NationStates Jolt Archive

I do not think it is 'fair' that religious opinions are given the credence they already are.

Well thought out, reasonable ideas merit a place in society, old religious claptrap does not.

Absurd religious ideas do not deserve special consideration or special rights because of their religious aspects.

One must deny a great deal of demonstrable facts to be a religious fundementalist, and no one with such a base regard for the value of truth can be trusted.

Basing decisions that effect the real world in absurd arcana makes somone incompetent to hold an influential position in society, it bespeaks a disregard for the real causes and effects of events.

In my opinion, the vast and seemingly wicked hypocricy of christian maniacs in the united states is rooted in the fundemental lack of integrity that comes from the degeneration that afflicts a mind that is steeped in what I mentioned above.

I do not think it is 'fair' that religious opinions are given the credence they already are.

Well thought out, reasonable ideas merit a place in society, old religious claptrap does not.

Absurd religious ideas do not deserve special consideration or special rights because of their religious aspects.

One must deny a great deal of demonstrable facts to be a religious fundementalist, and no one with such a base regard for the value of truth can be trusted.

Basing decisions that effect the real world in absurd arcana makes somone incompetent to hold an influential position in society, it bespeaks a disregard for the real causes and effects of events.

In my opinion, the vast and seemingly wicked hypocricy of christian maniacs in the united states is rooted in the fundemental lack of integrity that comes from the degeneration that afflicts a mind that is steeped in what I mentioned above.ahh... but to give full scientific credence that religion is "Claptrap" you have to do full research, until then, it's only your opinion.

Now I've experienced the power of GOD first hand and let me tell you, I'll never forget it. no drugs... no flashy light show... not even a soundtrack... just a wave of power rushing through me strong enough to knock me and the couple of dozen people to the ground... and we were all overcome with a peace and joy that makes everything else pale in comparason.

so please, do your research... that mean experiencing each and every religion with an open mind (And I also suggest an open heart) don't be quick to judge... but think about each point and lesson.

ahh... but to give full scientific credence that religion is "Claptrap" you have to do full research, until then, it's only your opinion.

Now I've experienced the power of GOD first hand and let me tell you, I'll never forget it. no drugs... no flashy light show... not even a soundtrack... just a wave of power rushing through me strong enough to knock me and the couple of dozen people to the ground... and we were all overcome with a peace and joy that makes everything else pale in comparason.

so please, do your research... that mean experiencing each and every religion with an open mind (And I also suggest an open heart) don't be quick to judge... but think about each point and lesson.

Hooray!!! SOmeone else on this board has felt that...it's amazing isn;t it....you fall and no matter what you hit, it doesn;t hurt.....even when there is noone to catch you.

I believe that religion is a deeply personal experience, and to try to enforce it upon others is a deathworthy trespass. I have felt the same power, but I do not attribute it to "GOD" so much as my own soul. But that does not invalidate your beliefs at all.

I agree that religion should have NO VOICE WHATSOEVER in contemporary society and politics and should instead be a personal decision and a personal joy.

I do not think it is 'fair' that religious opinions are given the credence they already are.

Well thought out, reasonable ideas merit a place in society, old religious claptrap does not.

Absurd religious ideas do not deserve special consideration or special rights because of their religious aspects.

One must deny a great deal of demonstrable facts to be a religious fundementalist, and no one with such a base regard for the value of truth can be trusted.

Basing decisions that effect the real world in absurd arcana makes somone incompetent to hold an influential position in society, it bespeaks a disregard for the real causes and effects of events.

In my opinion, the vast and seemingly wicked hypocricy of christian maniacs in the united states is rooted in the fundemental lack of integrity that comes from the degeneration that afflicts a mind that is steeped in what I mentioned above.

When you can prove to me that you and I exist, that there is an objective reality, that said reality is perceived accurately by human beings, and that logic models accurately onto the universe, maybe I'll start giving your pet hypotheses more credence.

Hooray!!! SOmeone else on this board has felt that...it's amazing isn;t it....you fall and no matter what you hit, it doesn;t hurt.....even when there is noone to catch you.I still smile and laugh.. and feel a weight being taken off of me when I remember that day...

When you can prove to me that you and I exist
I think therefore I am.

Not my bit, but still pretty good.

I do not think it is 'fair' that religious opinions are given the credence they already are.

Well thought out, reasonable ideas merit a place in society, old religious claptrap does not.

Absurd religious ideas do not deserve special consideration or special rights because of their religious aspects.

One must deny a great deal of demonstrable facts to be a religious fundementalist, and no one with such a base regard for the value of truth can be trusted.

Basing decisions that effect the real world in absurd arcana makes somone incompetent to hold an influential position in society, it bespeaks a disregard for the real causes and effects of events.

In my opinion, the vast and seemingly wicked hypocricy of christian maniacs in the united states is rooted in the fundemental lack of integrity that comes from the degeneration that afflicts a mind that is steeped in what I mentioned above.


I agree with you that religion is a load of superstition, but I think that it's up to people to believe what they want to believe.

However, when they start telling people how to live their lives or how to run their countries it's crossing the line. Like one of the other posters said, religion should remain personal and not invasive, even if religious people think it's "for the best." Paternalism is on the way out folks.

I believe that religion is a deeply personal experience, and to try to enforce it upon others is a deathworthy trespass. I have felt the same power, but I do not attribute it to "GOD" so much as my own soul. But that does not invalidate your beliefs at all.

