erroneous claims about what I have posted. Either that or you are confusing me with another poster(s) again. Unless you can cite where I stated that science will come up with the right answer, as you put it, then this is yet another strawman posting of yours.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Your assumption that somehow "science" will come up with the "right answer" to all ethical and moral questions is just silly. |
And where did I state such an assertion? You continue to make blindingly erroneous claims about what I have posted. Either that or you are confusing me with another poster(s) again. Unless you can cite where I stated that science will come up with the right answer, as you put it, then this is yet another strawman posting of yours.
That you cannot see that Psychology in any form is subjective is also silly.
Again, where have I made a comment about psychology? If you are going to try to debate someone, it would be very helpful to actually argue points that the person you are debating made rather than your unfounded assumption of what you think they are debating.
QUOTE
Your failure is trying to assume that your ethical and moral basis is SUPERIOR to any one else' definitively.
I do not assume anything. I can cite that my ethics and morals are superior or inferior on a case by case basis. Based upon what you have posted here, I can safely state that my ethics and moral are superior to yours. I do not seek to force my religion onto others as you do. I do not see women and homosexuals as inferior or second-class citizens as you and your religion does. I do not seek to limit science or scientific research based upon mythology, superstition and ignorance.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Your failure is trying to assume that your ethical and moral basis is SUPERIOR to any one else' definitively. |
I do not assume anything. I can cite that my ethics and morals are superior or inferior on a case by case basis. Based upon what you have posted here, I can safely state that my ethics and moral are superior to yours. I do not seek to force my religion onto others as you do. I do not see women and homosexuals as inferior or second-class citizens as you and your religion does. I do not seek to limit science or scientific research based upon mythology, superstition and ignorance.
That is just impossible.
Not so. I have just cited how it is fact in your case. Again, when faced with fact that undermined your claims, you take the often-used last resort claims of some xian apologists I have encountered and try to claim that all are just equal opinions.
QUOTE
It may be the best you know of, the one that you prefer and best fits the "right" and "good" as you see it. But there is no one answer.
Depending on the situation, yes there is. And again, how typical of the theistic mindset. Like science, the rational point of view would be to take everything on a case by case basis. No one would seek “one answer” to everything unless they view the world in such a simplistic view.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It may be the best you know of, the one that you prefer and best fits the "right" and "good" as you see it. But there is no one answer. |
Depending on the situation, yes there is. And again, how typical of the theistic mindset. Like science, the rational point of view would be to take everything on a case by case basis. No one would seek “one answer” to everything unless they view the world in such a simplistic view.
Someone else can easily find that their sense of right and good makes for different choices (like abortion, war, self defense, gun control, an infinite number).
And some of what you list supports my argument of case by case basis which you do not support. By what you have posted and citing your religion, you would impose upon society the “one answer” dictated by your particular flavor of the faith. That sort of “answer” simply isn’t and isn’t rational nor superior to an outlook that is based upon the freedoms of the individual that I support.
QUOTE
The true advantage of my assertion, is that there IS no right answer, no single correct objectively proven answer for any moral or ethical question.
And your assertion is, again, an erroneous one. You seek a blanket right or wrong and in life there is rarely such a thing. And again, this outlook is material to the simplistic polarized view many faithful carry.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The true advantage of my assertion, is that there IS no right answer, no single correct objectively proven answer for any moral or ethical question. |
And your assertion is, again, an erroneous one. You seek a blanket right or wrong and in life there is rarely such a thing. And again, this outlook is material to the simplistic polarized view many faithful carry.
The best we can do is try to agree. Find commonalities, and use those. Think up rules to help the overall fitness.
And a majority of these rules are for the right of the one over the demands of the many. This is something that you have stated you stand against since you wish to limit scientific research based upon your religion, restrict right based upon your religion and destroy one of the fundamental principles of the U.S. Constitution because it prevents you form forcing others to live by your religious laws.
QUOTE
When is societies needs more important than an individuals needs?
“Needs” are irrelevant unless you are trying to make a plea to emotions like fear rather than to rational examine a situation.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| When is societies needs more important than an individuals needs? |
“Needs” are irrelevant unless you are trying to make a plea to emotions like fear rather than to rational examine a situation.
When can the individuals rights override those of society?
Most of the time given the foundation of the right of the one over the mob. Again, case in point, the right of the one to be free of religious laws forced upon him or her by a religion whose representative seek to rule by mob.
QUOTE
Whether it is religious guidance, or some atheists choices for ethical and moral conduct, there can never be one truly "right" answer.
Again, that would be predicated on the situation.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Whether it is religious guidance, or some atheists choices for ethical and moral conduct, there can never be one truly "right" answer. |
Again, that would be predicated on the situation.
THAT is why I laugh at your simplistic remonstration of hubris.
I am not the one seeking a simplistic and polarized “one” answer for everything or seeking to violate personal freedoms and force religious laws onto everyone.
Laugh all you will, but you have only provided material proof of why your wishes of mob religious rule is diametrically opposed to what this country is founded upon and the desires of the founding fathers.
QUOTE
That your much beloved science could solve everything.
Again, where have I stated that it would? All I have cited was how your claim of science never proving religion wrong as another erroneous statement of yours. Science has and will continue to prove the claims of religion wrong.
You can choose to ignore this fact and the facts that science reveals in favor of your superstitious outlook and desire to limit if not stifle science, but you desires are meaningless in the free and open secular society we live in.
Next time you wish to argue what I have posted, try to actually cite what I have posted. You keep embarrassing yourself when you try to take me to task for things I have never stated.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 2 2008, 12:54 AM)
And where did I state such an assertion? You continue to make blindingly erroneous claims about what I have posted. Either that or you are confusing me with another poster(s) again. Unless you can cite where I stated that science will come up with the right answer, as you put it, then this is yet another strawman posting of yours.
Fine I need not. Then you admit that your ethical and moral basis and judgements founded from them are no more authoritative or valid than any other ethical and moral system. Why would I not agree to that?
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 2 2008, 12:54 AM)
Again, where have I made a comment about psychology? If you are going to try to debate someone, it would be very helpful to actually argue points that the person you are debating made rather than your unfounded assumption of what you think they are debating.
It would help if you mentioned what you DID believe once in a while I would guess. You atheist apologist mental giants are busily espousing every form of insipid and factually devoid arguments, it is hard to keep up. But I do not hear a single one of you correcting or arguing with anyone but me, so I easily assume you agree with each other.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 2 2008, 12:54 AM)
I do not assume anything. I can cite that my ethics and morals are superior or inferior on a case by case basis. Based upon what you have posted here, I can safely state that my ethics and moral are superior to yours. I do not seek to force my religion onto others as you do. I do not see women and homosexuals as inferior or second-class citizens as you and your religion does. I do not seek to limit science or scientific research based upon mythology, superstition and ignorance.
HAHA and then you defeat your own idiotic assertion of my misattribution BY ASSERTING IT IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH. Next you will tell me that Psychology is "science" and therefore superior to religion hehe.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 2 2008, 12:54 AM)
Not so. I have just cited how it is fact in your case. Again, when faced with fact that undermined your claims, you take the often-used last resort claims of some xian apologists I have encountered and try to claim that all are just equal opinions.
Uh no, that so called last resort is conveniently the truth. Further resort is therefore unecessary, as you slam into the wall of your own constucted ignorance.
Since your ethical and moral system can never be any more authoritative, valid or correct than any other, the argument devolves into simple subjective comparison, which you cannot win.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 2 2008, 12:54 AM)
Depending on the situation, yes there is. And again, how typical of the theistic mindset. Like science, the rational point of view would be to take everything on a case by case basis. No one would seek “one answer” to everything unless they view the world in such a simplistic view.
HAHAHAHAH And here you flip flop IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH. Insisting that there IS a right answer to "some situations", and then saying later that it is "simplistic".
Wow a new low.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 2 2008, 12:54 AM)
And some of what you list supports my argument of case by case basis which you do not support. By what you have posted and citing your religion, you would impose upon society the “one answer” dictated by your particular flavor of the faith. That sort of “answer” simply isn’t and isn’t rational nor superior to an outlook that is based upon the freedoms of the individual that I support.
Exactly, I never said it was SUPERIOR, just in my subjective opinion, it was the best. Your mileage of course may vary.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 2 2008, 12:54 AM)
And your assertion is, again, an erroneous one. You seek a blanket right or wrong and in life there is rarely such a thing. And again, this outlook is material to the simplistic polarized view many faithful carry.
Okay if you actually are trying to UNDERSTAND (not agree) with me, DO ATTEMPT TO READ THIS. Again I do not SEEK a blanket right or wrong. I AM POINTING OUT THERE IS NO SUCH THING. Do you actually try to even read what I type? The fact there is no such possible outcome means that all outcomes are subjective choices of necessity. We all needs must make subjective choices, based on our experiences and learning, and what references we choose to give credibility to.
If you actually understood that, you would see that I am not a simplistic religious *****, I just have different beliefs than you, and I FULLY SUPPORT AND DEFEND YOUR RIGHT TO HAVE THEM. I do not wish to force you to adopt my beliefs. I simply wish for you to recognize that religious people can be no less reasonable and intelligent than you. That your ethical and moral basis does NOT MAKE YOU SUPERIOR. Just different.
Like Obama's Reverend Wrong. he has every right to believe and say traitorous and seditionist things in this country. They are blatantly that to be sure. But my opinion is not superior to his, (unless he exceeds mere speech and violates the law), and he (and many Americans) have every right to believe as they wish. Superiority in this case is adjudged by the democratic process, and it may well be that his views are more popular than mine. I would view it as a terrible loss, while he would view it as an incredible affirmation. Only history and a subjective later judgement will define who was "right" by examing the consequences. And the decision can go either way STILL depending on the subjective views of the judge.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 2 2008, 12:54 AM)
And a majority of these rules are for the right of the one over the demands of the many. This is something that you have stated you stand against since you wish to limit scientific research based upon your religion, restrict right based upon your religion and destroy one of the fundamental principles of the U.S. Constitution because it prevents you form forcing others to live by your religious laws.
Uh no, completely wrong. I am all for limiting research on EMBRYONIC stem cells, and thankfully there are other alternatives. Science MUST be constrained by ethical and moral concerns of the people it serves. Objective science MUST be completely free of ethical and moral discipline in its CONDUCT, but that DOES NOT MEAN that it does not need to be constrained. It does not exist in a vacuum, and some disciplines are not acceptable. There are vast differences in shades of grey to be sure. I am sure you would agree the Nazi's experimentation on the Jews was immoral and unethical. But every issue needs discussion, and your ethical and moral basis is not the sole judge, except in your mind and your opinion. Where the government is concerned ALL of our ethics and morals deserve consideration. The government and our legal system is a reflection of ALL OF OUR ethical and moral judgements. There is no one right answer in government (otherwise TRUE unanimous democracy would actually work and be feasible), just a consensus.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 2 2008, 12:54 AM)
“Needs” are irrelevant unless you are trying to make a plea to emotions like fear rather than to rational examine a situation.
So your ethics operate irrespective of any needs? So your own needs, those of society are irrelevant? Exactly what are you basing your judgements on then?
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 2 2008, 12:54 AM)
Most of the time given the foundation of the right of the one over the mob. Again, case in point, the right of the one to be free of religious laws forced upon him or her by a religion whose representative seek to rule by mob.
HAHAH And you would prefer rule by FIAT of the miniority? Despot much?
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 2 2008, 12:54 AM)
Again, that would be predicated on the situation.
Sure, name a SINGLE ethical or moral situation where there is an objective single right answer. If it is SUBJECTIVE, you cannot have a single right answer, but even then, do prove me wrong.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 2 2008, 12:54 AM)
I am not the one seeking a simplistic and polarized “one” answer for everything or seeking to violate personal freedoms and force religious laws onto everyone.
Yes you are. You, as they say on Mythbusters, "I reject your reality and substitute my own". In this case, by claiming a right answer (yours presumably, as why would you claim a wrong answer), you are doing exactly that. I am stating that my opinion WHILE DIFFERENT deserves the same respect as yours. And yours deserves the same respect as mine.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 2 2008, 12:54 AM)
Laugh all you will, but you have only provided material proof of why your wishes of mob religious rule is diametrically opposed to what this country is founded upon and the desires of the founding fathers.
Do quote a single statement FROM ANYWHERE where I advocate mob religious rule. Unless it is Democracy you object to? If you do not like our representative Democracy what are you suggesting then? If our ethics and morals in this country are predominantly religious (and they are) guess what, that is what the LAWS will reflect. But the constitutional rights of individuals should protect your freedom of expression, your right to believe what you will. Also, they sghould prevent ANY RELIGION no matter how popular or widely held, from excessive interference with your life and practices.
If you are beginning to understand what I am saying, it is a fine line, and not an easy distinction to make. It is ENTIRELY subjective, but hopefully we always err toward freedom of the individual, and not restriction, unless the societal need is great. THAT is what our country is founded upon. FREEDOM. But too much freedom is just anarchy.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 2 2008, 12:54 AM)
Again, where have I stated that it would? All I have cited was how your claim of science never proving religion wrong as another erroneous statement of yours. Science has and will continue to prove the claims of religion wrong.
Really, punishing Murder is wrong? Adultery is right? Theft and perjury were scientifically absolved from wrong? Honor killings are okay? Wait some religions believe differently, how could ALL be wrong?
Oh you meant SOME claims of religion. Certainly not all. And SCIENTISTS have been proven wrong by science. If it is unbiased, the truth reveals the foolishness in us all, and not just religion. Your bellicose umbrage is not just misguided, but foolish.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 2 2008, 12:54 AM)
You can choose to ignore this fact and the facts that science reveals in favor of your superstitious outlook and desire to limit if not stifle science, but you desires are meaningless in the free and open secular society we live in.
HAHA do not mistake SECULAR for ATHEIST. While the government may not PREFER any religion, it must respect and honor ALL RELIGIONS, as well as your ethical and moral beliefs, whatever you wish to call them.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 2 2008, 12:54 AM)
Next time you wish to argue what I have posted, try to actually cite what I have posted. You keep embarrassing yourself when you try to take me to task for things I have never stated.
How is them apples?
QUOTE (DB+)
Fine I need not.
Need not what? Admit that you yet again made an erroneous statement regarding what I have posted? If you cannot even debate honestly what I have posted, then you are here to simply preach based upon your dogmatic view rather than debate. Judging by your spamming parroted claims and views, that would appear to be applicable.
Again, as I stated before, on a personal level, such determinations are on a case by case basis. You seek a blanket “truth” based upon your religion.
And, again, I have cited exactly how your claim of everything is equal is a desperate reach on your part and just how your morals and ethics that you have stated here are inferior.
Again, as I stated before, on a personal level, such determinations are on a case by case basis. You seek a blanket “truth” based upon your religion.
And, again, I have cited exactly how your claim of everything is equal is a desperate reach on your part and just how your morals and ethics that you have stated here are inferior.
It would help if you mentioned what you DID believe once in a while I would guess.
I have stated exactly what I believe before. It is not my fault you continually confuse me with other members of this forum or that you cannot keep your arguments straight or cogent. If you have to guess, then you are not debating what I have posted on this forum but going off on yet another tangent for some odd reason.
If you are unable to debate more than one person at a time, then you have a few choices. You can always stop posting here, at the loss of much entertainment for us, or you could request to debate only one person at a time since you seem to be ill equip to follow a debate involving more than one person in opposition to your claims.
If you are unable to debate more than one person at a time, then you have a few choices. You can always stop posting here, at the loss of much entertainment for us, or you could request to debate only one person at a time since you seem to be ill equip to follow a debate involving more than one person in opposition to your claims.
But I do not hear a single one of you correcting or arguing with anyone but me, so I easily assume you agree with each other.
And again, you assume and give material support to the related adage regarding that term. Again, your assumption is typical for the simplistic and polarized mindset of a blind theist. You erroneously assume that since we “appose” you so we are all the same and are of the same opinion.
But your intellectual laziness is still no excuse. If you seek to debate a person you should at the very least actually debate what they have posted.
So rather than debate how your assumption is yet again wrong, you post yet another cop-out. Here is your original claim:
So rather than debate how your assumption is yet again wrong, you post yet another cop-out. Here is your original claim:
Your failure is trying to assume that your ethical and moral basis is SUPERIOR to any one else' definitively.
Again, I do not assume anything. I can cite that my ethics and morals are superior or inferior on a case by case basis. I can and have cited how, for example, my ethics and moral are superior to that which you claims are yours. So, unless you have another cop-out excuse posting, this was and is yet another assumption on your part that has proven to be baseless.
No, it is just your wishful thinking. You have stated that your ethics include treating women and homosexuals as second-class citizens and you seek to force your religion onto others. Your morals and ethics are inferior. Address the subject of science versus religion, again science has proven over and over the claims of religion to be in error. Try to claim that both are equal is to be intentionally self-deluded to the fact that religion has failed in the face of science. This makes the claims of religion erroneous. Something that is erroneous is not equal to anything supported by fact.
No, it is just your wishful thinking. You have stated that your ethics include treating women and homosexuals as second-class citizens and you seek to force your religion onto others. Your morals and ethics are inferior. Address the subject of science versus religion, again science has proven over and over the claims of religion to be in error. Try to claim that both are equal is to be intentionally self-deluded to the fact that religion has failed in the face of science. This makes the claims of religion erroneous. Something that is erroneous is not equal to anything supported by fact.
Further resort is therefore unecessary, as you slam into the wall of your own constucted ignorance.
Again, unfounded personal comments backed by nothing more than your hollow claims. I have cited how science has proven religion in error over and over yet you still try to claim that both are equal. You would have to be willfully ignorant to believe both are equal when science has continually proven religion in error.
And this is again based upon your unfounded assumption and blind faith. I have show exactly how your moral and ethics are inferior and again you have to resort tot eh claims that all are equal in order to desperately try to defend your inferior morals and ethics.
It is not subjective to claim that treating women as less than men is valid or correct. It is not subjective to claim that limiting the rights of others due to whom they choose to have relationships with is valid or correct.