I agree that religion should have NO VOICE WHATSOEVER in contemporary society and politics and should instead be a personal decision and a personal joy.ahh.. so you saying that your soul "left your body and came back?" just curious...

and while religion is a deeply personal experience... so is parenthood... however I am not offended when my relatives wonder when I'll settle down and become a parent.

I know that they just want me to experience the joy of parenthood... just like I want everyone to experience what I and several others have. I have never condemned anyone for their beliefs... I have never berated anyone for their stance. I just share. if you don't want to hear... then don't read. As it is written, God will provide the opportunities... whether or not you take them is your free choice.

I agree with you that religion is a load of superstition, but I think that it's up to people to believe what they want to believe.

However, when they start telling people how to live their lives or how to run their countries it's crossing the line. Like one of the other posters said, religion should remain personal and not invasive, even if religious people think it's "for the best." Paternalism is on the way out folks.
I don't think he said anything about forcing people to stop believing in religion, just not to mearly respect their beliefs as religious and therefore impervious to logic. It was really more of a call for a logic and reason based approach to life, that doesn't simply believe in religious doctrine for the sake of believing. That doesn't mean anyone is forced to do anything, but that they would do so out of logic.

I personally don't care. Believe the earth is flat if you want, just don't bother me.

I agree with you that religion is a load of superstition, but I think that it's up to people to believe what they want to believe.

However, when they start telling people how to live their lives or how to run their countries it's crossing the line. Like one of the other posters said, religion should remain personal and not invasive, even if religious people think it's "for the best." Paternalism is on the way out folks.[Using Humor to prove a point. please bear with me...]

Why is killing someone illegal?
In nature, it's survival of the fittest. you tresspass into my territory (home) and don't leave, I will fight you... winner takes the territory.

Why do we have hospitals?
Evolution states that the sick and weak must fall to preserve the strength of the species...

Why do we have airplanes?
Nature provides what we need... if we were meant to fly, then we would've evolved wings.

Why is stealing Illegal?
If you cannot hold on to it, then do you deserve to keep it?

Aren't Laws imposing rules on us all? Telling us how to live our lives? Run our Countries? How is this different than Religion?

Heh.... Aren't there already a million of these threads?

I wish I could find one be-all, end-all argument aganst religion. Then I could be happy.

Heh.... Aren't there already a million of these threads?

I wish I could find one be-all, end-all argument aganst religion. Then I could be happy.can't find an end-all argument? maybe there isn't one. just a thought... :D

I agree tho... there too many similar threads... the only problem is that as the thread ages...it devolves into flamewars.

I think therefore I am.

Not my bit, but still pretty good.

Even if the cogito was actually valid, that by itself wouldn't matter. NG still has to prove that not only does he(?) exist, but that I exist and that logic models accurately onto the universe.

I don't think he said anything about forcing people to stop believing in religion, just not to mearly respect their beliefs as religious and therefore impervious to logic. It was really more of a call for a logic and reason based approach to life, that doesn't simply believe in religious doctrine for the sake of believing. That doesn't mean anyone is forced to do anything, but that they would do so out of logic.

I personally don't care. Believe the earth is flat if you want, just don't bother me.Yeah I know, that wasn't really addressed to him. It was just me rambling. Bad expression...


Aren't Laws imposing rules on us all? Telling us how to live our lives? Run our Countries? How is this different than Religion? Well I think the law should only intervene in a person's action where a person is impacting on the autonomy of someone else, and look out for the community as a whole. (although ideally there'd be no rule from above at all, but that's another thread!) Religion often contravenes those bounds, like impinging on peoples sex lives, what people watch/listen to and TRYING TO CONVERT PEOPLE etc.

Oh, hey, an argument arises.

religion is different than those laws because laws are constructd out of reason and are the requirement for a social structure (aka society), which leads to better standars of life, along with people acting better towards each other.
Religion on the other hand is based not in reason but in stories and beliefs that unrealistic things are involved as consequence of realistic actions and events.

(someone should rephrase this for me)

Arguing that religion is good as laws defeats religion's actual goal- making you believe in a whole bunch of texts that a whole bunch of other people believe in.

Aren't Laws imposing rules on us all? Telling us how to live our lives? Run our Countries? How is this different than Religion?
No laws, and civilization in general, is a group of people sacrificing some amount of freedom for the sake of security. We give up the right to murder without punishment so we in turn are not murdered, and so on...
A social contract if like.

Even if the cogito was actually valid, that by itself wouldn't matter. NG still has to prove that not only does he(?) exist, but that I exist and that logic models accurately onto the universe.
Then don't you have to prove you exist and god exists to prove your religious beliefs valid? What exactly are the rules here?

Oh, hey, an argument arises.

religion is different than those laws because laws are constructd out of reason and are the requirement for a social structure (aka society), which leads to better standars of life, along with people acting better towards each other.
Religion on the other hand is based not in reason but in stories and beliefs that unrealistic things are involved as consequence of realistic actions and events.

(someone should rephrase this for me)

Arguing that religion is good as laws defeats religion's actual goal- making you believe in a whole bunch of texts that a whole bunch of other people believe in.then why are there countless of voulumes of laws to say the same thing 'GOD' said in 10 phrases?

then why are there countless of voulumes of laws to say the same thing 'GOD' said in 10 phrases?
Because those laws from 'GOD' are simplistic and not really enforcable in any large scale legal system. They laws need to define what the crime is, what circumstances it can be committed in, and the punishment for breaking said law. Not "Don't kill". BTW as far as I know America is only sharing two of the ten. No stealing or killing; but you can adulterize, lie, and worship false gods all you want.

Then don't you have to prove you exist and god exists to prove your religious beliefs valid? What exactly are the rules here?

NG seems to think that "reason" and "facts" should be given more credence than religious ideas. I'm asking for proof of the truth of some basic assumptions he has to make in order to believe in those things.

Quite honestly, I know he can't do it. None of us can prove our basic assumptions (even my assumption that "there is an objective reality and I can perceive it accurately" that underlies this statement). Hell, we can't even prove that proof exists.

[Edit: Rant removed because it was unnecessary.]

No laws, and civilization in general, is a group of people sacrificing some amount of freedom for the sake of security. We give up the right to murder without punishment so we in turn are not murdered, and so on...
A social contract if like.and religion is not a social contract? one set by God on how we should behave?

"Thou shal not kill" - murder in the first
"Keep the sabbith day holy" - labor laws that outline day's off, breaks and compensation in leu of breaks and days off
"Thou shalt have no other god before me" - the government shall not place favor of one religion over another.
"Thou shalt not steal"

unless the point is that with Laws, they can be "re-negotiated" like banning Gays from Marrage... funny alot of people seem to think that is imposing the government and the majorities views and beilifs on them... to bad they cannot break that contract without giving up their citizenship.

NG seems to think that "reason" and "facts" should be given more credence than religious ideas. I'm asking for proof of the truth of some basic assumptions he has to make in order to believe in those things.

Quite honestly, I know he can't do it. None of us can prove our basic assumptions (even my assumption that "there is an objective reality and I can perceive it accurately" that underlies this statement). Hell, we can't even prove that proof exists.

[general rant]What really annoys me are people who think they are so damn enlightened because they run through some logical forms when interpreting their reality. They make the basic assumption that their basic assumptions are somehow better than the basic assumptions of religious folks. What a load of bullshit.[/rant]
Umm last time I checked logical assumptions ARE better than illogical ones. They may be imperfect in some core humanities "I'm so deep" way, but they are the best we've got. What you're contending is that we will never know, so instead of trying to understand lets make up something and pray to it.

To say that facts are no better than religious ideas is to dismiss every advancement humans have ever made. We didn't invent the wheel, mircowaves, and internal combustion engines by praying. Thats logic and reason at work. They get results, and so far religion doesn't.

Because those laws from 'GOD' are simplistic and not really enforcable in any large scale legal system. They laws need to define what the crime is, what circumstances it can be committed in, and the punishment for breaking said law. Not "Don't kill". BTW as far as I know America is only sharing two of the ten. No stealing or killing; but you can adulterize, lie, and worship false gods all you want.and by splitting hairs you get what? confusion

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me
(sounds very similar to "government shal not favor one religion over another.")

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'
(no religious icons on Government/public property, if you really wanna streach it... littering. :D )

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'
(censorship anyone? FCC?)

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'
(labor laws... rules on days off and breaks... and appropriate compensation in leu of days off and breaks.)

FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'
(Incest? possibly... and remember... untill you're 18 you are under your parent's thumb.)

SIX: 'You shall not murder.'
(Murder... different than Kill)

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'
(in most states prostitution is still illegal. and cheating on your spouse is a legal reason for divorce in favor of the one cheated upon.)

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'
(Theft, kidnapping, carjacking...)

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
(Purjury, false police reports)

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbour's house; you shall not covet your neighbour's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbour's.' (Stalking, tresspassing laws, terroristic threats,)

Umm last time I checked logical assumptions ARE better than illogical ones.

You're making the basic assumption that logic is better than other systems, as well as a host of other assumptions. Would you like to prove them? Oh wait...you can't prove them any more than I can prove that God exists, that Jesus Christ was the savior of the world, or that the Holy Spirit inspired the Apostles.

They may be imperfect in some core humanities "I'm so deep" way, but they are the best we've got. What you're contending is that we will never know, so instead of trying to understand lets make up something and pray to it.

Please don't make straw men of my arguments again.

To say that facts are no better than religious ideas is to dismiss every advancement humans have ever made. We didn't invent the wheel, mircowaves, and internal combustion engines by praying. Thats logic and reason at work. They get results, and so far religion doesn't.

You're still operating under the basic unproven assumptions that reality is objective and that human beings can perceive it accurately.

Ultimately, the question is: Why would you think that your basic assumptions are better than others?

and religion is not a social contract? one set by God on how we should behave?

"Thou shal not kill" - murder in the first
"Keep the sabbith day holy" - labor laws that outline day's off, breaks and compensation in leu of breaks and days off
"Thou shalt have no other god before me" - the government shall not place favor of one religion over another.
"Thou shalt not steal"

unless the point is that with Laws, they can be "re-negotiated" like banning Gays from Marrage... funny alot of people seem to think that is imposing the government and the majorities views and beilifs on them... to bad they cannot break that contract without giving up their citizenship.
..........ok

Yes I guess religion can be a social contract, I never said it couldn't. Not sure what you're point is there.

"Keep the sabbith day holy" - labor laws that outline day's off, breaks and compensation in leu of breaks and days off
No, current workers rights legislation has nothing to do with the biblical sabbath, to argue otherwise would to be totally ignorant of what the sabbath in the bible means. Nothing holy about getting weekends and president's day off.