And this is again based upon your unfounded assumption and blind faith. I have show exactly how your moral and ethics are inferior and again you have to resort tot eh claims that all are equal in order to desperately try to defend your inferior morals and ethics.
It is not subjective to claim that treating women as less than men is valid or correct. It is not subjective to claim that limiting the rights of others due to whom they choose to have relationships with is valid or correct.
HAHAHAHAH And here you flip flop IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH. Insisting that there IS a right answer to "some situations", and then saying later that it is "simplistic".
Wow a new low.
And again you obviously fail to grasp the point, so again you post more flippant replies. You constantly shift the context to suit your distortions. I’m not surprised by that, but again your actions are that of the more typical and distasteful xian apologists one tend to encounter.
LOL. And we have more obfuscations and intellectual dishonesty. You have claimed that is a fact that this nation is a xian nation and therefore xian laws must rule. You have also stated that since xian are the majority that they should also rule by mob. You may not have use the term superior, but you have indicated that your claims of such are “fact” including the “fact” that women and homosexuals would be treated as second class citizens. So rather than operate on the context you fall back to more pedantic evasions.
So if your claim here is the truth rather than your previous claims, that mean that your view that homosexual should not be allowed to marry is of equal value to my view that they can. So unless you wish to try to argue that someone else’s ethics and morals are inferior to yours that state homosexuals cannot marry, then society should allow you to have your opinions based upon your ethics and morals while it allows homosexuals to marry based upon their ethics and morals. Unless of course, you seek to prevent that sort of equal expression.
LOL. And we have more obfuscations and intellectual dishonesty. You have claimed that is a fact that this nation is a xian nation and therefore xian laws must rule. You have also stated that since xian are the majority that they should also rule by mob. You may not have use the term superior, but you have indicated that your claims of such are “fact” including the “fact” that women and homosexuals would be treated as second class citizens. So rather than operate on the context you fall back to more pedantic evasions.
So if your claim here is the truth rather than your previous claims, that mean that your view that homosexual should not be allowed to marry is of equal value to my view that they can. So unless you wish to try to argue that someone else’s ethics and morals are inferior to yours that state homosexuals cannot marry, then society should allow you to have your opinions based upon your ethics and morals while it allows homosexuals to marry based upon their ethics and morals. Unless of course, you seek to prevent that sort of equal expression.
Okay if you actually are trying to UNDERSTAND (not agree) with me, DO ATTEMPT TO READ THIS. Again I do not SEEK a blanket right or wrong. I AM POINTING OUT THERE IS NO SUCH THING. Do you actually try to even read what I type?
Yes, and what you have just claims is a lie. You have posted how you, based upon your religion, see it as perfectly acceptable to prevent people from exercising their personal freedoms, restrict scientific pursuits and relegate woman and homosexuals to the status of second class citizens. Based upon your religion, you seek to do this in a blanket fashion, no exceptions.
Yet another lie. You have stated in the past that this is a xian nation by desing and should be so by mob rule. Proof of that is your totally ignorance in understanding that fact and placing my comment about your xian mob rule desire in your signature.
Then there is your stated desire to removed from the Constitution the establishment clause and the related separation of church and state.
Yet another lie. You have stated in the past that this is a xian nation by desing and should be so by mob rule. Proof of that is your totally ignorance in understanding that fact and placing my comment about your xian mob rule desire in your signature.
Then there is your stated desire to removed from the Constitution the establishment clause and the related separation of church and state.
I simply wish for you to recognize that religious people can be no less reasonable and intelligent than you.
Can be or are? Again, that would be a case by case basis. In your case, that is simply not true. You have proven to be totally unreasonable, irrational and frankly not that intelligent. Anyone claiming to be intelligent would not have to resort to the word and definition games you have and still do in order to support their claims.
Again, if you think it is perfectly acceptable to treat others as inferiors based upon their sex and sexual orientation, then your ethics and moral are inferior because such outdated thinking leads to restriction on personal freedoms like that which we have seen over time backed in some cases fully by religion.
Again, if you think it is perfectly acceptable to treat others as inferiors based upon their sex and sexual orientation, then your ethics and moral are inferior because such outdated thinking leads to restriction on personal freedoms like that which we have seen over time backed in some cases fully by religion.
But my opinion is not superior to his, (unless he exceeds mere speech and violates the law), and he (and many Americans) have every right to believe as they wish.
Personal belief is one thing but to publically state something that is not backed by fact is not the same. If you were to publically state some of your desires you have posted here you would be rightfully seen as possessive of inferior morals and ethics.
And here we go again with your distorted view of mob rule. Popularity is moot in the face of personal freedoms and the right of the one over the many. You seem to not be able to grasp that concept.
And here we go again with your distorted view of mob rule. Popularity is moot in the face of personal freedoms and the right of the one over the many. You seem to not be able to grasp that concept.
Uh no, completely wrong. I am all for limiting research on EMBRYONIC stem cells, and thankfully there are other alternatives.
LOL. Care to go back and read what I posted? You just agreed with it. I stated in part:
Need not what? Admit that you yet again made an erroneous statement regarding what I have posted? If you cannot even debate honestly what I have posted, then you are here to simply preach based upon your dogmatic view rather than debate. Judging by your spamming parroted claims and views, that would appear to be applicable.
QUOTE
Then you admit that your ethical and moral basis and judgements founded from them are no more authoritative or valid than any other ethical and moral system.
Again, as I stated before, on a personal level, such determinations are on a case by case basis. You seek a blanket “truth” based upon your religion.
And, again, I have cited exactly how your claim of everything is equal is a desperate reach on your part and just how your morals and ethics that you have stated here are inferior.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Then you admit that your ethical and moral basis and judgements founded from them are no more authoritative or valid than any other ethical and moral system. |
Again, as I stated before, on a personal level, such determinations are on a case by case basis. You seek a blanket “truth” based upon your religion.
And, again, I have cited exactly how your claim of everything is equal is a desperate reach on your part and just how your morals and ethics that you have stated here are inferior.
It would help if you mentioned what you DID believe once in a while I would guess.
I have stated exactly what I believe before. It is not my fault you continually confuse me with other members of this forum or that you cannot keep your arguments straight or cogent. If you have to guess, then you are not debating what I have posted on this forum but going off on yet another tangent for some odd reason.
QUOTE
You atheist apologist mental giants are busily espousing every form of insipid and factually devoid arguments, it is hard to keep up.
If you are unable to debate more than one person at a time, then you have a few choices. You can always stop posting here, at the loss of much entertainment for us, or you could request to debate only one person at a time since you seem to be ill equip to follow a debate involving more than one person in opposition to your claims.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You atheist apologist mental giants are busily espousing every form of insipid and factually devoid arguments, it is hard to keep up. |
If you are unable to debate more than one person at a time, then you have a few choices. You can always stop posting here, at the loss of much entertainment for us, or you could request to debate only one person at a time since you seem to be ill equip to follow a debate involving more than one person in opposition to your claims.
But I do not hear a single one of you correcting or arguing with anyone but me, so I easily assume you agree with each other.
And again, you assume and give material support to the related adage regarding that term. Again, your assumption is typical for the simplistic and polarized mindset of a blind theist. You erroneously assume that since we “appose” you so we are all the same and are of the same opinion.
But your intellectual laziness is still no excuse. If you seek to debate a person you should at the very least actually debate what they have posted.
QUOTE
HAHA and then you defeat your own idiotic assertion of my misattribution BY ASSERTING IT IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH. Next you will tell me that Psychology is "science" and therefore superior to religion hehe.
So rather than debate how your assumption is yet again wrong, you post yet another cop-out. Here is your original claim:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| HAHA and then you defeat your own idiotic assertion of my misattribution BY ASSERTING IT IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH. Next you will tell me that Psychology is "science" and therefore superior to religion hehe. |
So rather than debate how your assumption is yet again wrong, you post yet another cop-out. Here is your original claim:
Your failure is trying to assume that your ethical and moral basis is SUPERIOR to any one else' definitively.
Again, I do not assume anything. I can cite that my ethics and morals are superior or inferior on a case by case basis. I can and have cited how, for example, my ethics and moral are superior to that which you claims are yours. So, unless you have another cop-out excuse posting, this was and is yet another assumption on your part that has proven to be baseless.
QUOTE
Uh no, that so called last resort is conveniently the truth.
No, it is just your wishful thinking. You have stated that your ethics include treating women and homosexuals as second-class citizens and you seek to force your religion onto others. Your morals and ethics are inferior. Address the subject of science versus religion, again science has proven over and over the claims of religion to be in error. Try to claim that both are equal is to be intentionally self-deluded to the fact that religion has failed in the face of science. This makes the claims of religion erroneous. Something that is erroneous is not equal to anything supported by fact.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Uh no, that so called last resort is conveniently the truth. |
No, it is just your wishful thinking. You have stated that your ethics include treating women and homosexuals as second-class citizens and you seek to force your religion onto others. Your morals and ethics are inferior. Address the subject of science versus religion, again science has proven over and over the claims of religion to be in error. Try to claim that both are equal is to be intentionally self-deluded to the fact that religion has failed in the face of science. This makes the claims of religion erroneous. Something that is erroneous is not equal to anything supported by fact.
Further resort is therefore unecessary, as you slam into the wall of your own constucted ignorance.
Again, unfounded personal comments backed by nothing more than your hollow claims. I have cited how science has proven religion in error over and over yet you still try to claim that both are equal. You would have to be willfully ignorant to believe both are equal when science has continually proven religion in error.
QUOTE
Since your ethical and moral system can never be any more authoritative, valid or correct than any other, the argument devolves into simple subjective comparison, which you cannot win.
And this is again based upon your unfounded assumption and blind faith. I have show exactly how your moral and ethics are inferior and again you have to resort tot eh claims that all are equal in order to desperately try to defend your inferior morals and ethics.
It is not subjective to claim that treating women as less than men is valid or correct. It is not subjective to claim that limiting the rights of others due to whom they choose to have relationships with is valid or correct.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Since your ethical and moral system can never be any more authoritative, valid or correct than any other, the argument devolves into simple subjective comparison, which you cannot win. |
And this is again based upon your unfounded assumption and blind faith. I have show exactly how your moral and ethics are inferior and again you have to resort tot eh claims that all are equal in order to desperately try to defend your inferior morals and ethics.
It is not subjective to claim that treating women as less than men is valid or correct. It is not subjective to claim that limiting the rights of others due to whom they choose to have relationships with is valid or correct.
HAHAHAHAH And here you flip flop IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH. Insisting that there IS a right answer to "some situations", and then saying later that it is "simplistic".
Wow a new low.
And again you obviously fail to grasp the point, so again you post more flippant replies. You constantly shift the context to suit your distortions. I’m not surprised by that, but again your actions are that of the more typical and distasteful xian apologists one tend to encounter.
QUOTE
Exactly, I never said it was SUPERIOR, just in my subjective opinion, it was the best. Your mileage of course may vary.
LOL. And we have more obfuscations and intellectual dishonesty. You have claimed that is a fact that this nation is a xian nation and therefore xian laws must rule. You have also stated that since xian are the majority that they should also rule by mob. You may not have use the term superior, but you have indicated that your claims of such are “fact” including the “fact” that women and homosexuals would be treated as second class citizens. So rather than operate on the context you fall back to more pedantic evasions.
So if your claim here is the truth rather than your previous claims, that mean that your view that homosexual should not be allowed to marry is of equal value to my view that they can. So unless you wish to try to argue that someone else’s ethics and morals are inferior to yours that state homosexuals cannot marry, then society should allow you to have your opinions based upon your ethics and morals while it allows homosexuals to marry based upon their ethics and morals. Unless of course, you seek to prevent that sort of equal expression.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Exactly, I never said it was SUPERIOR, just in my subjective opinion, it was the best. Your mileage of course may vary. |
LOL. And we have more obfuscations and intellectual dishonesty. You have claimed that is a fact that this nation is a xian nation and therefore xian laws must rule. You have also stated that since xian are the majority that they should also rule by mob. You may not have use the term superior, but you have indicated that your claims of such are “fact” including the “fact” that women and homosexuals would be treated as second class citizens. So rather than operate on the context you fall back to more pedantic evasions.
So if your claim here is the truth rather than your previous claims, that mean that your view that homosexual should not be allowed to marry is of equal value to my view that they can. So unless you wish to try to argue that someone else’s ethics and morals are inferior to yours that state homosexuals cannot marry, then society should allow you to have your opinions based upon your ethics and morals while it allows homosexuals to marry based upon their ethics and morals. Unless of course, you seek to prevent that sort of equal expression.
Okay if you actually are trying to UNDERSTAND (not agree) with me, DO ATTEMPT TO READ THIS. Again I do not SEEK a blanket right or wrong. I AM POINTING OUT THERE IS NO SUCH THING. Do you actually try to even read what I type?
Yes, and what you have just claims is a lie. You have posted how you, based upon your religion, see it as perfectly acceptable to prevent people from exercising their personal freedoms, restrict scientific pursuits and relegate woman and homosexuals to the status of second class citizens. Based upon your religion, you seek to do this in a blanket fashion, no exceptions.
QUOTE
If you actually understood that, you would see that I am not a simplistic religious *****, I just have different beliefs than you, and I FULLY SUPPORT AND DEFEND YOUR RIGHT TO HAVE THEM. I do not wish to force you to adopt my beliefs.
Yet another lie. You have stated in the past that this is a xian nation by desing and should be so by mob rule. Proof of that is your totally ignorance in understanding that fact and placing my comment about your xian mob rule desire in your signature.
Then there is your stated desire to removed from the Constitution the establishment clause and the related separation of church and state.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If you actually understood that, you would see that I am not a simplistic religious *****, I just have different beliefs than you, and I FULLY SUPPORT AND DEFEND YOUR RIGHT TO HAVE THEM. I do not wish to force you to adopt my beliefs. |
Yet another lie. You have stated in the past that this is a xian nation by desing and should be so by mob rule. Proof of that is your totally ignorance in understanding that fact and placing my comment about your xian mob rule desire in your signature.
Then there is your stated desire to removed from the Constitution the establishment clause and the related separation of church and state.
I simply wish for you to recognize that religious people can be no less reasonable and intelligent than you.
Can be or are? Again, that would be a case by case basis. In your case, that is simply not true. You have proven to be totally unreasonable, irrational and frankly not that intelligent. Anyone claiming to be intelligent would not have to resort to the word and definition games you have and still do in order to support their claims.
QUOTE
That your ethical and moral basis does NOT MAKE YOU SUPERIOR. Just different.
Again, if you think it is perfectly acceptable to treat others as inferiors based upon their sex and sexual orientation, then your ethics and moral are inferior because such outdated thinking leads to restriction on personal freedoms like that which we have seen over time backed in some cases fully by religion.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That your ethical and moral basis does NOT MAKE YOU SUPERIOR. Just different. |
Again, if you think it is perfectly acceptable to treat others as inferiors based upon their sex and sexual orientation, then your ethics and moral are inferior because such outdated thinking leads to restriction on personal freedoms like that which we have seen over time backed in some cases fully by religion.
But my opinion is not superior to his, (unless he exceeds mere speech and violates the law), and he (and many Americans) have every right to believe as they wish.
Personal belief is one thing but to publically state something that is not backed by fact is not the same. If you were to publically state some of your desires you have posted here you would be rightfully seen as possessive of inferior morals and ethics.
QUOTE
Superiority in this case is adjudged by the democratic process, and it may well be that his views are more popular than mine.
And here we go again with your distorted view of mob rule. Popularity is moot in the face of personal freedoms and the right of the one over the many. You seem to not be able to grasp that concept.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Superiority in this case is adjudged by the democratic process, and it may well be that his views are more popular than mine. |
And here we go again with your distorted view of mob rule. Popularity is moot in the face of personal freedoms and the right of the one over the many. You seem to not be able to grasp that concept.
Uh no, completely wrong. I am all for limiting research on EMBRYONIC stem cells, and thankfully there are other alternatives.
LOL. Care to go back and read what I posted? You just agreed with it. I stated in part:
QUOTE (GS+)
This is something that you have stated you stand against since you wish to limit scientific research based upon your religion,
And you just agreed that you wish to limit scientific research. Again, try to debate what I actually post.
You mean restricted by the mythology and superstition some still hold to? That is just ridiculous. Again, you wish to limit science based upon ignorance and fear.
If we took what you claim to be fact, then science would be crippled by the “morals and concern” of every religion. Can you imagine the effect the Islamic and Scientology “concern” would do to research if what you demanded were enacted?
You mean restricted by the mythology and superstition some still hold to? That is just ridiculous. Again, you wish to limit science based upon ignorance and fear.
If we took what you claim to be fact, then science would be crippled by the “morals and concern” of every religion. Can you imagine the effect the Islamic and Scientology “concern” would do to research if what you demanded were enacted?
Objective science MUST be completely free of ethical and moral discipline in its CONDUCT, but that DOES NOT MEAN that it does not need to be constrained.
And again, total nonsensical claim. You are not calling for science to conduct itself ethically and morally, you are demanding that science bow to your ethics and morals. This also ignores the fact that you would be hard pressed to find any form of research not considered unethical or immoral to someone.
Based upon superstitions and mythology perhaps, but not rational and logical pursuits.
Based upon superstitions and mythology perhaps, but not rational and logical pursuits.
There are vast differences in shades of grey to be sure. I am sure you would agree the Nazi's experimentation on the Jews was immoral and unethical. But every issue needs discussion, and your ethical and moral basis is not the sole judge, except in your mind and your opinion.
You are yet again resorting to strawman comparisons and logically fallacies, but telling ones. Right after mentioning stem cell research, you mention the Nazi experimentation on the Jews. It is almost a conditioned response.
My opinion as well as yours are moot when it comes to researched based upon a progressive nature. One series of research logically leads to another and another. Your superstitions and fear need not be involved in it at all. But if you feel so strongly about it, then please refrain from availing yourself of any and all medical treatments derived from such research that you deem to be unethical.
You keep parroting this claim but cannot justify it let alone show where any such influence has taken place outside of a few religiously challenged areas.
Your ethics and moral are immaterial to research and the direction research takes. And again, concerning all religious nonsense, science would be crippled.
You keep parroting this claim but cannot justify it let alone show where any such influence has taken place outside of a few religiously challenged areas.
Your ethics and moral are immaterial to research and the direction research takes. And again, concerning all religious nonsense, science would be crippled.
The government and our legal system is a reflection of ALL OF OUR ethical and moral judgements.
No, they certainly do not. If that were true, then you would not be crying foul and demanding that the establishment clause be removed from the constitution in order to enact your xian mob rule.
The fact that homosexual marriage is being accepted more and more, legally so, is another example of the right of the one taking precedent over the rights of the mob as you would have us operate under.
LOL Again with the mob rule mentality. We do not live in a democracy. If we did, you would most likely have your theocracy by now.
LOL Again with the mob rule mentality. We do not live in a democracy. If we did, you would most likely have your theocracy by now.
So your ethics operate irrespective of any needs?
Strawman again. You were trying to argue society's needs over the needs of the individual. I never made comment about ignoring needs.
Strawman again. You were trying to argue the need of the many outweigh the need of the one. Very socialistic of you but counter to personal freedoms.
Strawman again. You were trying to argue the need of the many outweigh the need of the one. Very socialistic of you but counter to personal freedoms.
Exactly what are you basing your judgements on then?
I have stated what I base my judgments on. If you care to actually read them and not post strawman after strawman you could attempt to debate them.
Not at all. I’m sure you find the idea of guaranteeing personal freedoms over the mob rule antithetical to what your religion demands, but that is the fact of the society you live in.
No matter how many xians there are who think like you, you do not have the right to force your religion onto me or others as you have stated your desire to. That is not the rule of the minority. That is protecting the freedom of the individual.
Not at all. I’m sure you find the idea of guaranteeing personal freedoms over the mob rule antithetical to what your religion demands, but that is the fact of the society you live in.
No matter how many xians there are who think like you, you do not have the right to force your religion onto me or others as you have stated your desire to. That is not the rule of the minority. That is protecting the freedom of the individual.
Sure, name a SINGLE ethical or moral situation where there is an objective single right answer. If it is SUBJECTIVE, you cannot have a single right answer, but even then, do prove me wrong.
I have over and over. You demand is that this nation to operate under xian religious rules due to the idea of xian majority or mob rule. This is in violation of the foundational personal freedoms of everyone, not to mention everyone not of your faith. The single right answer in this situation is that you do not have the right nor does a mob of like minded people have the right to violate the personal freedoms of another and force them to live by your religion.
LOL. Shifting the topic again or just distorting it outright. You are demanding that science be restricted based upon your religious laws, that personal freedoms be restricted based upon your religious laws and that people be treated as less than you based upon your religious laws.
I have and continue to support the rights of the one over the demands of the many and you claim I am violating your freedoms?! You do not have the freedom or the right to force your religious laws onto another.
And again, we are talking about more than just opinion. Again, you seek to force others to live by your religious laws in violation of personal rights and freedoms. Preventing that violation is not a violation of your rights.
LOL. Shifting the topic again or just distorting it outright. You are demanding that science be restricted based upon your religious laws, that personal freedoms be restricted based upon your religious laws and that people be treated as less than you based upon your religious laws.
I have and continue to support the rights of the one over the demands of the many and you claim I am violating your freedoms?! You do not have the freedom or the right to force your religious laws onto another.
And again, we are talking about more than just opinion. Again, you seek to force others to live by your religious laws in violation of personal rights and freedoms. Preventing that violation is not a violation of your rights.
Do quote a single statement FROM ANYWHERE where I advocate mob religious rule.
You have stated that this nation is xian. You have also stated that the establishment clause of the constitution and the related separation of church and state are to be overruled and/or undone. You have also stated on more than one occasion that non-xians make up so little of the population of the U.S. while xians make up the majority and the laws should reflect that majority. That is mob rule.
Yes, I object to democracy because democracy is mob rule. I have told you before, we live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy.
Yes, I object to democracy because democracy is mob rule. I have told you before, we live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy.
If you do not like our representative Democracy what are you suggesting then?
What you have been suggesting is not representative democracy but pure democracy or mob rule. Your thinly veiled threat is reflected in your resorting to mention the majority of xians in this nation several times.
And since they are not then your premise is just another one of your unfounded assumptions. You once claimed that all laws originated from religion and have yet to provide proof of that claim so it remains another empty one of yours.
And as stated before, this is a secular nation.
And since they are not then your premise is just another one of your unfounded assumptions. You once claimed that all laws originated from religion and have yet to provide proof of that claim so it remains another empty one of yours.
And as stated before, this is a secular nation.
But the constitutional rights of individuals should protect your freedom of expression, your right to believe what you will. Also, they sghould prevent ANY RELIGION no matter how popular or widely held, from excessive interference with your life and practices.
LOL. Amusing contradiction. In your unfounded opinion, all laws are from religion yet they should not prevent any religion from being more popular than another. Such blatherskite you post.
This flawed assumption of your is based upon the unfounded assumption that all laws are from relgion, that the law in the U.S. are specifically xian in nature and that anything that compete with religion is itself a religion meaning atheism is a religion. Not a shock considering you claimed that under your “special” definition of religion a political party is a religion.
I understand what you are trying to claim, but as with many of your claims, reality is in disagreement with you.
I understand what you are trying to claim, but as with many of your claims, reality is in disagreement with you.
It is ENTIRELY subjective, but hopefully we always err toward freedom of the individual, and not restriction, unless the societal need is great.
LOL. So sadly amusing and typical xian. So you are happy to support personal freedoms until it is deemed that societies “needs” warrant the violation of those freedoms. Is this why you support the ban on marriage for homosexuals due to the “need” of society in violation of personal freedoms?
LOL. Our country is founded upon freedom unless of course society has a greater “need”, then, sorry personal freedoms, you take a back seat.
You cannot even back up your claim that all laws originate from religion or support your claim that you have a right to oppress others let alone understand the concepts of freedom.
LOL. Our country is founded upon freedom unless of course society has a greater “need”, then, sorry personal freedoms, you take a back seat.
You cannot even back up your claim that all laws originate from religion or support your claim that you have a right to oppress others let alone understand the concepts of freedom.
Really, punishing Murder is wrong?
Back to more strawman. Religion claimed the Earth was flat, the universe rotated around us and that god split the moon in tow. To mention murder is to be intentional deceptive and dishonest when I have made very specific references to just how science has proven religion in error. It appears that is all you can do in order to debate is to resort to such dishonesty.
That is up to the people affected. From a purely legal standpoint, adultery is a violation of the marriage contract. Matters of karmic crimes such as those mentioned in religion are irrelevant.
That is up to the people affected. From a purely legal standpoint, adultery is a violation of the marriage contract. Matters of karmic crimes such as those mentioned in religion are irrelevant.
Theft and perjury were scientifically absolved from wrong? Honor killings are okay? Wait some religions believe differently, how could ALL be wrong?
Strawman since we were and are talking about erronious claims of religion. Care to stop acting like the typical xian apologist and debate what I actually posted or do I get more and more strawman claims based upon feigned yet painfully obvious ignorance?
More strawmen since I have never claimed all. Again, you claimed that science, “true” science, has not proven religion wrong. This is a patently false claim as cited by the erroneous claims made by religion that were corrected by science. I could also include how religion, yours in particular, is against fertility science.
More strawmen since I have never claimed all. Again, you claimed that science, “true” science, has not proven religion wrong. This is a patently false claim as cited by the erroneous claims made by religion that were corrected by science. I could also include how religion, yours in particular, is against fertility science.
And SCIENTISTS have been proven wrong by science.
Yes and repeating this claim over and over is meaningless in regards to our topic.
Science evolves and learns from its mistakes. Religion has had a tendency of resisting change and having to be dragged into the modern times. While you may see science correcting itself as a weakness, since you keep mentioning it, it is actually one of its greatest strengths.
And pointing out how you keep bringing up the fact that science corrects itself as some sort of defect of science again illustrates just how little regard you have for science and how little you understand it.
Oh, but wiat, what about the murder, adultery, perjury nonsense you posted earlier?! (Rhetorical as by now we are laughing at your obviously weak posting earlier).
Religion has been proven wrong on many claims by science. I have listed but a few.
Oh, but wiat, what about the murder, adultery, perjury nonsense you posted earlier?! (Rhetorical as by now we are laughing at your obviously weak posting earlier).
Religion has been proven wrong on many claims by science. I have listed but a few.
Your bellicose umbrage is not just misguided, but foolish.
Right because science has never proven religion in error. So are you saying that the Earth is the center of the universe and that everything revolves around us and that god split the moon in two?
You see, there are simply no two ways around this. Either you believe all of those erroneous claims of religion or you know them to be erroneous due to the pursuits of science and that is the point.
I don’t but based upon your previous posts, you seem to think that secular is the same as atheism. Take for example the great anger you displayed when I mention that the secular society we live in just happened to conform more to my outlook on morals and ethics than yours.
I don’t but based upon your previous posts, you seem to think that secular is the same as atheism. Take for example the great anger you displayed when I mention that the secular society we live in just happened to conform more to my outlook on morals and ethics than yours.
While the government may not PREFER any religion, it must respect and honor ALL RELIGIONS, as well as your ethical and moral beliefs, whatever you wish to call them.
LOL. More ignorance from the constitutionally illiterate. Government is by law to remain neutral in regards to religion. Respect is irrelevant. That is how our secular society works. Try not to equate that with atheism again.
Other than the strawman claims, the flippant replies, the intellectually dishonest claims and the outright lies, your arguments are still found to be lacking.
And once again, you cannot directly or honestly address the fact that science has proven religion wrong time after time on claim after claim.
Now unless you believe that the Earth is the center of the universe, that everything revolves around us and that god split the moon in two, then that means science proved religion in error.
Yes deadbeat, you may see it as a weakness that science corrects itself over time, but as I stated, that is its greatest strength and, as an added bonus, it has also corrected the claims of religion over time, free of charge.
I fear not, for Dadbeat1...
g.
Typical. Like the closed mindset before you, you simply censor or ignore that which you cannot rationally debate or argue against.
Typical. Like the closed mindset before you, you simply censor or ignore that which you cannot rationally debate or argue against.
Why even reply if you are only going to respond with nonsense?
Yet another cop-out on your part. You cannot argue with the points I make and your strawman claims and fabrications are painfully obvious. So now you resort to cowardice.
Pity when faced with the facts of reality that you again have to resort to such dishonest tactics.
More strawman claims. I went to great detail to explain my position and refute your unfounded and unsubstantiated claims. Just because you choose to ignore those arguments does not make them any less valid. Your childish rebuttals are not how you go about proving you are rational or how you support your claims.
Quite the opposite. Such behavior on your parts simply illustrates your conditioned and closed minded nature.
More strawman claims. I went to great detail to explain my position and refute your unfounded and unsubstantiated claims. Just because you choose to ignore those arguments does not make them any less valid. Your childish rebuttals are not how you go about proving you are rational or how you support your claims.
Quite the opposite. Such behavior on your parts simply illustrates your conditioned and closed minded nature.
You say there should be no moral restriction on science, then complain when I give an obvious example you cannot refute, nazis experimenting on jews.
Your mentioning of that typical theist argument against stem cell research is a very poor one at best. It is a logical fallacy to compare the two or to try to compare or claim that all science would degrade into similar barbaric acts totally missing the main fact that these were Nazis with an agenda.
Such simplistic and selective condemnation from you illustrates how you play fast and loose with the fact and distort facts to support your claims.
It is not a lie. You have stated that the establishment clause and the separation of church and state are to be overturned or undone. You have also made on several occasions the thinly veiled threat of the xian mob rule.
I suppose you have forgotten the post where you remind myself and other atheists of just how few we are in number in comparison with the xians in general and how the laws of the land should reflect the views of that mob.
It is not a lie. You have stated that the establishment clause and the separation of church and state are to be overturned or undone. You have also made on several occasions the thinly veiled threat of the xian mob rule.
I suppose you have forgotten the post where you remind myself and other atheists of just how few we are in number in comparison with the xians in general and how the laws of the land should reflect the views of that mob.
I merely want the GOVERNMENT TO REPRESENT ALL OF OUR ETHICAL AND MORAL VIEWS as a representative democracy, not your Atheistic ethics and Morals by FIAT.
And again, you are constitutionally illiterate. The constitution is to remain neutral when it some to religion. You demand recognition and respect from the government when both are in violation of the separation of church and state and the constitution.
Again, I remind you how your confused secular with atheism. Just because my views are more in line with the secular society in which we live does not make them atheistic nor does it mean that society is pandering to the minority as you claimed.
Not at all. It is not my fault you cannot remember what you posted from page to page or who you are debating from thread to thread.
And I have yet to lie about your claims. Are you now trying to deny that you stated that the SOCS should be overthrown or that you mentioned the majority xian presence over that of the atheist or non-xians?
And again, you cannot face the debate before you, so you resort to cry foul and stomp your feet like a petulant child who cannot get her way.
But in the end, it is still painfully obvious just how you cannot face the debate and have to resort to unseemly tactics.
Not at all. It is not my fault you cannot remember what you posted from page to page or who you are debating from thread to thread.
And I have yet to lie about your claims. Are you now trying to deny that you stated that the SOCS should be overthrown or that you mentioned the majority xian presence over that of the atheist or non-xians?
And again, you cannot face the debate before you, so you resort to cry foul and stomp your feet like a petulant child who cannot get her way.
But in the end, it is still painfully obvious just how you cannot face the debate and have to resort to unseemly tactics.
You sir as always are a charlaton, and a dishonest and unabashed one at that.
So more insults rather than factual debate. Again, such a pity you cannot actually prove any of your claims with something other than your hollow opinion or religious dogma.
When you have to resort to strawman claims, personal insults, fabrications and intellectually dishonest debate tactics, not to mention outright cowardice in the presence of facts you refuse to face, I think it is far safer to state with confidence and fact that you continue to provide material proof of just why our society need to remain secular and how it is of utmost importance that closed minded religious myrmidons such as yourself need to be kept far away from power and authority.
Yes, the joke is on me all the while more and more people are adopting a secular point of view and practice be they theists or not.
When you can actually conduct yourself in an honest, rational and adult manner, then take the time to debate the facts I pointed out.
In any event, as soon as you reduce my post to a censored version as a juvenile means of dismissal you have just completed and epic failure.
While I am not laughing, I will indulge in a knowing grin.
And you just agreed that you wish to limit scientific research. Again, try to debate what I actually post.
QUOTE
Science MUST be constrained by ethical and moral concerns of the people it serves.
You mean restricted by the mythology and superstition some still hold to? That is just ridiculous. Again, you wish to limit science based upon ignorance and fear.
If we took what you claim to be fact, then science would be crippled by the “morals and concern” of every religion. Can you imagine the effect the Islamic and Scientology “concern” would do to research if what you demanded were enacted?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Science MUST be constrained by ethical and moral concerns of the people it serves. |
You mean restricted by the mythology and superstition some still hold to? That is just ridiculous. Again, you wish to limit science based upon ignorance and fear.
If we took what you claim to be fact, then science would be crippled by the “morals and concern” of every religion. Can you imagine the effect the Islamic and Scientology “concern” would do to research if what you demanded were enacted?
Objective science MUST be completely free of ethical and moral discipline in its CONDUCT, but that DOES NOT MEAN that it does not need to be constrained.
And again, total nonsensical claim. You are not calling for science to conduct itself ethically and morally, you are demanding that science bow to your ethics and morals. This also ignores the fact that you would be hard pressed to find any form of research not considered unethical or immoral to someone.
QUOTE
It does not exist in a vacuum, and some disciplines are not acceptable.
Based upon superstitions and mythology perhaps, but not rational and logical pursuits.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It does not exist in a vacuum, and some disciplines are not acceptable. |
Based upon superstitions and mythology perhaps, but not rational and logical pursuits.
There are vast differences in shades of grey to be sure. I am sure you would agree the Nazi's experimentation on the Jews was immoral and unethical. But every issue needs discussion, and your ethical and moral basis is not the sole judge, except in your mind and your opinion.
You are yet again resorting to strawman comparisons and logically fallacies, but telling ones. Right after mentioning stem cell research, you mention the Nazi experimentation on the Jews. It is almost a conditioned response.
My opinion as well as yours are moot when it comes to researched based upon a progressive nature. One series of research logically leads to another and another. Your superstitions and fear need not be involved in it at all. But if you feel so strongly about it, then please refrain from availing yourself of any and all medical treatments derived from such research that you deem to be unethical.
QUOTE
Where the government is concerned ALL of our ethics and morals deserve consideration.
You keep parroting this claim but cannot justify it let alone show where any such influence has taken place outside of a few religiously challenged areas.
Your ethics and moral are immaterial to research and the direction research takes. And again, concerning all religious nonsense, science would be crippled.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Where the government is concerned ALL of our ethics and morals deserve consideration. |
You keep parroting this claim but cannot justify it let alone show where any such influence has taken place outside of a few religiously challenged areas.
Your ethics and moral are immaterial to research and the direction research takes. And again, concerning all religious nonsense, science would be crippled.
The government and our legal system is a reflection of ALL OF OUR ethical and moral judgements.
No, they certainly do not. If that were true, then you would not be crying foul and demanding that the establishment clause be removed from the constitution in order to enact your xian mob rule.
The fact that homosexual marriage is being accepted more and more, legally so, is another example of the right of the one taking precedent over the rights of the mob as you would have us operate under.
QUOTE
There is no one right answer in government (otherwise TRUE unanimous democracy would actually work and be feasible), just a consensus.
LOL Again with the mob rule mentality. We do not live in a democracy. If we did, you would most likely have your theocracy by now.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There is no one right answer in government (otherwise TRUE unanimous democracy would actually work and be feasible), just a consensus. |
LOL Again with the mob rule mentality. We do not live in a democracy. If we did, you would most likely have your theocracy by now.