"Thou shalt have no other god before me" - the government shall not place favor of one religion over another.
To suggest that the seperation of church and state has anything to do with the first commandment is totally insane. It doesn't put god first in any sense at all. It gives the freedom to worship any god you want, the runs pretty damn contrary to the commandment.

unless the point is that with Laws, they can be "re-negotiated" like banning Gays from Marrage... funny alot of people seem to think that is imposing the government and the majorities views and beilifs on them... to bad they cannot break that contract without giving up their citizenship

Yes, laws can change. Religions change too, but people just don't like to talk about that. The majority imposing its will is bad, if by doing so they take away the rights of the minority. Thats called tyranny of the majority and its bad.

You're making the basic assumption that logic is better than other systems, as well as a host of other assumptions. Would you like to prove them? Oh wait...you can't prove them any more than I can prove that God exists, that Jesus Christ was the savior of the world, or that the Holy Spirit inspired the Apostles.

You're still operating under the basic unproven assumptions that reality is objective and that human beings can perceive it accurately.

Ultimately, the question is: Why would you think that your basic assumptions are better than others?

This perception of reality is what we have, like it or not. In this perception of reality logic has been the clear winner so far. We got all kinds of cool stuff from it. So far religion hasn't really given us much. Why would I pick illogic over logic?

Something tells me that you arguing philosophy with an engineering student is most likely a dead end.

and by splitting hairs you get what? confusion

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me
(sounds very similar to "government shal not favor one religion over another.")

<snip>

Are you arguing that the God of the Old Testament was saying that other Gods/religions have equal status to Him? If so, that seems quite an individual take.

You're making the basic assumption that logic is better than other systems, as well as a host of other assumptions. Would you like to prove them? Oh wait...you can't prove them any more than I can prove that God exists, that Jesus Christ was the savior of the world, or that the Holy Spirit inspired the Apostles.



Please don't make straw men of my arguments again.



You're still operating under the basic unproven assumptions that reality is objective and that human beings can perceive it accurately.

Ultimately, the question is: Why would you think that your basic assumptions are better than others?

Stop arguing. No, seriously. Stop. Why? I BELIEVE that you are an idiot who has no right to argue. If I honestly believed that, would it be sufficient for you? No? How odd. It apparently works when you believe something.

That aside, you should still stop arguing - because your arguments rely upon a logical progression of facts, starting from a handful of postulates - hence, your claims are using the logic you so despise. The only difference is that your postulates are not universal, and the postulates themselves are based on faith rather than logical jumps and assumptions.

When you can prove to me that you and I exist, that there is an objective reality, that said reality is perceived accurately by human beings, and that logic models accurately onto the universe, maybe I'll start giving your pet hypotheses more credence.

Right back at you.

If you start from that premise, either you are just a figment of my imagine (so why do I care what you think or what happens to you) or anything my oppresive secular government forces you to believe is a figment of your imagination and you are doing it to yourself.

Its a silly argument.


EDIT: And, yes, I read through the thread. Your premise -- which is flawed -- hasn't changed.

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me
(sounds very similar to "government shal not favor one religion over another.")

That would be the exact opposite of what the commandment says, but nice effort.
TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'
(no religious icons on Government/public property, if you really wanna streach it... littering. :D )
Bzzzt wrong. We have eagle statues all over the place, they are a likeness of a creature on heaven or earth.

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'
(censorship anyone? FCC?)
I can take the name of god in vain on tv or radio, who says I can't?

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'
(labor laws... rules on days off and breaks... and appropriate compensation in leu of days off and breaks.)
Getting labor day off != the jewish sabbath. Not even close. The laws stopping buisnesses from opening on sundays were taking of the books decades ago.

FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'
(Incest? possibly... and remember... untill you're 18 you are under your parent's thumb.)
Incest!? Not even close, and eww btw.

SIX: 'You shall not murder.'
(Murder... different than Kill)
Ok one point for you.

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'
(in most states prostitution is still illegal. and cheating on your spouse is a legal reason for divorce in favor of the one cheated upon.)
Prostitutes don't mean adultery, and claims in divorce court hardly constitute a law being based on biblical teaching.

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'
(Theft, kidnapping, carjacking...)
Second point.

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
(Purjury, false police reports)
Half a point, that deals only with very specific circumstances. I can lie all I want otherwise.

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbour's house; you shall not covet your neighbour's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbour's.' (Stalking, tresspassing laws, terroristic threats,)
Stalkers may covet, but covetting doesn't equal stalking. Bzzt wrong. I can be as jealous as I want, they aren't going to lock me up.


Final tally 2.5/10
oooo not so good. You half decent, but I'm afraid you don't get to move onto the second round. We do appreciate you playing however.

This perception of reality is what we have, like it or not. In this perception of reality logic has been the clear winner so far. We got all kinds of cool stuff from it. So far religion hasn't really given us much. Why would I pick illogic over logic?

It's not a question of picking one over the other. It's about attitudes. It's about thinking oneself superior because one makes different unproven assumptions. You can pick whichever assumptions you like, as far as I'm concerned. It's the superiority complex that stems from those assumptions that concerns me. I see folks of all types of belief systems (logical, religious, non-logical, non-religious) looking down on others and treating them as lesser just because the other person makes different assumptions about reality. On the one hand, you have religious foks preaching love out of one side of their mouth and spewing hatred out of the other. On the other hand, you have non-religious folks who think the religious folks are silly for making basic assumptions like the existence of a diety while they themselves make other basic assumptions that are no more likely to be true. It's a fine kettle of fish.