So your ethics operate irrespective of any needs?
Strawman again. You were trying to argue society's needs over the needs of the individual. I never made comment about ignoring needs.
QUOTE
So your own needs, those of society are irrelevant?
Strawman again. You were trying to argue the need of the many outweigh the need of the one. Very socialistic of you but counter to personal freedoms.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So your own needs, those of society are irrelevant? |
Strawman again. You were trying to argue the need of the many outweigh the need of the one. Very socialistic of you but counter to personal freedoms.
Exactly what are you basing your judgements on then?
I have stated what I base my judgments on. If you care to actually read them and not post strawman after strawman you could attempt to debate them.
QUOTE
HAHAH And you would prefer rule by FIAT of the miniority? Despot much?
Not at all. I’m sure you find the idea of guaranteeing personal freedoms over the mob rule antithetical to what your religion demands, but that is the fact of the society you live in.
No matter how many xians there are who think like you, you do not have the right to force your religion onto me or others as you have stated your desire to. That is not the rule of the minority. That is protecting the freedom of the individual.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| HAHAH And you would prefer rule by FIAT of the miniority? Despot much? |
Not at all. I’m sure you find the idea of guaranteeing personal freedoms over the mob rule antithetical to what your religion demands, but that is the fact of the society you live in.
No matter how many xians there are who think like you, you do not have the right to force your religion onto me or others as you have stated your desire to. That is not the rule of the minority. That is protecting the freedom of the individual.
Sure, name a SINGLE ethical or moral situation where there is an objective single right answer. If it is SUBJECTIVE, you cannot have a single right answer, but even then, do prove me wrong.
I have over and over. You demand is that this nation to operate under xian religious rules due to the idea of xian majority or mob rule. This is in violation of the foundational personal freedoms of everyone, not to mention everyone not of your faith. The single right answer in this situation is that you do not have the right nor does a mob of like minded people have the right to violate the personal freedoms of another and force them to live by your religion.
QUOTE
Yes you are. You, as they say on Mythbusters, "I reject your reality and substitute my own". In this case, by claiming a right answer (yours presumably, as why would you claim a wrong answer), you are doing exactly that. I am stating that my opinion WHILE DIFFERENT deserves the same respect as yours. And yours deserves the same respect as mine.
LOL. Shifting the topic again or just distorting it outright. You are demanding that science be restricted based upon your religious laws, that personal freedoms be restricted based upon your religious laws and that people be treated as less than you based upon your religious laws.
I have and continue to support the rights of the one over the demands of the many and you claim I am violating your freedoms?! You do not have the freedom or the right to force your religious laws onto another.
And again, we are talking about more than just opinion. Again, you seek to force others to live by your religious laws in violation of personal rights and freedoms. Preventing that violation is not a violation of your rights.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Yes you are. You, as they say on Mythbusters, "I reject your reality and substitute my own". In this case, by claiming a right answer (yours presumably, as why would you claim a wrong answer), you are doing exactly that. I am stating that my opinion WHILE DIFFERENT deserves the same respect as yours. And yours deserves the same respect as mine. |
LOL. Shifting the topic again or just distorting it outright. You are demanding that science be restricted based upon your religious laws, that personal freedoms be restricted based upon your religious laws and that people be treated as less than you based upon your religious laws.
I have and continue to support the rights of the one over the demands of the many and you claim I am violating your freedoms?! You do not have the freedom or the right to force your religious laws onto another.
And again, we are talking about more than just opinion. Again, you seek to force others to live by your religious laws in violation of personal rights and freedoms. Preventing that violation is not a violation of your rights.
Do quote a single statement FROM ANYWHERE where I advocate mob religious rule.
You have stated that this nation is xian. You have also stated that the establishment clause of the constitution and the related separation of church and state are to be overruled and/or undone. You have also stated on more than one occasion that non-xians make up so little of the population of the U.S. while xians make up the majority and the laws should reflect that majority. That is mob rule.
QUOTE
Unless it is Democracy you object to?
Yes, I object to democracy because democracy is mob rule. I have told you before, we live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Unless it is Democracy you object to? |
Yes, I object to democracy because democracy is mob rule. I have told you before, we live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy.
If you do not like our representative Democracy what are you suggesting then?
What you have been suggesting is not representative democracy but pure democracy or mob rule. Your thinly veiled threat is reflected in your resorting to mention the majority of xians in this nation several times.
QUOTE
If our ethics and morals in this country are predominantly religious (and they are) guess what, that is what the LAWS will reflect.
And since they are not then your premise is just another one of your unfounded assumptions. You once claimed that all laws originated from religion and have yet to provide proof of that claim so it remains another empty one of yours.
And as stated before, this is a secular nation.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If our ethics and morals in this country are predominantly religious (and they are) guess what, that is what the LAWS will reflect. |
And since they are not then your premise is just another one of your unfounded assumptions. You once claimed that all laws originated from religion and have yet to provide proof of that claim so it remains another empty one of yours.
And as stated before, this is a secular nation.
But the constitutional rights of individuals should protect your freedom of expression, your right to believe what you will. Also, they sghould prevent ANY RELIGION no matter how popular or widely held, from excessive interference with your life and practices.
LOL. Amusing contradiction. In your unfounded opinion, all laws are from religion yet they should not prevent any religion from being more popular than another. Such blatherskite you post.
This flawed assumption of your is based upon the unfounded assumption that all laws are from relgion, that the law in the U.S. are specifically xian in nature and that anything that compete with religion is itself a religion meaning atheism is a religion. Not a shock considering you claimed that under your “special” definition of religion a political party is a religion.
QUOTE
If you are beginning to understand what I am saying, it is a fine line, and not an easy distinction to make.
I understand what you are trying to claim, but as with many of your claims, reality is in disagreement with you.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If you are beginning to understand what I am saying, it is a fine line, and not an easy distinction to make. |
I understand what you are trying to claim, but as with many of your claims, reality is in disagreement with you.
It is ENTIRELY subjective, but hopefully we always err toward freedom of the individual, and not restriction, unless the societal need is great.
LOL. So sadly amusing and typical xian. So you are happy to support personal freedoms until it is deemed that societies “needs” warrant the violation of those freedoms. Is this why you support the ban on marriage for homosexuals due to the “need” of society in violation of personal freedoms?
QUOTE
THAT is what our country is founded upon. FREEDOM. But too much freedom is just anarchy.
LOL. Our country is founded upon freedom unless of course society has a greater “need”, then, sorry personal freedoms, you take a back seat.
You cannot even back up your claim that all laws originate from religion or support your claim that you have a right to oppress others let alone understand the concepts of freedom.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| THAT is what our country is founded upon. FREEDOM. But too much freedom is just anarchy. |
LOL. Our country is founded upon freedom unless of course society has a greater “need”, then, sorry personal freedoms, you take a back seat.
You cannot even back up your claim that all laws originate from religion or support your claim that you have a right to oppress others let alone understand the concepts of freedom.
Really, punishing Murder is wrong?
Back to more strawman. Religion claimed the Earth was flat, the universe rotated around us and that god split the moon in tow. To mention murder is to be intentional deceptive and dishonest when I have made very specific references to just how science has proven religion in error. It appears that is all you can do in order to debate is to resort to such dishonesty.
QUOTE
Adultery is right?
That is up to the people affected. From a purely legal standpoint, adultery is a violation of the marriage contract. Matters of karmic crimes such as those mentioned in religion are irrelevant.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Adultery is right? |
That is up to the people affected. From a purely legal standpoint, adultery is a violation of the marriage contract. Matters of karmic crimes such as those mentioned in religion are irrelevant.
Theft and perjury were scientifically absolved from wrong? Honor killings are okay? Wait some religions believe differently, how could ALL be wrong?
Strawman since we were and are talking about erronious claims of religion. Care to stop acting like the typical xian apologist and debate what I actually posted or do I get more and more strawman claims based upon feigned yet painfully obvious ignorance?
QUOTE
Oh you meant SOME claims of religion. Certainly not all.
More strawmen since I have never claimed all. Again, you claimed that science, “true” science, has not proven religion wrong. This is a patently false claim as cited by the erroneous claims made by religion that were corrected by science. I could also include how religion, yours in particular, is against fertility science.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Oh you meant SOME claims of religion. Certainly not all. |
More strawmen since I have never claimed all. Again, you claimed that science, “true” science, has not proven religion wrong. This is a patently false claim as cited by the erroneous claims made by religion that were corrected by science. I could also include how religion, yours in particular, is against fertility science.
And SCIENTISTS have been proven wrong by science.
Yes and repeating this claim over and over is meaningless in regards to our topic.
Science evolves and learns from its mistakes. Religion has had a tendency of resisting change and having to be dragged into the modern times. While you may see science correcting itself as a weakness, since you keep mentioning it, it is actually one of its greatest strengths.
And pointing out how you keep bringing up the fact that science corrects itself as some sort of defect of science again illustrates just how little regard you have for science and how little you understand it.
QUOTE
If it is unbiased, the truth reveals the foolishness in us all, and not just religion.
Oh, but wiat, what about the murder, adultery, perjury nonsense you posted earlier?! (Rhetorical as by now we are laughing at your obviously weak posting earlier).
Religion has been proven wrong on many claims by science. I have listed but a few.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If it is unbiased, the truth reveals the foolishness in us all, and not just religion. |
Oh, but wiat, what about the murder, adultery, perjury nonsense you posted earlier?! (Rhetorical as by now we are laughing at your obviously weak posting earlier).
Religion has been proven wrong on many claims by science. I have listed but a few.
Your bellicose umbrage is not just misguided, but foolish.
Right because science has never proven religion in error. So are you saying that the Earth is the center of the universe and that everything revolves around us and that god split the moon in two?
You see, there are simply no two ways around this. Either you believe all of those erroneous claims of religion or you know them to be erroneous due to the pursuits of science and that is the point.
QUOTE
HAHA do not mistake SECULAR for ATHEIST.
I don’t but based upon your previous posts, you seem to think that secular is the same as atheism. Take for example the great anger you displayed when I mention that the secular society we live in just happened to conform more to my outlook on morals and ethics than yours.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| HAHA do not mistake SECULAR for ATHEIST. |
I don’t but based upon your previous posts, you seem to think that secular is the same as atheism. Take for example the great anger you displayed when I mention that the secular society we live in just happened to conform more to my outlook on morals and ethics than yours.
While the government may not PREFER any religion, it must respect and honor ALL RELIGIONS, as well as your ethical and moral beliefs, whatever you wish to call them.
LOL. More ignorance from the constitutionally illiterate. Government is by law to remain neutral in regards to religion. Respect is irrelevant. That is how our secular society works. Try not to equate that with atheism again.
QUOTE
How is them apples?
Other than the strawman claims, the flippant replies, the intellectually dishonest claims and the outright lies, your arguments are still found to be lacking.
And once again, you cannot directly or honestly address the fact that science has proven religion wrong time after time on claim after claim.
Now unless you believe that the Earth is the center of the universe, that everything revolves around us and that god split the moon in two, then that means science proved religion in error.
Yes deadbeat, you may see it as a weakness that science corrects itself over time, but as I stated, that is its greatest strength and, as an added bonus, it has also corrected the claims of religion over time, free of charge.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 2 2008, 09:32 PM)
BLAH BLAH BLAH
Why even reply if you are only going to respond with nonsense? Because you have no logical or factual basis for your stupidity does not make "NUH-UH" an actual effective counter point.
You say there should be no moral restriction on science, then complain when I give an obvious example you cannot refute, nazis experimenting on jews.
Then You say I want MY PERSONAL or even my religion's views to be the law of the land, which is also a blatant lie.
I merely want the GOVERNMENT TO REPRESENT ALL OF OUR ETHICAL AND MORAL VIEWS as a representative democracy, not your Atheistic ethics and Morals by FIAT.
Your only tactic is to continually lie about what I said, and restate it in a ridiculous fashion. You sir as always are a charlaton, and a dishonest and unabashed one at that.
Laugh away, the joke is on you.
Why even reply if you are only going to respond with nonsense? Because you have no logical or factual basis for your stupidity does not make "NUH-UH" an actual effective counter point.
You say there should be no moral restriction on science, then complain when I give an obvious example you cannot refute, nazis experimenting on jews.
Then You say I want MY PERSONAL or even my religion's views to be the law of the land, which is also a blatant lie.
I merely want the GOVERNMENT TO REPRESENT ALL OF OUR ETHICAL AND MORAL VIEWS as a representative democracy, not your Atheistic ethics and Morals by FIAT.
Your only tactic is to continually lie about what I said, and restate it in a ridiculous fashion. You sir as always are a charlaton, and a dishonest and unabashed one at that.
Laugh away, the joke is on you.
QUOTE
There may be hope for you yet.
I fear not, for Dadbeat1...
g.
QUOTE
BLAH BLAH BLAH
Typical. Like the closed mindset before you, you simply censor or ignore that which you cannot rationally debate or argue against.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| BLAH BLAH BLAH |
Typical. Like the closed mindset before you, you simply censor or ignore that which you cannot rationally debate or argue against.
Why even reply if you are only going to respond with nonsense?
Yet another cop-out on your part. You cannot argue with the points I make and your strawman claims and fabrications are painfully obvious. So now you resort to cowardice.
Pity when faced with the facts of reality that you again have to resort to such dishonest tactics.
QUOTE
Because you have no logical or factual basis for your stupidity does not make "NUH-UH" an actual effective counter point.
More strawman claims. I went to great detail to explain my position and refute your unfounded and unsubstantiated claims. Just because you choose to ignore those arguments does not make them any less valid. Your childish rebuttals are not how you go about proving you are rational or how you support your claims.
Quite the opposite. Such behavior on your parts simply illustrates your conditioned and closed minded nature.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Because you have no logical or factual basis for your stupidity does not make "NUH-UH" an actual effective counter point. |
More strawman claims. I went to great detail to explain my position and refute your unfounded and unsubstantiated claims. Just because you choose to ignore those arguments does not make them any less valid. Your childish rebuttals are not how you go about proving you are rational or how you support your claims.
Quite the opposite. Such behavior on your parts simply illustrates your conditioned and closed minded nature.
You say there should be no moral restriction on science, then complain when I give an obvious example you cannot refute, nazis experimenting on jews.
Your mentioning of that typical theist argument against stem cell research is a very poor one at best. It is a logical fallacy to compare the two or to try to compare or claim that all science would degrade into similar barbaric acts totally missing the main fact that these were Nazis with an agenda.
Such simplistic and selective condemnation from you illustrates how you play fast and loose with the fact and distort facts to support your claims.
QUOTE
Then You say I want MY PERSONAL or even my religion's views to be the law of the land, which is also a blatant lie.
It is not a lie. You have stated that the establishment clause and the separation of church and state are to be overturned or undone. You have also made on several occasions the thinly veiled threat of the xian mob rule.
I suppose you have forgotten the post where you remind myself and other atheists of just how few we are in number in comparison with the xians in general and how the laws of the land should reflect the views of that mob.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Then You say I want MY PERSONAL or even my religion's views to be the law of the land, which is also a blatant lie. |
It is not a lie. You have stated that the establishment clause and the separation of church and state are to be overturned or undone. You have also made on several occasions the thinly veiled threat of the xian mob rule.
I suppose you have forgotten the post where you remind myself and other atheists of just how few we are in number in comparison with the xians in general and how the laws of the land should reflect the views of that mob.
I merely want the GOVERNMENT TO REPRESENT ALL OF OUR ETHICAL AND MORAL VIEWS as a representative democracy, not your Atheistic ethics and Morals by FIAT.
And again, you are constitutionally illiterate. The constitution is to remain neutral when it some to religion. You demand recognition and respect from the government when both are in violation of the separation of church and state and the constitution.
Again, I remind you how your confused secular with atheism. Just because my views are more in line with the secular society in which we live does not make them atheistic nor does it mean that society is pandering to the minority as you claimed.
QUOTE
Your only tactic is to continually lie about what I said, and restate it in a ridiculous fashion.
Not at all. It is not my fault you cannot remember what you posted from page to page or who you are debating from thread to thread.
And I have yet to lie about your claims. Are you now trying to deny that you stated that the SOCS should be overthrown or that you mentioned the majority xian presence over that of the atheist or non-xians?
And again, you cannot face the debate before you, so you resort to cry foul and stomp your feet like a petulant child who cannot get her way.
But in the end, it is still painfully obvious just how you cannot face the debate and have to resort to unseemly tactics.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Your only tactic is to continually lie about what I said, and restate it in a ridiculous fashion. |
Not at all. It is not my fault you cannot remember what you posted from page to page or who you are debating from thread to thread.
And I have yet to lie about your claims. Are you now trying to deny that you stated that the SOCS should be overthrown or that you mentioned the majority xian presence over that of the atheist or non-xians?
And again, you cannot face the debate before you, so you resort to cry foul and stomp your feet like a petulant child who cannot get her way.
But in the end, it is still painfully obvious just how you cannot face the debate and have to resort to unseemly tactics.
You sir as always are a charlaton, and a dishonest and unabashed one at that.
So more insults rather than factual debate. Again, such a pity you cannot actually prove any of your claims with something other than your hollow opinion or religious dogma.
QUOTE
Laugh away, the joke is on you.
When you have to resort to strawman claims, personal insults, fabrications and intellectually dishonest debate tactics, not to mention outright cowardice in the presence of facts you refuse to face, I think it is far safer to state with confidence and fact that you continue to provide material proof of just why our society need to remain secular and how it is of utmost importance that closed minded religious myrmidons such as yourself need to be kept far away from power and authority.
Yes, the joke is on me all the while more and more people are adopting a secular point of view and practice be they theists or not.
When you can actually conduct yourself in an honest, rational and adult manner, then take the time to debate the facts I pointed out.
In any event, as soon as you reduce my post to a censored version as a juvenile means of dismissal you have just completed and epic failure.
While I am not laughing, I will indulge in a knowing grin.
Bah you are a worthless and petty opponent.