Something tells me that you arguing philosophy with an engineering student is most likely a dead end.

Something tells me that you shouldn't have wasted your time and mine if you knew it was a dead end.

That aside, you should still stop arguing - because your arguments rely upon a logical progression of facts, starting from a handful of postulates - hence, your claims are using the logic you so despise.

I don't despise logic. I rather like it, actually.

The only difference is that your postulates are not universal, and the postulates themselves are based on faith rather than logical jumps and assumptions.

1. What do you mean by "universal" in this context? Why do you think that universal postulates are better than non-universal postulates?

2. How are logical jumps and assumptions significantly different from faith? They seem to be functionally equivalent.

Right back at you.

If you start from that premise, either you are just a figment of my imagine (so why do I care what you think or what happens to you) or anything my oppresive secular government forces you to believe is a figment of your imagination and you are doing it to yourself.

Its a silly argument.

I won't claim otherwise.


EDIT: And, yes, I read through the thread. Your premise -- which is flawed -- hasn't changed.

Wait a bit.

It's not a question of picking one over the other. It's about attitudes. It's about thinking oneself superior because one makes different unproven assumptions. You can pick whichever assumptions you like, as far as I'm concerned. It's the superiority complex that stems from those assumptions that concerns me. I see folks of all types of belief systems (logical, religious, non-logical, non-religious) looking down on others and treating them as lesser just because the other person makes different assumptions about reality. On the one hand, you have religious foks preaching love out of one side of their mouth and spewing hatred out of the other. On the other hand, you have non-religious folks who think the religious folks are silly for making basic assumptions like the existence of a diety while they themselves make other basic assumptions that are no more likely to be true. It's a fine kettle of fish.

Something tells me that you shouldn't have wasted your time and mine if you knew it was a dead end.the only solution is to find the balance... Faith and Science. Equality and Belief.

I can share my religious experience and I can have Scientific facts shared with me. but the dangerous point is not giving both equal weight.

I won't claim otherwise.




Wait a bit.


You admit you made a silly argument. Great. Stop.

You admit you made a silly argument. Great. Stop.

Why should I?

Why should I?

'Cuz GOD told me you should! :p

'Cuz GOD told me you should! :p

Oops. He noticed that, huh? *sigh* I'm off to confession, then. :D

I don't despise logic. I rather like it, actually.



1. What do you mean by "universal" in this context? Why do you think that universal postulates are better than non-universal postulates?

2. How are logical jumps and assumptions significantly different from faith? They seem to be functionally equivalent.

First: Care to acknowledge the first part of that post you partially quoted, the bit about how if I believe you are an idiot who has no right to argue, it should be ccepted by your reasoning?

Also, to your first point:

You're making the basic assumption that logic is better than other systems, as well as a host of other assumptions. Would you like to prove them? Oh wait...you can't prove them any more than I can prove that God exists, that Jesus Christ was the savior of the world, or that the Holy Spirit inspired the Apostles.

Sounds to me like you are indicating logic is bad and inferior. Then again, Genesis does say that knowledge is bad, if you read it metaphorically OR literally, so I guess that makes sense.

1) By universal, I meant accepted by everyone. You follow a logical process, but if you apply faith to law, you re forcing your postulates on those with strongly contradictory postulates.

2) How is a logical jump and assumption different from faith?
Faith: I notice an animal. God must have put it there, for I think so.

Logical attempt at the same issue: I notice an animal. I think it got there somehow; now I will try to figure out how based on what I can observe and detect within the bounds of my senses, rather than mking up an explanation out of the blue.

Forgive me if I misunderstand the faith perspective, as many of the things that are taken for granted by more religious people are lost on agnostics such as myself, who strive to prove how the world works.

Even if god does exist, do you really think he wants us to sit in church for 2 hours every sunday listening to boring stories, when we could be out working, helping people and so on?

I don't really think he cares what we do, so long as we don't break any of his "RULES."

Ah, the rules that have been corrupted and mixed to serve the governments of the world to control us.

Religion may well be true, but the original rules and truth have been masked by the evil leaders of society. :mad:

Also, what the heck is up with Platypuses? Why create such a mad creature?

First: Care to acknowledge the first part of that post you partially quoted, the bit about how if I believe you are an idiot who has no right to argue, it should be ccepted by your reasoning?

*sigh* That depends on what you mean by "accepted". I certainly don't look down on you for thinking that I am "an idiot who has no right to argue" and I won't call you vulgar names or try to physically force you to believe as I do. That doesn't necessarily mean that I'm going to roll over and play dead either.

Also, to your first point:


Sounds to me like you are indicating logic is bad and inferior. Then again, Genesis does say that knowledge is bad, if you read it metaphorically OR literally, so I guess that makes sense.

I've never indicated that logic is bad or inferior, to my knowledge. What that passage indicates is that all of our basic assumptions are unproveable.

By universal, I meant accepted by everyone.

Everyone? How can certain postulates be accepted by everyone if I don't accept them? And even if the postulates are accepted by everyone, how would they be more correct?

You follow a logical process, but if you apply faith to law, you re forcing your postulates on those with strongly contradictory postulates.

Huh? When did I say anything about me forcing postulates on others?

2) How is a logical jump and assumption different from faith?
Faith: I notice an animal. God must have put it there, for I think so.

Logical attempt at the same issue: I notice an animal. I think it got there somehow; now I will try to figure out how based on what I can observe and detect within the bounds of my senses, rather than mking up an explanation out of the blue.

You aren't making any kind of assumption there. All you're doing is asking a question (the same one that was asked in the Faith scenario): "How did it get here?" and trying to figure out the answer. Show me an actual assumption, and then we can compare the two assumptions.

Forgive me if I misunderstand the faith perspective, as many of the things that are taken for granted by more religious people are lost on agnostics such as myself, who strive to prove how the world works.

^_o

Two points to address.

One - To texan:

Epistemology brings to mind an old folk aphorism which is in my experience quite good - Dont wrestle with a pig, you just get covered in shit and the pig likes it.

To extend the analogy i'll explain my solution to the epistemological 'problem' -
It's one of my favorite words - "trivial"
Defined best as "devoid of practical relevence"

I take my big elephant gun loaded with "trivial" and shoot the epistemology pig right in the head.

Two -

I've not seen anyone address yet the idea that religiosity nowadays implies that someone is incapable and untrustworthy, for the reasons I gave in my post.

That would be the exact opposite of what the commandment says, but nice effort.nope... according to documents, the original intent of that admendment was to prevent the GOVERNMENT becoming a religion. (+1) Bzzzt wrong. We have eagle statues all over the place, they are a likeness of a creature on heaven or earth.there is a difference between idols and statues. (+1)I can take the name of god in vain on tv or radio, who says I can't?FCC, over the airwaves... go on the radio and try swearing up a storm. don't hold it only to religous context now after all, it's still rules on speech and thought... (+1) Getting labor day off != the jewish sabbath. Not even close. The laws stopping buisnesses from opening on sundays were taking of the books decades ago.try and make employees work 7 by +8 hours without overtime pay... (+1)Incest!? Not even close, and eww btw.True... disgusting... but untill you are an adult, you are the responsibility of your parents leagally, thus you should 'Honor' them (+1).Prostitutes don't mean adultery, and claims in divorce court hardly constitute a law being based on biblical teaching.nah... you're right. married men hire prostitues for intellectual conversations about politics and the economy... :rolleyes: and I thing the original point was the similarities... not that it was baised.(+1)Half a point, that deals only with very specific circumstances. I can lie all I want otherwise.true...but lie on a contract. lie for that job interview... remember the little phrase "I swear that the information given is true to my knowledge..." and the points are that the laws are similar to the 10 commandments. (+1)Stalkers may covet, but covetting doesn't equal stalking. Bzzt wrong. I can be as jealous as I want, they aren't going to lock me up.Jealous |= Covet. and stalking is against the law. civil law but law nonetheless. (+1)Final tally 2.5/10
oooo not so good. You half decent, but I'm afraid you don't get to move onto the second round. We do appreciate you playing however.
recount pkease 10 for 10. and please see the nice lady for your consolation prize... a copy of the Bible. feel free to read it when you get home.

Two points to address.

One - To texan:

Epistemology brings to mind an old folk aphorism which is in my experience quite good - Dont wrestle with a pig, you just get covered in shit and the pig likes it.

To extend the analogy i'll explain my solution to the epistemological 'problem' -
It's one of my favorite words - "trivial"
Defined best as "devoid of practical relevence"

I take my big elephant gun loaded with "trivial" and shoot the epistemology pig right in the head.

So you're simply going to ignore the problematic nature of your rationalist philosophy just like the religious folks ignore the problems in their philosophy. *shrug* Not surprising. I didn't really expect anyone to do better, and I do appreciate that you at least did so with a certain degree of style, NG. :)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammolopolis
I can take the name of god in vain on tv or radio, who says I can't?

FCC, over the airwaves... go on the radio and try swearing up a storm. don't hold it only to religous context now after all, it's still rules on speech and thought... (+1) Anyone is welcome to go on the radio and swear up and down god's name in vain, they are legally compelled not to use obscenity, blasphemy is not obscenity in american law
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammolopolis
Getting labor day off != the jewish sabbath. Not even close. The laws stopping buisnesses from opening on sundays were taking of the books decades ago.

try and make employees work 7 by +8 hours without overtime pay... (+1)
Dont dodge the issue, there are no laws honoring or remembering a sabbath day and no laws 'keeping it holy' and no laws which accomplish any of those things indirectly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammolopolis
Incest!? Not even close, and eww btw.

True... disgusting... but untill you are an adult, you are the responsibility of your parents leagally, thus you should 'Honor' them (+1).Our laws are set up so that no person considered legally capable of responsible judgement and consent has any compulsion to honor their parents under any circumstances. This is in direct and callous opposition to god's commandment
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammolopolis
Prostitutes don't mean adultery, and claims in divorce court hardly constitute a law being based on biblical teaching.

nah... you're right. married men hire prostitues for intellectual conversations about politics and the economy... and I thing the original point was the similarities... not that it was baised.(+1) Adultury as such is not broadly illegal in the united states, nor is prostitution barred by federal or constitutional law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammolopolis
Half a point, that deals only with very specific circumstances. I can lie all I want otherwise.

true...but lie on a contract. lie for that job interview... remember the little phrase "I swear that the information given is true to my knowledge..." and the points are that the laws are similar to the 10 commandments. (+1)
The economic and keep-the-peace utility of fraud legislation make it such that it can only be connected to the ten commandments by leaps of imaginative flight that border on willful dishonesty
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammolopolis
Stalkers may covet, but covetting doesn't equal stalking. Bzzt wrong. I can be as jealous as I want, they aren't going to lock me up.