Ad hominem, strawman, blatant lies and misrepresentation are your forte.
Your hubris knows no limits, but sadly is only exceeded by your willful ignorance.
See? I can post silly ad hominem too, and skirt the real argument. You know you cannot win, so you resort to pages of meaningless personal attack.
Sad really, I thought I would give you another chance but your methods and derangement have not changed.
Wanna try that Treaties trump the Constitution argument again?
Ad hominem, strawman, blatant lies and misrepresentation are your forte.
Your hubris knows no limits, but sadly is only exceeded by your willful ignorance.
See? I can post silly ad hominem too, and skirt the real argument. You know you cannot win, so you resort to pages of meaningless personal attack.
Sad really, I thought I would give you another chance but your methods and derangement have not changed.
Wanna try that Treaties trump the Constitution argument again?
Let us examine these POINTS you made that do not get addressed much to your loud and boisterous complaining.
Typical. Like the closed mindset before you, you simply censor or ignore that which you cannot rationally debate or argue against.
Ad hominem
It is not a lie. You have stated that the establishment clause and the separation of church and state are to be overturned or undone. You have also made on several occasions the thinly veiled threat of the xian mob rule.
Seperation of church and state? The non-constitutional argument derived from a letter between two proto socialists? Oh yes, it will go down in flames. The constitution EVERY CLAUSE I fully support. You try to twist it to fit your unconstitutional agenda, like the whole Treaty of Tripoli garbage. That was funny. Got your rear handed to you on that one didn't you?
I suppose you have forgotten the post where you remind myself and other atheists of just how few we are in number in comparison with the xians in general and how the laws of the land should reflect the views of that mob.
Nope, remember and cherish it. Since by Mob Rule you mean representative Democracy. Who defends the constitution now.
And again, you are constitutionally illiterate. The constitution is to remain neutral when it some to religion. You demand recognition and respect from the government when both are in violation of the separation of church and state and the constitution.
Except the constitution states FREEDOM OF RELIGION, not Freedom FROM it. Your interpretation is rife with inconsistency and agenda.
Again, I remind you how your confused secular with atheism. Just because my views are more in line with the secular society in which we live does not make them atheistic nor does it mean that society is pandering to the minority as you claimed.
Who is confused? Sounds like you. Your litany of blathering about how the government must only support non-religious causes and actively used AGAINST religion (in specific defiance of direct wording of the constitution).
Not at all. It is not my fault you cannot remember what you posted from page to page or who you are debating from thread to thread.
And I have yet to lie about your claims. Are you now trying to deny that you stated that the SOCS should be overthrown or that you mentioned the majority xian presence over that of the atheist or non-xians?
Nope for once that is truth. In a representative government, the majority vote has sway. The effects are necessarily limited to prohibit undue individual interfer...
Oh wait a minute, I almost thought you were serious.
And again, you cannot face the debate before you, so you resort to cry foul and stomp your feet like a petulant child who cannot get her way.
But in the end, it is still painfully obvious just how you cannot face the debate and have to resort to unseemly tactics.
And more lies and Ad Hominem.
So more insults rather than factual debate. Again, such a pity you cannot actually prove any of your claims with something other than your hollow opinion or religious dogma.
Wow, surprise, more Ad Hominem
When you have to resort to strawman claims, personal insults, fabrications and intellectually dishonest debate tactics, not to mention outright cowardice in the presence of facts you refuse to face, I think it is far safer to state with confidence and fact that you continue to provide material proof of just why our society need to remain secular and how it is of utmost importance that closed minded religious myrmidons such as yourself need to be kept far away from power and authority.
Ah the truth of your agenda peeks out. Religious people must be denied representation because you, the non-religious minority righteously will govern us by Fiat (who needs representative Democracy I guess?)
Yes, the joke is on me all the while more and more people are adopting a secular point of view and practice be they theists or not.
I am still laughing.
When you can actually conduct yourself in an honest, rational and adult manner, then take the time to debate the facts I pointed out.
If you could drop the Ad Hominem and have some facts, that would be easier to do.
In any event, as soon as you reduce my post to a censored version as a juvenile means of dismissal you have just completed and epic failure.
While I am not laughing, I will indulge in a knowing grin.
Grinning like an idiot as they say.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 2 2008, 11:00 PM)
Typical. Like the closed mindset before you, you simply censor or ignore that which you cannot rationally debate or argue against.
Ad hominem
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 2 2008, 11:00 PM)
It is not a lie. You have stated that the establishment clause and the separation of church and state are to be overturned or undone. You have also made on several occasions the thinly veiled threat of the xian mob rule.
Seperation of church and state? The non-constitutional argument derived from a letter between two proto socialists? Oh yes, it will go down in flames. The constitution EVERY CLAUSE I fully support. You try to twist it to fit your unconstitutional agenda, like the whole Treaty of Tripoli garbage. That was funny. Got your rear handed to you on that one didn't you?
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 2 2008, 11:00 PM)
I suppose you have forgotten the post where you remind myself and other atheists of just how few we are in number in comparison with the xians in general and how the laws of the land should reflect the views of that mob.
Nope, remember and cherish it. Since by Mob Rule you mean representative Democracy. Who defends the constitution now.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 2 2008, 11:00 PM)
And again, you are constitutionally illiterate. The constitution is to remain neutral when it some to religion. You demand recognition and respect from the government when both are in violation of the separation of church and state and the constitution.
Except the constitution states FREEDOM OF RELIGION, not Freedom FROM it. Your interpretation is rife with inconsistency and agenda.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 2 2008, 11:00 PM)
Again, I remind you how your confused secular with atheism. Just because my views are more in line with the secular society in which we live does not make them atheistic nor does it mean that society is pandering to the minority as you claimed.
Who is confused? Sounds like you. Your litany of blathering about how the government must only support non-religious causes and actively used AGAINST religion (in specific defiance of direct wording of the constitution).
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 2 2008, 11:00 PM)
Not at all. It is not my fault you cannot remember what you posted from page to page or who you are debating from thread to thread.
And I have yet to lie about your claims. Are you now trying to deny that you stated that the SOCS should be overthrown or that you mentioned the majority xian presence over that of the atheist or non-xians?
Nope for once that is truth. In a representative government, the majority vote has sway. The effects are necessarily limited to prohibit undue individual interfer...
Oh wait a minute, I almost thought you were serious.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 2 2008, 11:00 PM)
And again, you cannot face the debate before you, so you resort to cry foul and stomp your feet like a petulant child who cannot get her way.
But in the end, it is still painfully obvious just how you cannot face the debate and have to resort to unseemly tactics.
And more lies and Ad Hominem.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 2 2008, 11:00 PM)
So more insults rather than factual debate. Again, such a pity you cannot actually prove any of your claims with something other than your hollow opinion or religious dogma.
Wow, surprise, more Ad Hominem
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 2 2008, 11:00 PM)
When you have to resort to strawman claims, personal insults, fabrications and intellectually dishonest debate tactics, not to mention outright cowardice in the presence of facts you refuse to face, I think it is far safer to state with confidence and fact that you continue to provide material proof of just why our society need to remain secular and how it is of utmost importance that closed minded religious myrmidons such as yourself need to be kept far away from power and authority.
Ah the truth of your agenda peeks out. Religious people must be denied representation because you, the non-religious minority righteously will govern us by Fiat (who needs representative Democracy I guess?)
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 2 2008, 11:00 PM)
Yes, the joke is on me all the while more and more people are adopting a secular point of view and practice be they theists or not.
I am still laughing.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 2 2008, 11:00 PM)
When you can actually conduct yourself in an honest, rational and adult manner, then take the time to debate the facts I pointed out.
If you could drop the Ad Hominem and have some facts, that would be easier to do.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 2 2008, 11:00 PM)
In any event, as soon as you reduce my post to a censored version as a juvenile means of dismissal you have just completed and epic failure.
While I am not laughing, I will indulge in a knowing grin.
Grinning like an idiot as they say.
QUOTE (DB+)
Bah you are a worthless and petty opponent.
And yet you continue to reply. Pity your actions betray your claims.
Parroting my claims is not a valid reply DB. Again your actions are that of an undisciplined mind or juvenile. Rather than make a cogent or detailed argument, you resort to replies worthy of Pee Wee Herman.
Parroting my claims is not a valid reply DB. Again your actions are that of an undisciplined mind or juvenile. Rather than make a cogent or detailed argument, you resort to replies worthy of Pee Wee Herman.
Your hubris knows no limits, but sadly is only exceeded by your willful ignorance.
And yet you are unable to cite example of my ignorance but can only post more personal insults. You can also not face my points or the facts I pointed out, so you resort to posting comments about me. That is the very definition of the ad hominem you cry about.
That is mostly what you do anyway DB. You cannot debate the topics with facts in an honest manner. All I have to do to support my claims is point to your recent posts. Rather than debate the points, you summarily dismiss the arguments made.
That is mostly what you do anyway DB. You cannot debate the topics with facts in an honest manner. All I have to do to support my claims is point to your recent posts. Rather than debate the points, you summarily dismiss the arguments made.
You know you cannot win, so you resort to pages of meaningless personal attack.
Stating the fact that your ethics and moral are inferior due to your desire to violet the personal freedoms of others is not an attack.
Citing how your claim that science had not proven religious claims wrong false is not an attack.
And citing how you resort to dishonest tactics, intellectually dishonest replies, distortions of information, personal insults, and now parroting the claims of people here to actually debate, is not an attack.
I have a very long post of facts and points to debate and your reply was a juvenile dismissal. And still you cannot debate the points but must resort to making claims about me. So much for your character or reputation as a honest debater.
I have a very long post of facts and points to debate and your reply was a juvenile dismissal. And still you cannot debate the points but must resort to making claims about me. So much for your character or reputation as a honest debater.
Wanna try that Treaties trump the Constitution argument again?
LOL. And you want to talk about distortions. No wonder you have so much trouble debating people. You cannot even remember or honestly state what the debate was about. Either that or you are intentionally misrepresenting what that debate was about. Considering that you casually do the same with source material, this would be in-line with your established behavior.
So you cannot debate the facts posted and seek to change the subject again. I have no desire to revisit your distortion of ruling you are ill equipped to comprehend. Yes, I’m sure you will cry and claim that is an attack, but the fact that you have to distort definitions to fit your needs, not to mention sources and legal rulings, is support for that claim.
But, no thanks. I have more than enough examples of your inability to back up your claims with rational thought and facts. Between your claim that all laws originate from religion and the more recent claim that science has not proven religion wrong , you have shown that you rely upon uninformed assumptions, uneducated opinion and religious dogma rather than facts or valid sources.
g.
I fear not, for Dadbeat1...
g.
LOL - They are of a similar mindset.
And yet you continue to reply. Pity your actions betray your claims.
QUOTE
Ad hominem, strawman, blatant lies and misrepresentation are your forte.
Parroting my claims is not a valid reply DB. Again your actions are that of an undisciplined mind or juvenile. Rather than make a cogent or detailed argument, you resort to replies worthy of Pee Wee Herman.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Ad hominem, strawman, blatant lies and misrepresentation are your forte. |
Parroting my claims is not a valid reply DB. Again your actions are that of an undisciplined mind or juvenile. Rather than make a cogent or detailed argument, you resort to replies worthy of Pee Wee Herman.
Your hubris knows no limits, but sadly is only exceeded by your willful ignorance.
And yet you are unable to cite example of my ignorance but can only post more personal insults. You can also not face my points or the facts I pointed out, so you resort to posting comments about me. That is the very definition of the ad hominem you cry about.
QUOTE
See? I can post silly ad hominem too, and skirt the real argument.
That is mostly what you do anyway DB. You cannot debate the topics with facts in an honest manner. All I have to do to support my claims is point to your recent posts. Rather than debate the points, you summarily dismiss the arguments made.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| See? I can post silly ad hominem too, and skirt the real argument. |
That is mostly what you do anyway DB. You cannot debate the topics with facts in an honest manner. All I have to do to support my claims is point to your recent posts. Rather than debate the points, you summarily dismiss the arguments made.
You know you cannot win, so you resort to pages of meaningless personal attack.
Stating the fact that your ethics and moral are inferior due to your desire to violet the personal freedoms of others is not an attack.
Citing how your claim that science had not proven religious claims wrong false is not an attack.
And citing how you resort to dishonest tactics, intellectually dishonest replies, distortions of information, personal insults, and now parroting the claims of people here to actually debate, is not an attack.
QUOTE
Sad really, I thought I would give you another chance but your methods and derangement have not changed.
I have a very long post of facts and points to debate and your reply was a juvenile dismissal. And still you cannot debate the points but must resort to making claims about me. So much for your character or reputation as a honest debater.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Sad really, I thought I would give you another chance but your methods and derangement have not changed. |
I have a very long post of facts and points to debate and your reply was a juvenile dismissal. And still you cannot debate the points but must resort to making claims about me. So much for your character or reputation as a honest debater.
Wanna try that Treaties trump the Constitution argument again?
LOL. And you want to talk about distortions. No wonder you have so much trouble debating people. You cannot even remember or honestly state what the debate was about. Either that or you are intentionally misrepresenting what that debate was about. Considering that you casually do the same with source material, this would be in-line with your established behavior.
So you cannot debate the facts posted and seek to change the subject again. I have no desire to revisit your distortion of ruling you are ill equipped to comprehend. Yes, I’m sure you will cry and claim that is an attack, but the fact that you have to distort definitions to fit your needs, not to mention sources and legal rulings, is support for that claim.
But, no thanks. I have more than enough examples of your inability to back up your claims with rational thought and facts. Between your claim that all laws originate from religion and the more recent claim that science has not proven religion wrong , you have shown that you rely upon uninformed assumptions, uneducated opinion and religious dogma rather than facts or valid sources.
QUOTE (DB+)
Ad hominem
You may cry this claim all you like, but again it is not an ad hominem to point out how rather than debate the points made, you reduced my long post to the juvenile “blah blah blah”. This fact may upset you, but your own actions support my claims of you having a closed mind and being unable to debate.
So much for your claim of me not being worth it. I guess I am after all.
Rather than reply to your selective replies to my last post, you can return to the long post you tried to ignore in such a juvenile manner. You have a tendency of “forgetting” to reply to posts or parts of posts that you find upsetting or difficult to debate with.
So if you ignore or cannot debate the facts and points I made in that claim you tried to dismiss and ignore (or use and an excuse to cop-out of the debate) then you are just trying to shift the topic yet again and cower away from the facts and points you cannot face or debate honestly.
So, step back and continue from the long posts and facts I mentioned in that post that or keep trying to squirm and wriggle your way out of the debate.
In case it is too difficult for you to actually find the post just one page back, here is a link.
You may cry this claim all you like, but again it is not an ad hominem to point out how rather than debate the points made, you reduced my long post to the juvenile “blah blah blah”. This fact may upset you, but your own actions support my claims of you having a closed mind and being unable to debate. So much for your claim of me not being worth it.
I guess I am after all. Rather than reply to your selective replies to my last post, you can return to the long post you tried to ignore in such a juvenile manner. You have a tendency of “forgetting” to reply to posts or parts of posts that you find upsetting or difficult to debate with.
So if you ignore or cannot debate the facts and points I made in that claim you tried to dismiss and ignore (or use and an excuse to cop-out of the debate) then you are just trying to shift the topic yet again and cower away from the facts and points you cannot face or debate honestly.
So, step back and continue from the long posts and facts I mentioned in that post that or keep trying to squirm and wriggle your way out of the debate.
In case it is too difficult for you to actually find the post just one page back, here is a link.
QUOTE
...difficult to Dadbait with..
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Apr 2 2008, 05:41 PM)
I fear not, for Dadbeat1...
g.
LOL - They are of a similar mindset.
QUOTE (gmilam+Apr 1 2008, 11:32 PM)
Glad to see you finally admit that religion is not a prerequisite for morals and ethics.
There may be hope for you yet.
I have not changed my original assertions, perhaps some are finally understanding what I am trying to say.
All Ethics and Morals today have derived from some sort of religious source. There is an attempt to try to remove "religion" from ethics and morals, and day to day living of those who would espouse Atheism especially.
That does not mean (and I do not think I have ever said) it is not possible to create an ethical and moral system independent of what is commonly understood to be "religion".
This has yet to be done, and is no where near even a solid start. Partly I feel because of the anti-"religion" bias, and attempts to attack religion by those who espouse it.
I feel this is in large part due to the Agenda of those who currently drive it. I tried to demonstrate, in the previous threads that "religion" in the context of this discussion and topic, is far from just the commonly understood organized religions, or even only those that support mythological or supernatural elements. This was mischaracterized in spite of logical reasoning and supporting evidence, as an attempt to call "arc-welding" a religion. I was illustrating that the word religion has a far greater meaning, it encompasses a VERY wide set of possibilities, far greater than those commonly understood especially here.
It is not necessary to "disprove" religion to create an independent system. But it would be foolish to create a truly independent system.
Because (if you can set aside the mythology and supernatural content) the religious ethical and moral systems embodied by religion, are the primary communication through the thousands of years, of our combined Human experience and learning about ethical and moral principles.
Rather than simply re-engineering ethics and morals from a completely blank sheet of paper, and having to re-learn every lesson and experience that molds our M&E of today, why are we not attempting to pull from the abundant resource that is religion, and mine it for the treasure in ethical and moral guidance it is.
The assertion that "science" and "evolutionary psychology" will somehow "prevail" is misguided. That is the blank sheet of paper approach, and a willful denial of the obvious civilizing and positive influence of religion.
My original point was, that any system that was developed enough to provide ethical and moral guidance, would be tantamount to a religion itself. Be it based on whatever source. It in effect BECOMES a religion. That does not mean that it would of necessity contain mythological or supernatural agency or content. I tried to demonstrate that there are MANY religions currently, some widely known, that are exactly that. Many people do not fully appreciate Bhuddism or Confucianism. Both are actually allowed IN CONJUNCTION with membership in the Roman Catholic church for instance. They provide ethical and moral guidance, but it does not conflict with actual Roman Catholic doctrine. They are in agreement on the ethical and moral front.
My point is, that the anti-theists here fail to realize the true definition and source of ethics and morals. They willfully deny the obvious, because they have some "seperation of church from sense" agenda. Not realizing that their goals would be far more easily achieved by not attacking religion.
If they truly were most concerned about the question of ethics and morals, and less concerned about attacking religion, they would have more success.
If you wish to create an independent system, would it not be wise to START from what is in common use today?
There may be hope for you yet.
I have not changed my original assertions, perhaps some are finally understanding what I am trying to say.
All Ethics and Morals today have derived from some sort of religious source. There is an attempt to try to remove "religion" from ethics and morals, and day to day living of those who would espouse Atheism especially.
That does not mean (and I do not think I have ever said) it is not possible to create an ethical and moral system independent of what is commonly understood to be "religion".
This has yet to be done, and is no where near even a solid start. Partly I feel because of the anti-"religion" bias, and attempts to attack religion by those who espouse it.
I feel this is in large part due to the Agenda of those who currently drive it. I tried to demonstrate, in the previous threads that "religion" in the context of this discussion and topic, is far from just the commonly understood organized religions, or even only those that support mythological or supernatural elements. This was mischaracterized in spite of logical reasoning and supporting evidence, as an attempt to call "arc-welding" a religion. I was illustrating that the word religion has a far greater meaning, it encompasses a VERY wide set of possibilities, far greater than those commonly understood especially here.
It is not necessary to "disprove" religion to create an independent system. But it would be foolish to create a truly independent system.
Because (if you can set aside the mythology and supernatural content) the religious ethical and moral systems embodied by religion, are the primary communication through the thousands of years, of our combined Human experience and learning about ethical and moral principles.
Rather than simply re-engineering ethics and morals from a completely blank sheet of paper, and having to re-learn every lesson and experience that molds our M&E of today, why are we not attempting to pull from the abundant resource that is religion, and mine it for the treasure in ethical and moral guidance it is.
The assertion that "science" and "evolutionary psychology" will somehow "prevail" is misguided. That is the blank sheet of paper approach, and a willful denial of the obvious civilizing and positive influence of religion.
My original point was, that any system that was developed enough to provide ethical and moral guidance, would be tantamount to a religion itself. Be it based on whatever source. It in effect BECOMES a religion. That does not mean that it would of necessity contain mythological or supernatural agency or content. I tried to demonstrate that there are MANY religions currently, some widely known, that are exactly that. Many people do not fully appreciate Bhuddism or Confucianism. Both are actually allowed IN CONJUNCTION with membership in the Roman Catholic church for instance. They provide ethical and moral guidance, but it does not conflict with actual Roman Catholic doctrine. They are in agreement on the ethical and moral front.
My point is, that the anti-theists here fail to realize the true definition and source of ethics and morals. They willfully deny the obvious, because they have some "seperation of church from sense" agenda. Not realizing that their goals would be far more easily achieved by not attacking religion.
If they truly were most concerned about the question of ethics and morals, and less concerned about attacking religion, they would have more success.
If you wish to create an independent system, would it not be wise to START from what is in common use today?
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 2 2008, 11:38 PM)
QUOTE (DB+)
Ad hominem
You may cry this claim all you like, but again it is not an ad hominem to point out how rather than debate the points made, you reduced my long post to the juvenile “blah blah blah”. This fact may upset you, but your own actions support my claims of you having a closed mind and being unable to debate.
So much for your claim of me not being worth it. I guess I am after all.
Rather than reply to your selective replies to my last post, you can return to the long post you tried to ignore in such a juvenile manner. You have a tendency of “forgetting” to reply to posts or parts of posts that you find upsetting or difficult to debate with.
So if you ignore or cannot debate the facts and points I made in that claim you tried to dismiss and ignore (or use and an excuse to cop-out of the debate) then you are just trying to shift the topic yet again and cower away from the facts and points you cannot face or debate honestly.
So, step back and continue from the long posts and facts I mentioned in that post that or keep trying to squirm and wriggle your way out of the debate.
In case it is too difficult for you to actually find the post just one page back, here is a link.
And lets look at the linked post of yours.
HAHAH Funny. My RESPONSE to the desperately scarce actual points you tried to make is immediately following your post.
Guess you must have missed that, wait, but no. Because your NEXT post after mine claims once again I did not address them. I guess you just cannot read.
This post of yours, like most of the previous ones, is just a long winded complaint, absolutely deviod of any meaningful content, that you somehow seem to think is a persuasive argument.
Consider me not just unrepentant, but laughing at you still.
Do make an actual point, and I will address it.
You may cry this claim all you like, but again it is not an ad hominem to point out how rather than debate the points made, you reduced my long post to the juvenile “blah blah blah”. This fact may upset you, but your own actions support my claims of you having a closed mind and being unable to debate. So much for your claim of me not being worth it.
I guess I am after all. Rather than reply to your selective replies to my last post, you can return to the long post you tried to ignore in such a juvenile manner. You have a tendency of “forgetting” to reply to posts or parts of posts that you find upsetting or difficult to debate with.
So if you ignore or cannot debate the facts and points I made in that claim you tried to dismiss and ignore (or use and an excuse to cop-out of the debate) then you are just trying to shift the topic yet again and cower away from the facts and points you cannot face or debate honestly.
So, step back and continue from the long posts and facts I mentioned in that post that or keep trying to squirm and wriggle your way out of the debate.
In case it is too difficult for you to actually find the post just one page back, here is a link.
And lets look at the linked post of yours.
HAHAH Funny. My RESPONSE to the desperately scarce actual points you tried to make is immediately following your post.
Guess you must have missed that, wait, but no. Because your NEXT post after mine claims once again I did not address them. I guess you just cannot read.
This post of yours, like most of the previous ones, is just a long winded complaint, absolutely deviod of any meaningful content, that you somehow seem to think is a persuasive argument.
Consider me not just unrepentant, but laughing at you still.
Do make an actual point, and I will address it.
QUOTE (DB+)
And lets look at the linked post of yours.
HAHAH Funny. My RESPONSE to the desperately scarce actual points you tried to make is immediately following your post.
And that would be an outright lie. The long series of points of that post were reduced by you to your typical “blah blah blah” reply. Others accuse you of lying all the time, but this one is just blatantly and painfully obvious.
Again, you are lying. I stated for you to go back to the long reply that you edited to say “blah blah blah”. You are trying to hide behind a malfunctioning link as an excuse. Typically dishonest of you.
So I guess I will have to state it again. Go back to the long post that you censored or reduced in your reply to state “blah blah blah” and actually argue the points and facts you continue to cower away from. Ujnless you can, then my claim that you are intellectually dishonest and cannot debate facts is supported by your intentionally being deception and dishonest. Pity you cannot face that cognitive dissidence.
Again, you are lying. I stated for you to go back to the long reply that you edited to say “blah blah blah”. You are trying to hide behind a malfunctioning link as an excuse. Typically dishonest of you.
So I guess I will have to state it again. Go back to the long post that you censored or reduced in your reply to state “blah blah blah” and actually argue the points and facts you continue to cower away from. Ujnless you can, then my claim that you are intellectually dishonest and cannot debate facts is supported by your intentionally being deception and dishonest. Pity you cannot face that cognitive dissidence.
This post of yours, like most of the previous ones, is just a long winded complaint, absolutely deviod of any meaningful content, that you somehow seem to think is a persuasive argument.
Again, you are simply lying. The subject that science has proven religion in error alone is supported by the facts I listed and that you continue to cower away from.
More like you cannot face the fact, so you again have to be intentional deceptive, cower away and outright lie when confronted with fact you cannot face due to your closed mined theistic mindset. It is sad that more rational theist are represented by such a closed minded myrmidon such as yourself.
And to correct another one of your dishonest distortions of my posts, by me calling you a myrmidon, I am not labeling all theist myrmidons. Just you. Last time I mentioned that term, you distorted my comment to try to imply that I meant all people of faith. You represent only a small portion of the more notorious closed minded sect of theist.
More like you cannot face the fact, so you again have to be intentional deceptive, cower away and outright lie when confronted with fact you cannot face due to your closed mined theistic mindset. It is sad that more rational theist are represented by such a closed minded myrmidon such as yourself.
And to correct another one of your dishonest distortions of my posts, by me calling you a myrmidon, I am not labeling all theist myrmidons. Just you. Last time I mentioned that term, you distorted my comment to try to imply that I meant all people of faith. You represent only a small portion of the more notorious closed minded sect of theist.
Do make an actual point, and I will address it.
And you keep going back top this tired cop-out whenever you cannot fact the facts posted. The points have been made so you can either continue to cower away and lie to try to ignore the fallacy of your claims or you can face the facts and your cognitive dissidence at the same time.
So you still resort to misrepresenting the arguments made and/or intentionally be dishonest in what has been stated.
Citing the fact that science has proven religion in error is not an attach on religion no matter how many times you parrot that claim.
Citing the fact that the U.S. Constitution’s establishment clause creates a separation of church and state is also not an attack on religion. Odd how while you keep claiming that those who support the SOCS have an agenda, you fail to mention your stated desire to have the establishment clause removed in order to create a theocracy.
And much like your earlier claim that all laws originate from religion which you could not support with facts, you have no proof that all morals and ethics come from religion unless you are to resort to that “special” definition you tried to use where any organization including glee clubs and political parties would be consider religions.
You still cannot back up your claims with anything other than distortion, deceptions or rants against the people who challenge your questionable if not outright untenable claims.
But by all mean, do not actually show me direct support for your claims, but just parrot what I just posted as your rebuttal.
So far, other than your continued equivocations, that is all you have posted.
Here, I will again make it simple for you. You claimed that science has never proven religion in error.
If this is true, then the claim that the universe revolves around the Earth, that the Earth is flat and that god split the moon in two must be true.
If these claims are false, then that means science has indeed proven religion in error.
So, which is it deadbeat?
BLAH BLAH BLAH
So far, other than your continued equivocations, that is all you have posted.
Here, I will again make it simple for you. You claimed that science has never proven religion in error.
If this is true, then the claim that the universe revolves around the Earth, that the Earth is flat and that god split the moon in two must be true.
If these claims are false, then that means science has indeed proven religion in error.
So, which is it deadbeat?
Since you actually bothered (about 5 inches of whining and complaining later) to make a few points, I will deign to address them.
So you also admit that Science has proved Science in error?
First YOU claim that I claim that "science has never proven religion in error". Not only have I never done that, it is an infantile argument and meaningless at any rate. So by implication of your argument, if religion was ever wrong about ANYTHING, it is the wrong about EVERYTHING? So does not the same apply to science? I have already stated many times myself that religion has had to update its doctrine MANY times to accomodate objective science and real knowledge, and I have already said (repeatedly) that any religion that contradicts objective science and fact is ridiculous.
Mine does not, and most annoying to you, it is the one you despise almost without equal as far as I can tell, the Roman Catholic Church.
Juvenile and insipid. Look it up, I await your next 4000 word post of meaningless accusation breathlessly.
HAHAH Funny. My RESPONSE to the desperately scarce actual points you tried to make is immediately following your post.
And that would be an outright lie. The long series of points of that post were reduced by you to your typical “blah blah blah” reply. Others accuse you of lying all the time, but this one is just blatantly and painfully obvious.
QUOTE
Guess you must have missed that, wait, but no. Because your NEXT post after mine claims once again I did not address them. I guess you just cannot read.
Again, you are lying. I stated for you to go back to the long reply that you edited to say “blah blah blah”. You are trying to hide behind a malfunctioning link as an excuse. Typically dishonest of you.
So I guess I will have to state it again. Go back to the long post that you censored or reduced in your reply to state “blah blah blah” and actually argue the points and facts you continue to cower away from. Ujnless you can, then my claim that you are intellectually dishonest and cannot debate facts is supported by your intentionally being deception and dishonest. Pity you cannot face that cognitive dissidence.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Guess you must have missed that, wait, but no. Because your NEXT post after mine claims once again I did not address them. I guess you just cannot read. |
Again, you are lying. I stated for you to go back to the long reply that you edited to say “blah blah blah”. You are trying to hide behind a malfunctioning link as an excuse. Typically dishonest of you.
So I guess I will have to state it again. Go back to the long post that you censored or reduced in your reply to state “blah blah blah” and actually argue the points and facts you continue to cower away from. Ujnless you can, then my claim that you are intellectually dishonest and cannot debate facts is supported by your intentionally being deception and dishonest. Pity you cannot face that cognitive dissidence.
This post of yours, like most of the previous ones, is just a long winded complaint, absolutely deviod of any meaningful content, that you somehow seem to think is a persuasive argument.
Again, you are simply lying. The subject that science has proven religion in error alone is supported by the facts I listed and that you continue to cower away from.
QUOTE
Consider me not just unrepentant, but laughing at you still.
More like you cannot face the fact, so you again have to be intentional deceptive, cower away and outright lie when confronted with fact you cannot face due to your closed mined theistic mindset. It is sad that more rational theist are represented by such a closed minded myrmidon such as yourself.
And to correct another one of your dishonest distortions of my posts, by me calling you a myrmidon, I am not labeling all theist myrmidons. Just you. Last time I mentioned that term, you distorted my comment to try to imply that I meant all people of faith. You represent only a small portion of the more notorious closed minded sect of theist.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Consider me not just unrepentant, but laughing at you still. |
More like you cannot face the fact, so you again have to be intentional deceptive, cower away and outright lie when confronted with fact you cannot face due to your closed mined theistic mindset. It is sad that more rational theist are represented by such a closed minded myrmidon such as yourself.
And to correct another one of your dishonest distortions of my posts, by me calling you a myrmidon, I am not labeling all theist myrmidons. Just you. Last time I mentioned that term, you distorted my comment to try to imply that I meant all people of faith. You represent only a small portion of the more notorious closed minded sect of theist.
Do make an actual point, and I will address it.
And you keep going back top this tired cop-out whenever you cannot fact the facts posted. The points have been made so you can either continue to cower away and lie to try to ignore the fallacy of your claims or you can face the facts and your cognitive dissidence at the same time.
QUOTE
My point is, that the anti-theists here fail to realize the true definition and source of ethics and morals. They willfully deny the obvious, because they have some "seperation of church from sense" agenda. Not realizing that their goals would be far more easily achieved by not attacking religion.
So you still resort to misrepresenting the arguments made and/or intentionally be dishonest in what has been stated.
Citing the fact that science has proven religion in error is not an attach on religion no matter how many times you parrot that claim.
Citing the fact that the U.S. Constitution’s establishment clause creates a separation of church and state is also not an attack on religion. Odd how while you keep claiming that those who support the SOCS have an agenda, you fail to mention your stated desire to have the establishment clause removed in order to create a theocracy.
And much like your earlier claim that all laws originate from religion which you could not support with facts, you have no proof that all morals and ethics come from religion unless you are to resort to that “special” definition you tried to use where any organization including glee clubs and political parties would be consider religions.
You still cannot back up your claims with anything other than distortion, deceptions or rants against the people who challenge your questionable if not outright untenable claims.
But by all mean, do not actually show me direct support for your claims, but just parrot what I just posted as your rebuttal.
So far, other than your continued equivocations, that is all you have posted.
Here, I will again make it simple for you. You claimed that science has never proven religion in error.
If this is true, then the claim that the universe revolves around the Earth, that the Earth is flat and that god split the moon in two must be true.
If these claims are false, then that means science has indeed proven religion in error.
So, which is it deadbeat?
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 4 2008, 05:35 PM)
BLAH BLAH BLAH
So far, other than your continued equivocations, that is all you have posted.
Here, I will again make it simple for you. You claimed that science has never proven religion in error.
If this is true, then the claim that the universe revolves around the Earth, that the Earth is flat and that god split the moon in two must be true.
If these claims are false, then that means science has indeed proven religion in error.
So, which is it deadbeat?
Since you actually bothered (about 5 inches of whining and complaining later) to make a few points, I will deign to address them.
So you also admit that Science has proved Science in error?
First YOU claim that I claim that "science has never proven religion in error". Not only have I never done that, it is an infantile argument and meaningless at any rate. So by implication of your argument, if religion was ever wrong about ANYTHING, it is the wrong about EVERYTHING? So does not the same apply to science? I have already stated many times myself that religion has had to update its doctrine MANY times to accomodate objective science and real knowledge, and I have already said (repeatedly) that any religion that contradicts objective science and fact is ridiculous.
Mine does not, and most annoying to you, it is the one you despise almost without equal as far as I can tell, the Roman Catholic Church.
Juvenile and insipid. Look it up, I await your next 4000 word post of meaningless accusation breathlessly.
Apparently, deadbeat is of the opinion that anyone pointing out his direct lies, hypocrisy and other forms of intellectual dishonesty is engaging in ad hominem insults. Ironic, considering the number of ad hominems I've seen him use...
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Apr 4 2008, 05:54 PM)
Apparently, deadbeat is of the opinion that anyone pointing out his direct lies, hypocrisy and other forms of intellectual dishonesty is engaging in ad hominem insults. Ironic, considering the number of ad hominems I've seen him use...
You speak much of my supposed offenses, but there is a terrible and mystifying non-appearance of the actual instances of these my great crimes?
Why is it you can complain so often and loudly of my many transgressions, but seem unable to demonstrate by quoting me where I actually said them?
Hehe, go ahead, why just complain, do post quotes of my alleged crimes.
You speak much of my supposed offenses, but there is a terrible and mystifying non-appearance of the actual instances of these my great crimes?
Why is it you can complain so often and loudly of my many transgressions, but seem unable to demonstrate by quoting me where I actually said them?
Hehe, go ahead, why just complain, do post quotes of my alleged crimes.
QUOTE (DB+)
Since you actually bothered (about 5 inches of whining and complaining later) to make a few points, I will deign to address them.
Oh, so you found the post after all and it was the one you claimed it was just one post ago? Next time, simply refrain form being dishonest and lying in the first place and save us all some time.