Jealous |= Covet. and stalking is against the law. civil law but law nonetheless. (+1) Covet means to desire posessions or wealth, it is the basic activity of americans in the aggregate, it is the basis of our consumer economy, it is the basis of advertising
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammolopolis
Final tally 2.5/10
oooo not so good. You half decent, but I'm afraid you don't get to move onto the second round. We do appreciate you playing however.


recount pkease 10 for 10. and please see the nice lady for your consolation prize... a copy of the Bible. feel free to read it when you get home.
Immodesty ought to strip you of any 'points' which werent soundly refuted.

I do not think it is 'fair' that religious opinions are given the credence they already are.

Well thought out, reasonable ideas merit a place in society, old religious claptrap does not.

Absurd religious ideas do not deserve special consideration or special rights because of their religious aspects.

One must deny a great deal of demonstrable facts to be a religious fundementalist, and no one with such a base regard for the value of truth can be trusted.

Basing decisions that effect the real world in absurd arcana makes somone incompetent to hold an influential position in society, it bespeaks a disregard for the real causes and effects of events.

In my opinion, the vast and seemingly wicked hypocricy of christian maniacs in the united states is rooted in the fundemental lack of integrity that comes from the degeneration that afflicts a mind that is steeped in what I mentioned above.
What? What if religious ideas can be presented as well thought-out reasonable ideas?

Now I've experienced the power of GOD first hand and let me tell you, I'll never forget it. no drugs... no flashy light show... not even a soundtrack... just a wave of power rushing through me strong enough to knock me and the couple of dozen people to the ground... and we were all overcome with a peace and joy that makes everything else pale in comparason.
Booya!

What? What if religious ideas can be presented as well thought-out reasonable ideas?


By all means mon cheri, your best shot.

Okay, I feel compelled to say to all of you who would say, "noone feels what I do"... It's "no one"! It's two words. It really is! God knows this.

So you're simply going to ignore the problematic nature of your rationalist philosophy just like the religious folks ignore the problems in their philosophy. *shrug* Not surprising. I didn't really expect anyone to do better, and I do appreciate that you at least did so with a certain degree of style, NG. :)


danke shon ;)

Honestly though I had my flirtations with epistemology and in the end see it as nothing more than endless, tangled, spiraling webs of irrelevant pontification.

Essentially whatever the nature of existence, its universal rules seem to be constant enough that in their terms, facts can be established and reasonable thought can be gainfully employed in the pursuit of right and truthful ideas.

I will add that I despise postmodernism.

NG seems to think that "reason" and "facts" should be given more credence than religious ideas. I'm asking for proof of the truth of some basic assumptions he has to make in order to believe in those things.

Quite honestly, I know he can't do it. None of us can prove our basic assumptions (even my assumption that "there is an objective reality and I can perceive it accurately" that underlies this statement). Hell, we can't even prove that proof exists.
Mythology rocks.

[Edit: Rant removed because it was unnecessary.]
Shoot! Rants are easier to argue against.

and religion is not a social contract? one set by God on how we should behave?

"Thou shal not kill" - murder in the first
"Keep the sabbith day holy" - labor laws that outline day's off, breaks and compensation in leu of breaks and days off
"Thou shalt have no other god before me" - the government shall not place favor of one religion over another.
"Thou shalt not steal"

unless the point is that with Laws, they can be "re-negotiated" like banning Gays from Marrage... funny alot of people seem to think that is imposing the government and the majorities views and beilifs on them... to bad they cannot break that contract without giving up their citizenship.
Well... that's one religion.

danke shon ;)

Honestly though I had my flirtations with epistemology and in the end see it as nothing more than endless, tangled, spiraling webs of irrelevant pontification.

Agreed. What I find truly curious it that so many rationalists who ask for proof of a deity who gives us the arbitrary laws of the universe fail miserably to seriously question their lack of proof for their own belief. What I find disgusting is that many rationalists think themselves superior because of their rationalism, when they of all people should be agnostic in the broadest sense of the word and make no value judgements about anything because they feel the need for proof and know that proof cannot be found. That sort of hypocrisy (not to mention the immense irony) really annoys me.

Fortunately, I myself am not bound by logical forms and do not feel beholden to any standard of proof except that which I dictate to myself. It makes things much easier (and more importantly to me) honest, and my belief system is much more uncluttered without the "trivial" as you called it. :)

Essentially whatever the nature of existence, its universal rules seem to be constant enough that in their terms, facts can be established and reasonable thought can be gainfully employed in the pursuit of right and truthful ideas.

I also agree with you there. I just don't think reason is better than faith in any inherent way, which is where I suspect that we would disagree. That's not to say that there aren't individual scenarios in which reason would be more appropriate (ie philosophical debates), and other scenarios in which faith would be more appropriate (ie acquiring the basic assumptions necessary to function). It's just that, taken as a whole, reason seems no more useful than faith, and vice versa.

I will add that I despise postmodernism.

What do you mean by "postmodernism" in this context?

What do you mean by "postmodernism" in this context?


Ehh i've just been subjected to lots of postmodernism at university lately and I dont care for it.

I suppose I associate it with nihilism and both with the morass of epistemology.

Ehh i've just been subjected to lots of postmodernism at university lately and I dont care for it.