Yes, DB and again contrary to your claiming that his is a weakness, it is how and why science works. And again, it illustrates how little you understand about science.
Yes, DB and again contrary to your claiming that his is a weakness, it is how and why science works. And again, it illustrates how little you understand about science.
First YOU claim that I claim that "science has never proven religion in error". Not only have I never done that, it is an infantile argument and meaningless at any rate.
So you have been arguing that science, or as you call it “hard” science, does not prove religion wrong and it is something your did not say and do not believe?!
That would mean that you entered into and tried to argue a point that you do not support.
If that is true, then there would be no point in ever debating you since it would appear that you are willing to debate things you never stated and do not support.
Perhapes you should really work on that recall capability.
Also, it would not be the first time you made such a broad claim that you were ultimately unable to support with facts. Your previous claims that all laws, ethics and moral originate form religion are still once you cannot back up with anything other than your “special” and broad definitions of religion that include, by your own admission, political parties.
Again, you distort what the argument was and is about. I have been arguing that science has proven religion wrong. You have been using, poorly by the way, every dishonest method and excuse you could think of to try to prove that statement in error.
I stated clearly, and have been stating clearly, that science has proven religion wrong and very specific examples. You went off on moot tangents regarding adultery and the like. And while you were so busy trying to argue a viewpoint you evidently do not support, you have twice mentioned how science had proven itself in error as some sort of weakness.
Again, you distort what the argument was and is about. I have been arguing that science has proven religion wrong. You have been using, poorly by the way, every dishonest method and excuse you could think of to try to prove that statement in error.
I stated clearly, and have been stating clearly, that science has proven religion wrong and very specific examples. You went off on moot tangents regarding adultery and the like. And while you were so busy trying to argue a viewpoint you evidently do not support, you have twice mentioned how science had proven itself in error as some sort of weakness.
So does not the same apply to science?
Ridiculous reach and simply irrational. Science learns by exploration and testing. Religion is based upon superstition and mythology and does not learn arguable at all let alone thought testing. Again, I point out the fact that religion has executed and murdered men of science for daring to speak out about the facts they discovered that proved the claims of religion wrong.
And you have also waffled on what that means. That mean that religion, including yours, have been proven wrong time after time after time. And it has also been pointed out that organized religion has had to be dragged into he modern times by science. You try to sugar-coat it by stating that they have had to update their doctrines rather that state simply they had to correct their erroneous claims and mistaken ideas.
And again, even to this day, religion stands in the was of proven science. The Vatican and the Pope, the leadership of your particular flavor of the xian faith, continue to take a stand against in vitro fertilization.
And you have also waffled on what that means. That mean that religion, including yours, have been proven wrong time after time after time. And it has also been pointed out that organized religion has had to be dragged into he modern times by science. You try to sugar-coat it by stating that they have had to update their doctrines rather that state simply they had to correct their erroneous claims and mistaken ideas.
And again, even to this day, religion stands in the was of proven science. The Vatican and the Pope, the leadership of your particular flavor of the xian faith, continue to take a stand against in vitro fertilization.
Mine does not, and most annoying to you, it is the one you despise almost without equal as far as I can tell, the Roman Catholic Church.
LOL. Right. I just pointed out exactly how it does in one case. And just because I have cited exactly how your flavor of the xian faith has murdered and executed people who pursued science and who discover that the church doctrine was false or supported the fact of science, that does not mean I despise it.
How typical of you to thing that mentioning the historical failing of an organization equates to hatred. I guess that is why you saw it as perfectly okay to insult me once you found out I was raised as a Roman Catholic and rejected the religion that you claim to have converted to “after much study”.
Of course, there still is the small matter of your inconsistent claim that your were raised by strict Baptists, then became an atheist, then converted to the RC faith one time, but recently claimed to have been raised Protestant. Again, not my fault if you cannot remember the stories you have posted.
Let’s see. Juvenile
Let’s see. Juvenile
1 a: physiologically immature or undeveloped : YOUNG b: derived from sources within the earth and coming to the surface for the first time —used especially of water and gas2: of, relating to, characteristic of, or suitable for children or young people <juvenile books>3: reflecting psychological or intellectual immaturity : CHILDISH
You mean like rather than addressing a series of points and fact, resorting to calling someone names and posting insults as you have? Or would it better reflect your taking a post of details and facts you cannot face and reducing it to “blah blah blah” as a rebuttal?
And then there is Insipid:
You mean the lack of a challenge like when you make the untenable and simplistic claims that all laws originate form religion but cannot provide any historical proof to support that claim?
Or would it be more in line with your tasteless and ignorant comments about people far better than you or just people that are different than you?
And after all of that, you still are unable to answer the question I asked directly, let alone address any of the facts I cited in that long post you still are ignoring.
I realized that you have admitted to arguing over the last few pages an idea or believe you actually do not believe (that science has proven religion in error) and that you made some vague claim about religion having to accept the erroneous claims it might have if science proven them wrong, but you did not answer my question.
Is it true that the universe revolves around the Earth, that the Earth is flat and that god split the moon in two?
If these claims are false, then that means science has indeed proven religion in error.
We can address your religious based bigotry, your desire to violate the constitution and your desire to make everyone follow your religion later. I’ll make sure to make those posts short as not to overtax your capabilities.
First YOU claim that I claim that "science has never proven religion in error". Not only have I never done that, it is an infantile argument and meaningless at any rate. So by implication of your argument, if religion was ever wrong about ANYTHING, it is the wrong about EVERYTHING? So does not the same apply to science? I have already stated many times myself that religion has had to update its doctrine MANY times to accomodate objective science and real knowledge, and I have already said (repeatedly) that any religion that contradicts objective science and fact is ridiculous.
Mine does not, and most annoying to you, it is the one you despise almost without equal as far as I can tell, the Roman Catholic Church.
Juvenile and insipid. Look it up, I await your next 4000 word post of meaningless accusation breathlessly.
If religion is wrong about anything then it is wrong about being right about everything.
And science makes no claims to divinity.
So if one group makes claims and doesn't live up to them then they are in error.
If the second group made no such claims then they don't have to live up to them.
And I think there were people who didn't want other people taking their stuff without permission before the ten commandments were written.
And freedom of religion must also be freedom from religion. How can you have the first without the second. And what would you do if someone wanted to start up Khali worshipping again?
Oh, so you found the post after all and it was the one you claimed it was just one post ago? Next time, simply refrain form being dishonest and lying in the first place and save us all some time.
QUOTE
So you also admit that Science has proved Science in error?
Yes, DB and again contrary to your claiming that his is a weakness, it is how and why science works. And again, it illustrates how little you understand about science.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So you also admit that Science has proved Science in error? |
Yes, DB and again contrary to your claiming that his is a weakness, it is how and why science works. And again, it illustrates how little you understand about science.
First YOU claim that I claim that "science has never proven religion in error". Not only have I never done that, it is an infantile argument and meaningless at any rate.
So you have been arguing that science, or as you call it “hard” science, does not prove religion wrong and it is something your did not say and do not believe?!
That would mean that you entered into and tried to argue a point that you do not support.
If that is true, then there would be no point in ever debating you since it would appear that you are willing to debate things you never stated and do not support.
Perhapes you should really work on that recall capability.
Also, it would not be the first time you made such a broad claim that you were ultimately unable to support with facts. Your previous claims that all laws, ethics and moral originate form religion are still once you cannot back up with anything other than your “special” and broad definitions of religion that include, by your own admission, political parties.
QUOTE
So by implication of your argument, if religion was ever wrong about ANYTHING, it is the wrong about EVERYTHING?
Again, you distort what the argument was and is about. I have been arguing that science has proven religion wrong. You have been using, poorly by the way, every dishonest method and excuse you could think of to try to prove that statement in error.
I stated clearly, and have been stating clearly, that science has proven religion wrong and very specific examples. You went off on moot tangents regarding adultery and the like. And while you were so busy trying to argue a viewpoint you evidently do not support, you have twice mentioned how science had proven itself in error as some sort of weakness.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So by implication of your argument, if religion was ever wrong about ANYTHING, it is the wrong about EVERYTHING? |
Again, you distort what the argument was and is about. I have been arguing that science has proven religion wrong. You have been using, poorly by the way, every dishonest method and excuse you could think of to try to prove that statement in error.
I stated clearly, and have been stating clearly, that science has proven religion wrong and very specific examples. You went off on moot tangents regarding adultery and the like. And while you were so busy trying to argue a viewpoint you evidently do not support, you have twice mentioned how science had proven itself in error as some sort of weakness.
So does not the same apply to science?
Ridiculous reach and simply irrational. Science learns by exploration and testing. Religion is based upon superstition and mythology and does not learn arguable at all let alone thought testing. Again, I point out the fact that religion has executed and murdered men of science for daring to speak out about the facts they discovered that proved the claims of religion wrong.
QUOTE
I have already stated many times myself that religion has had to update its doctrine MANY times to accomodate objective science and real knowledge, and I have already said (repeatedly) that any religion that contradicts objective science and fact is ridiculous.
And you have also waffled on what that means. That mean that religion, including yours, have been proven wrong time after time after time. And it has also been pointed out that organized religion has had to be dragged into he modern times by science. You try to sugar-coat it by stating that they have had to update their doctrines rather that state simply they had to correct their erroneous claims and mistaken ideas.
And again, even to this day, religion stands in the was of proven science. The Vatican and the Pope, the leadership of your particular flavor of the xian faith, continue to take a stand against in vitro fertilization.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I have already stated many times myself that religion has had to update its doctrine MANY times to accomodate objective science and real knowledge, and I have already said (repeatedly) that any religion that contradicts objective science and fact is ridiculous. |
And you have also waffled on what that means. That mean that religion, including yours, have been proven wrong time after time after time. And it has also been pointed out that organized religion has had to be dragged into he modern times by science. You try to sugar-coat it by stating that they have had to update their doctrines rather that state simply they had to correct their erroneous claims and mistaken ideas.
And again, even to this day, religion stands in the was of proven science. The Vatican and the Pope, the leadership of your particular flavor of the xian faith, continue to take a stand against in vitro fertilization.
Mine does not, and most annoying to you, it is the one you despise almost without equal as far as I can tell, the Roman Catholic Church.
LOL. Right. I just pointed out exactly how it does in one case. And just because I have cited exactly how your flavor of the xian faith has murdered and executed people who pursued science and who discover that the church doctrine was false or supported the fact of science, that does not mean I despise it.
How typical of you to thing that mentioning the historical failing of an organization equates to hatred. I guess that is why you saw it as perfectly okay to insult me once you found out I was raised as a Roman Catholic and rejected the religion that you claim to have converted to “after much study”.
Of course, there still is the small matter of your inconsistent claim that your were raised by strict Baptists, then became an atheist, then converted to the RC faith one time, but recently claimed to have been raised Protestant. Again, not my fault if you cannot remember the stories you have posted.
QUOTE
Juvenile and insipid. Look it up, I await your next 4000 word post of meaningless accusation breathlessly.
Let’s see. Juvenile
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Juvenile and insipid. Look it up, I await your next 4000 word post of meaningless accusation breathlessly. |
Let’s see. Juvenile
1 a: physiologically immature or undeveloped : YOUNG b: derived from sources within the earth and coming to the surface for the first time —used especially of water and gas2: of, relating to, characteristic of, or suitable for children or young people <juvenile books>3: reflecting psychological or intellectual immaturity : CHILDISH
You mean like rather than addressing a series of points and fact, resorting to calling someone names and posting insults as you have? Or would it better reflect your taking a post of details and facts you cannot face and reducing it to “blah blah blah” as a rebuttal?
And then there is Insipid:
QUOTE
1 : lacking taste or savor : TASTELESS <insipid food> 2 : lacking in qualities that interest, stimulate, or challenge : DULL, FLAT <insipid prose>
You mean the lack of a challenge like when you make the untenable and simplistic claims that all laws originate form religion but cannot provide any historical proof to support that claim?
Or would it be more in line with your tasteless and ignorant comments about people far better than you or just people that are different than you?
And after all of that, you still are unable to answer the question I asked directly, let alone address any of the facts I cited in that long post you still are ignoring.
I realized that you have admitted to arguing over the last few pages an idea or believe you actually do not believe (that science has proven religion in error) and that you made some vague claim about religion having to accept the erroneous claims it might have if science proven them wrong, but you did not answer my question.
Is it true that the universe revolves around the Earth, that the Earth is flat and that god split the moon in two?
If these claims are false, then that means science has indeed proven religion in error.
We can address your religious based bigotry, your desire to violate the constitution and your desire to make everyone follow your religion later. I’ll make sure to make those posts short as not to overtax your capabilities.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Apr 4 2008, 05:48 PM)
First YOU claim that I claim that "science has never proven religion in error". Not only have I never done that, it is an infantile argument and meaningless at any rate. So by implication of your argument, if religion was ever wrong about ANYTHING, it is the wrong about EVERYTHING? So does not the same apply to science? I have already stated many times myself that religion has had to update its doctrine MANY times to accomodate objective science and real knowledge, and I have already said (repeatedly) that any religion that contradicts objective science and fact is ridiculous.
Mine does not, and most annoying to you, it is the one you despise almost without equal as far as I can tell, the Roman Catholic Church.
Juvenile and insipid. Look it up, I await your next 4000 word post of meaningless accusation breathlessly.
If religion is wrong about anything then it is wrong about being right about everything.
And science makes no claims to divinity.
So if one group makes claims and doesn't live up to them then they are in error.
If the second group made no such claims then they don't have to live up to them.
And I think there were people who didn't want other people taking their stuff without permission before the ten commandments were written.
And freedom of religion must also be freedom from religion. How can you have the first without the second. And what would you do if someone wanted to start up Khali worshipping again?
QUOTE (deadbeat+Apr 4 2008, 11:57 AM)
All Ethics and Morals today have derived from some sort of religious source.
You keep saying that but yet you never offer any proof - or even evidence of same.
None.
Zero.
Zilch.
Bumpkiss.
Nada.
You keep saying that but yet you never offer any proof - or even evidence of same.
None.
Zero.
Zilch.
Bumpkiss.
Nada.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Apr 4 2008, 01:42 PM)
Hehe, go ahead, why just complain, do post quotes of my alleged crimes.
Dear God this is going to take a while...
Fair warning, folks: My longest post (or series of posts) ever is coming soon...
What makes you think any of us ever stopped?
g.
Yes, DB and again contrary to your claiming that his is a weakness, it is how and why science works. And again, it illustrates how little you understand about science.
HAHA so science HAS disproved science. If science takes the new proof into itself, it is a STRENGTH. Strangely if religion does it is just disproven. Strange logic, you may have to explain that better.
So you have been arguing that science, or as you call it “hard” science, does not prove religion wrong and it is something your did not say and do not believe?!
Other than as above, of course I never said that. I never said specific things have never been wrong, just that it is not and can never be DISPROVEN in total.
That would mean that you entered into and tried to argue a point that you do not support.
If that is true, then there would be no point in ever debating you since it would appear that you are willing to debate things you never stated and do not support.
Of course I am willing to debate ANYTHING, whether or not I ever held that opinion. No, you just must be confusing yourself.
Perhapes you should really work on that recall capability.
Also, it would not be the first time you made such a broad claim that you were ultimately unable to support with facts. Your previous claims that all laws, ethics and moral originate form religion are still once you cannot back up with anything other than your “special” and broad definitions of religion that include, by your own admission, political parties.
Haha that old straw man nugget again. You could not refute it, so instead you marginalize it.
Again, you distort what the argument was and is about. I have been arguing that science has proven religion wrong. You have been using, poorly by the way, every dishonest method and excuse you could think of to try to prove that statement in error.
HAHA and here you finally admit it. So HOW WRONG. Wrong on a few tangential specifics? Or COMPLETELY DISPROVEN. That is ridiculous and impossible. You cannot even prove there is no God.
I stated clearly, and have been stating clearly, that science has proven religion wrong and very specific examples. You went off on moot tangents regarding adultery and the like. And while you were so busy trying to argue a viewpoint you evidently do not support, you have twice mentioned how science had proven itself in error as some sort of weakness.
Your argument is infantile. So religion has been proven wrong on a few very specific examples. On many occasions that was not just the church opinion, but the then sttanding SCIENTIFIC opinion. It means not much at all really, except apparently to you. The hilarious thing is that Einstein said exactly the same thing I have been saying.
Ridiculous reach and simply irrational. Science learns by exploration and testing. Religion is based upon superstition and mythology and does not learn arguable at all let alone thought testing. Again, I point out the fact that religion has executed and murdered men of science for daring to speak out about the facts they discovered that proved the claims of religion wrong.
So what are these studies and research into why Abortion is wrong. Or Right? Why theft is wrong or right? Oh yeah, because they aren't objective concepts. The two do not and cannot overlap in some areas.
And you have also waffled on what that means. That mean that religion, including yours, have been proven wrong time after time after time. And it has also been pointed out that organized religion has had to be dragged into he modern times by science. You try to sugar-coat it by stating that they have had to update their doctrines rather that state simply they had to correct their erroneous claims and mistaken ideas.
HAHAH and so science has not had to also correct their erroneous claims and mistaken ideas? Lunacy. Both have had to do the same, yet somehow one is better than the other. Only in your mind.
And again, even to this day, religion stands in the was of proven science. The Vatican and the Pope, the leadership of your particular flavor of the xian faith, continue to take a stand against in vitro fertilization.
Science is being blocked by opposition to In Vitro fertilization? I do not even recall that ever being any kind of notable problem even in the news. Abortion? Oh yes. Embyonic stem cells? For certain. HAHA in vitro? Wow.
LOL. Right. I just pointed out exactly how it does in one case. And just because I have cited exactly how your flavor of the xian faith has murdered and executed people who pursued science and who discover that the church doctrine was false or supported the fact of science, that does not mean I despise it.
Great, he does not despise religion. right.
How typical of you to thing that mentioning the historical failing of an organization equates to hatred. I guess that is why you saw it as perfectly okay to insult me once you found out I was raised as a Roman Catholic and rejected the religion that you claim to have converted to “after much study”.
HAHA no your hatred is obvious in your vitriol, and is really sad as the horrible misunderstandings of your own faith led you to leaving it. Your ideas of what the catholic church actually believes are horrific, and in no case even approaching the truth.
Of course, there still is the small matter of your inconsistent claim that your were raised by strict Baptists, then became an atheist, then converted to the RC faith one time, but recently claimed to have been raised Protestant. Again, not my fault if you cannot remember the stories you have posted.
Wow now really reaching are we? Protestant, Baptist whooo....just showing your own stupidity there. You are member of none of those religions, and yet persist in telling those of us who are what we can and cannot believe.
Let’s see. Juvenile
You mean like rather than addressing a series of points and fact, resorting to calling someone names and posting insults as you have? Or would it better reflect your taking a post of details and facts you cannot face and reducing it to “blah blah blah” as a rebuttal?
No I mean making footlong pages of insult and insinuation without fact. I am greatly looking forward to these incredible threats of long documented crimes of mine, please do.
And then there is Insipid:
You mean the lack of a challenge like when you make the untenable and simplistic claims that all laws originate form religion but cannot provide any historical proof to support that claim?
Well that is my Hypothesis, and as yet not proven. But it is defensible. As I have done in hundreds of posts.
Or would it be more in line with your tasteless and ignorant comments about people far better than you or just people that are different than you?
Okay that is funny
And after all of that, you still are unable to answer the question I asked directly, let alone address any of the facts I cited in that long post you still are ignoring.
Which question? Giving you my name and personal data to allow even more violent and effective personal attacks? No thank you. I would prefer if you stuck to the topic, and less Ad Hominem.
I realized that you have admitted to arguing over the last few pages an idea or believe you actually do not believe (that science has proven religion in error) and that you made some vague claim about religion having to accept the erroneous claims it might have if science proven them wrong, but you did not answer my question.
Is it true that the universe revolves around the Earth, that the Earth is flat and that god split the moon in two?
If these claims are false, then that means science has indeed proven religion in error.
Oh yes. The world is round, the moon is in one piece, and earth revolves about the Sun. And you think that this proves there is no God, and all religions are disproven. Hehe, did you read the Juvenile and insipid definition? You might want to add Puerile.
We can address your religious based bigotry, your desire to violate the constitution and your desire to make everyone follow your religion later. I’ll make sure to make those posts short as not to overtax your capabilities.
Gee thanks, I appreciate it.
Dear God this is going to take a while...
Fair warning, folks: My longest post (or series of posts) ever is coming soon...
Oh take your time, it is sure to be a learning experience for you.
Dear God this is going to take a while...
Fair warning, folks: My longest post (or series of posts) ever is coming soon...
QUOTE (buttershug+)
And freedom of religion must also be freedom from religion. How can you have the first without the second. And what would you do if someone wanted to start up Khali worshipping again?
Damn good point. How about a more realistic version? What if the Asatrumen (english version of Ásatrúarmenn, see Wikipedia - Asatru) were to take the concept of the einherjar (honored dead, it literally means "army of one" or "those of The One Army" and was taken to mean "outstanding fighter") literally? They should, by all measures. The fact that they don't is merely a concession to modern human rights views, and not a part of their religion at all.
You'd have tens of thousands of people throughout Europe and North America frothing at the mouth over the chance to pick a mortal fight with someone.
Damn good point. How about a more realistic version? What if the Asatrumen (english version of Ásatrúarmenn, see Wikipedia - Asatru) were to take the concept of the einherjar (honored dead, it literally means "army of one" or "those of The One Army" and was taken to mean "outstanding fighter") literally? They should, by all measures. The fact that they don't is merely a concession to modern human rights views, and not a part of their religion at all.
You'd have tens of thousands of people throughout Europe and North America frothing at the mouth over the chance to pick a mortal fight with someone.
QUOTE
And what would you do if someone wanted to start up Khali worshipping again?
What makes you think any of us ever stopped?
g.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 4 2008, 06:57 PM)
Yes, DB and again contrary to your claiming that his is a weakness, it is how and why science works. And again, it illustrates how little you understand about science.
HAHA so science HAS disproved science. If science takes the new proof into itself, it is a STRENGTH. Strangely if religion does it is just disproven. Strange logic, you may have to explain that better.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 4 2008, 06:57 PM)
So you have been arguing that science, or as you call it “hard” science, does not prove religion wrong and it is something your did not say and do not believe?!
Other than as above, of course I never said that. I never said specific things have never been wrong, just that it is not and can never be DISPROVEN in total.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 4 2008, 06:57 PM)
That would mean that you entered into and tried to argue a point that you do not support.
If that is true, then there would be no point in ever debating you since it would appear that you are willing to debate things you never stated and do not support.
Of course I am willing to debate ANYTHING, whether or not I ever held that opinion. No, you just must be confusing yourself.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 4 2008, 06:57 PM)
Perhapes you should really work on that recall capability.
Also, it would not be the first time you made such a broad claim that you were ultimately unable to support with facts. Your previous claims that all laws, ethics and moral originate form religion are still once you cannot back up with anything other than your “special” and broad definitions of religion that include, by your own admission, political parties.
Haha that old straw man nugget again. You could not refute it, so instead you marginalize it.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 4 2008, 06:57 PM)
Again, you distort what the argument was and is about. I have been arguing that science has proven religion wrong. You have been using, poorly by the way, every dishonest method and excuse you could think of to try to prove that statement in error.
HAHA and here you finally admit it. So HOW WRONG. Wrong on a few tangential specifics? Or COMPLETELY DISPROVEN. That is ridiculous and impossible. You cannot even prove there is no God.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 4 2008, 06:57 PM)
I stated clearly, and have been stating clearly, that science has proven religion wrong and very specific examples. You went off on moot tangents regarding adultery and the like. And while you were so busy trying to argue a viewpoint you evidently do not support, you have twice mentioned how science had proven itself in error as some sort of weakness.
Your argument is infantile. So religion has been proven wrong on a few very specific examples. On many occasions that was not just the church opinion, but the then sttanding SCIENTIFIC opinion. It means not much at all really, except apparently to you. The hilarious thing is that Einstein said exactly the same thing I have been saying.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 4 2008, 06:57 PM)
Ridiculous reach and simply irrational. Science learns by exploration and testing. Religion is based upon superstition and mythology and does not learn arguable at all let alone thought testing. Again, I point out the fact that religion has executed and murdered men of science for daring to speak out about the facts they discovered that proved the claims of religion wrong.
So what are these studies and research into why Abortion is wrong. Or Right? Why theft is wrong or right? Oh yeah, because they aren't objective concepts. The two do not and cannot overlap in some areas.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 4 2008, 06:57 PM)
And you have also waffled on what that means. That mean that religion, including yours, have been proven wrong time after time after time. And it has also been pointed out that organized religion has had to be dragged into he modern times by science. You try to sugar-coat it by stating that they have had to update their doctrines rather that state simply they had to correct their erroneous claims and mistaken ideas.
HAHAH and so science has not had to also correct their erroneous claims and mistaken ideas? Lunacy. Both have had to do the same, yet somehow one is better than the other. Only in your mind.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 4 2008, 06:57 PM)
And again, even to this day, religion stands in the was of proven science. The Vatican and the Pope, the leadership of your particular flavor of the xian faith, continue to take a stand against in vitro fertilization.
Science is being blocked by opposition to In Vitro fertilization? I do not even recall that ever being any kind of notable problem even in the news. Abortion? Oh yes. Embyonic stem cells? For certain. HAHA in vitro? Wow.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 4 2008, 06:57 PM)
LOL. Right. I just pointed out exactly how it does in one case. And just because I have cited exactly how your flavor of the xian faith has murdered and executed people who pursued science and who discover that the church doctrine was false or supported the fact of science, that does not mean I despise it.
Great, he does not despise religion. right.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 4 2008, 06:57 PM)
How typical of you to thing that mentioning the historical failing of an organization equates to hatred. I guess that is why you saw it as perfectly okay to insult me once you found out I was raised as a Roman Catholic and rejected the religion that you claim to have converted to “after much study”.
HAHA no your hatred is obvious in your vitriol, and is really sad as the horrible misunderstandings of your own faith led you to leaving it. Your ideas of what the catholic church actually believes are horrific, and in no case even approaching the truth.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 4 2008, 06:57 PM)
Of course, there still is the small matter of your inconsistent claim that your were raised by strict Baptists, then became an atheist, then converted to the RC faith one time, but recently claimed to have been raised Protestant. Again, not my fault if you cannot remember the stories you have posted.
Wow now really reaching are we? Protestant, Baptist whooo....just showing your own stupidity there. You are member of none of those religions, and yet persist in telling those of us who are what we can and cannot believe.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 4 2008, 06:57 PM)
Let’s see. Juvenile
You mean like rather than addressing a series of points and fact, resorting to calling someone names and posting insults as you have? Or would it better reflect your taking a post of details and facts you cannot face and reducing it to “blah blah blah” as a rebuttal?
No I mean making footlong pages of insult and insinuation without fact. I am greatly looking forward to these incredible threats of long documented crimes of mine, please do.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 4 2008, 06:57 PM)
And then there is Insipid:
You mean the lack of a challenge like when you make the untenable and simplistic claims that all laws originate form religion but cannot provide any historical proof to support that claim?
Well that is my Hypothesis, and as yet not proven. But it is defensible. As I have done in hundreds of posts.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 4 2008, 06:57 PM)
Or would it be more in line with your tasteless and ignorant comments about people far better than you or just people that are different than you?
Okay that is funny
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 4 2008, 06:57 PM)
And after all of that, you still are unable to answer the question I asked directly, let alone address any of the facts I cited in that long post you still are ignoring.
Which question? Giving you my name and personal data to allow even more violent and effective personal attacks? No thank you. I would prefer if you stuck to the topic, and less Ad Hominem.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 4 2008, 06:57 PM)
I realized that you have admitted to arguing over the last few pages an idea or believe you actually do not believe (that science has proven religion in error) and that you made some vague claim about religion having to accept the erroneous claims it might have if science proven them wrong, but you did not answer my question.
Is it true that the universe revolves around the Earth, that the Earth is flat and that god split the moon in two?
If these claims are false, then that means science has indeed proven religion in error.
Oh yes. The world is round, the moon is in one piece, and earth revolves about the Sun. And you think that this proves there is no God, and all religions are disproven. Hehe, did you read the Juvenile and insipid definition? You might want to add Puerile.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 4 2008, 06:57 PM)
We can address your religious based bigotry, your desire to violate the constitution and your desire to make everyone follow your religion later. I’ll make sure to make those posts short as not to overtax your capabilities.
Gee thanks, I appreciate it.
Would you guys work on harmonizing your definitions please.
Science has proven some specific claims of some specific religions to be false.
But has not and can not prove that all religions are false, or even that religion in general is false, only that religion is unscientific.
Scientists have made mistakes but science is based on solid principles.
Science has proven some specific claims of some specific religions to be false.
But has not and can not prove that all religions are false, or even that religion in general is false, only that religion is unscientific.
Scientists have made mistakes but science is based on solid principles.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Apr 4 2008, 07:24 PM)
Dear God this is going to take a while...
Fair warning, folks: My longest post (or series of posts) ever is coming soon...
Oh take your time, it is sure to be a learning experience for you.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Apr 4 2008, 07:24 PM)
QUOTE (buttershug+)
And freedom of religion must also be freedom from religion. How can you have the first without the second. And what would you do if someone wanted to start up Khali worshipping again?
Damn good point. How about a more realistic version? What if the Asatrumen (english version of Ásatrúarmenn, see Wikipedia - Asatru) were to take the concept of the einherjar (honored dead, it literally means "army of one" or "those of The One Army" and was taken to mean "outstanding fighter") literally? They should, by all measures. The fact that they don't is merely a concession to modern human rights views, and not a part of their religion at all.
You'd have tens of thousands of people throughout Europe and North America frothing at the mouth over the chance to pick a mortal fight with someone.
HAHAHA more of that Idiocy. How could religion be constitutionally guaranteed complete freedom of practice, and at the same time completely eliminated from practice? And that is somehow guaranteed by the former? Have you even the vaguest grasp of history?
Do you even think a little about the sputum you are brimming? The arguments of the liberal left are beginning to fail, as they are internally inconsistent, even though they have been practically brainwashed into us by our public schools.
And ALL religions, all free speech is protected. Even the Ku Klux Klan, Nazism, Khali or whatever you want here. The difference is between SPEECH and ACTION.
But if your religion espouses illegal acts (like consuming illegal drugs), you will be prosecuted when you DO it not when you talk about it.
Damn good point. How about a more realistic version? What if the Asatrumen (english version of Ásatrúarmenn, see Wikipedia - Asatru) were to take the concept of the einherjar (honored dead, it literally means "army of one" or "those of The One Army" and was taken to mean "outstanding fighter") literally? They should, by all measures. The fact that they don't is merely a concession to modern human rights views, and not a part of their religion at all.
You'd have tens of thousands of people throughout Europe and North America frothing at the mouth over the chance to pick a mortal fight with someone.
HAHAHA more of that Idiocy. How could religion be constitutionally guaranteed complete freedom of practice, and at the same time completely eliminated from practice? And that is somehow guaranteed by the former? Have you even the vaguest grasp of history?
Do you even think a little about the sputum you are brimming? The arguments of the liberal left are beginning to fail, as they are internally inconsistent, even though they have been practically brainwashed into us by our public schools.
And ALL religions, all free speech is protected. Even the Ku Klux Klan, Nazism, Khali or whatever you want here. The difference is between SPEECH and ACTION.
But if your religion espouses illegal acts (like consuming illegal drugs), you will be prosecuted when you DO it not when you talk about it.
QUOTE (buttershug+Apr 4 2008, 08:16 PM)
Would you guys work on harmonizing your definitions please.
Science has proven some specific claims of some specific religions to be false.
But has not and can not prove that all religions are false, or even that religion in general is false, only that religion is unscientific.
Scientists have made mistakes but science is based on solid principles.
Well thank you for not drinking the Kool-aid.
Refreshing that. Not saying you agree with anything else I have said, just admitting that is amazing to me. Sadly, and obviously some of us cannot grasp this little concept.
Science has proven some specific claims of some specific religions to be false.
But has not and can not prove that all religions are false, or even that religion in general is false, only that religion is unscientific.
Scientists have made mistakes but science is based on solid principles.
Well thank you for not drinking the Kool-aid.
Refreshing that. Not saying you agree with anything else I have said, just admitting that is amazing to me. Sadly, and obviously some of us cannot grasp this little concept.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Apr 4 2008, 03:19 PM)
Oh take your time, it is sure to be a learning experience for you.
HAHAHA more of that Idiocy. How could religion be constitutionally guaranteed complete freedom of practice, and at the same time completely eliminated from practice? And that is somehow guaranteed by the former? Have you even the vaguest grasp of history?
Do you even think a little about the sputum you are brimming? The arguments of the liberal left are beginning to fail, as they are internally inconsistent, even though they have been practically brainwashed into us by our public schools.
And ALL religions, all free speech is protected. Even the Ku Klux Klan, Nazism, Khali or whatever you want here. The difference is between SPEECH and ACTION.
But if your religion espouses illegal acts (like consuming illegal drugs), you will be prosecuted when you DO it not when you talk about it.
First, I would like to thank you for providing these gems bolded above. They can be added to this list which you claimed did not exist. This list of your lies, tautologies, and insults.
Without further ado and in no particular order.....
I knew it would set you off, just as I predicted, as your hatred is unremitting and completely resistant to suasion of any kind.
Then your two-faced comments on the Bible are funny. You complain about being denied the book that you dislike and disbelieve, while simultaneously mocking and belittling that book.
Not only have I never done that, it is an infantile argument and meaningless at any rate.
I await your next 4000 word post of meaningless accusation breathlessly.
HAHAHA more of that Idiocy. How could religion be constitutionally guaranteed complete freedom of practice, and at the same time completely eliminated from practice? And that is somehow guaranteed by the former? Have you even the vaguest grasp of history?
Do you even think a little about the sputum you are brimming? The arguments of the liberal left are beginning to fail, as they are internally inconsistent, even though they have been practically brainwashed into us by our public schools.
And ALL religions, all free speech is protected. Even the Ku Klux Klan, Nazism, Khali or whatever you want here. The difference is between SPEECH and ACTION.
But if your religion espouses illegal acts (like consuming illegal drugs), you will be prosecuted when you DO it not when you talk about it.
First, I would like to thank you for providing these gems bolded above. They can be added to this list which you claimed did not exist. This list of your lies, tautologies, and insults.
Without further ado and in no particular order.....
QUOTE
Your wrong interpretation of what we believe does not mean we believe that. Unfortunately, idiotic and dishonest exhortations like this are what cause people to attribute all sorts of ridiculous positions and claims the church never or at least no longer supports.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Your wrong interpretation of what we believe does not mean we believe that. Unfortunately, idiotic and dishonest exhortations like this are what cause people to attribute all sorts of ridiculous positions and claims the church never or at least no longer supports. |
I knew it would set you off, just as I predicted, as your hatred is unremitting and completely resistant to suasion of any kind.
QUOTE
Then you further your usual diatribe by twisting what I say, unto something I never said.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Then you further your usual diatribe by twisting what I say, unto something I never said. |
Then your two-faced comments on the Bible are funny. You complain about being denied the book that you dislike and disbelieve, while simultaneously mocking and belittling that book.
QUOTE
Since you actually bothered (about 5 inches of whining and complaining later) to make a few points, I will deign to address them.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Since you actually bothered (about 5 inches of whining and complaining later) to make a few points, I will deign to address them. |
Not only have I never done that, it is an infantile argument and meaningless at any rate.
QUOTE
Juvenile and insipid.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Juvenile and insipid. |
I await your next 4000 word post of meaningless accusation breathlessly.
QUOTE
HAHAH Funny. My RESPONSE to the desperately scarce actual points you tried to make is immediately following your post.
QUOTE (->