I suppose I associate it with nihilism and both with the morass of epistemology.

Oh. No wonder you dislike it. It's actually a bit more complex than that. Like most movements, there are parts of postmodernism that I like and parts that I don't like. I tend to agree with parts of the deconstructionist trend, particularly with regards to Western culture. I often find that the theorists are rather one-sided in their views, however.

I do not think it is 'fair' that religious opinions are given the credence they already are.

Well thought out, reasonable ideas merit a place in society, old religious claptrap does not.

Absurd religious ideas do not deserve special consideration or special rights because of their religious aspects.

One must deny a great deal of demonstrable facts to be a religious fundementalist, and no one with such a base regard for the value of truth can be trusted.

Basing decisions that effect the real world in absurd arcana makes somone incompetent to hold an influential position in society, it bespeaks a disregard for the real causes and effects of events.

In my opinion, the vast and seemingly wicked hypocricy of christian maniacs in the united states is rooted in the fundemental lack of integrity that comes from the degeneration that afflicts a mind that is steeped in what I mentioned above.
I know exactly what you mean. And it's not just Christians, either. There's a lot of whacked-out Wiccans out there, that believe there are invisible faeries floating around the world, that you can only see, if you TRULY believe (not even kidding-I used to do rituals with these people at Unitarian Church).

And then, of course, there's one time I was talking to a Hindu. He told me that there's a God named Hare Krishna who had several thousand lovers on Earth. I asked him, "How many children did he have?"

"None."

"Did he use a condom?"

"No."

"You're fucking lying to me."

married men hire prostitues for intellectual conversations about politics and the economy... :rolleyes: and I thing the original point was the similarities... not that it was baised.(+1)true...but lie on a contract.
I know at least one fellow who would hire a prostitute for intellectual conversation about politics, provided she was skilled in such, if only because people in his life could not otherwise give him such stimulation.

Mythology rocks.

I agree. :) Myths are significant symbols of the basic truths found in human experience and are useful for generating mutual and productive perceptions of reality.

By all means mon cheri, your best shot.
Un momente.

I know exactly what you mean. And it's not just Christians, either. There's a lot of whacked-out Wiccans out there, that believe there are invisible faeries floating around the world, that you can only see, if you TRULY believe (not even kidding-I used to do rituals with these people at Unitarian Church).

And then, of course, there's one time I was talking to a Hindu.
...and then there was this one time, at band camp...

What? What if religious ideas can be presented as well thought-out reasonable ideas?
Eastern religion. Western religion has "divine texts", meaning it's scripture is crammed down your throat by a bunch of militant fundamentalists and you're expected to believe it, because they claim God wrote it and they'll stone you (Judaism), burn you at the stake (Christianity), or behead you (Islam) if you don't accept it.

Whereas, in Eastern Religion, there was "wisdom texts", which means that they're accepted to be true, because of how true and reasonable they actually are. Eastern religion is really more of a spiritual philosophy (based on reason) than anything else, whereas, the west is spiritual dogma (based on faith). And while I agree in this modern age, the lines between "east" and "west" are blurring, they can be defined according to the directions they traveled, from the middle east, or where they originated, if not in the middle east.

Read the Tao Te Ching (http://www.sacred-texts.com/tao/taote.htm) (Taoism) or the Gospel of Buddha (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/btg/index.htm). It's neat stuff. Shinto scriptures might be cool, too, because they had an influence on the Samurai's code of ethics, Bushido.

Plus, there's a middle-eastern religion out of Iran, called Ba'hai, founded about 200 years ago, which is neat. They basically teach the ethics seculars hold today: men and women are totally equal, there's no need for a priesthood, people should decide their beliefs for themselves, and all spiritual beliefs are equally valid. The Fundamentalist Muslims which dominate Iran, though, ("Mullahs") absolutely hate Ba'hais because of their secular-like nature. It's.. so.. UNSEXIST.. SO.. PACIFIST.. AND.. TOLERANT.. WE MUST KILL THEM ALL.

Yeah, don't knock all religion. Just the Fundamentalist western religions that think gay people are going to hell, that there's a demon trying to kill them, and that God is going to come down, kill everyone, and then take "the chosen ones" off to a wonderful place of lollypops and Tanakhs\Bibles\Korans.

I know at least one fellow who would hire a prostitute for intellectual conversation about politics, provided she was skilled in such, if only because people in his life could not otherwise give him such stimulation.
Are there really many prostitutes that are educated enough about politics to have an intellectual conversation. Wow, whoring requires a large skillset. :D

Are there really many prostitutes that are educated enough about politics to have an intellectual conversation. Wow, whoring requires a large skillset. :D
No, politics takes a small one.

Eastern religion. Western religion has "divine texts", meaning it's scripture is crammed down your throat by a bunch of militant fundamentalists and you're expected to believe it, because they claim God wrote it and they'll stone you (Judaism), burn you at the stake (Christianity), or behead you (Islam) if you don't accept it.

Whereas, in Eastern Religion, there was "wisdom texts", which means that they're accepted to be true, because of how true and reasonable they actually are. Eastern religion is really more of a spiritual philosophy (based on reason) than anything else, whereas, the west is spiritual dogma (based on faith). And while I agree in this modern age, the lines between "east" and "west" are blurring, they can be defined according to the directions they traveled, from the middle east, or where they originated, if not in the middle east.

Read the Tao Te Ching (http://www.sacred-texts.com/tao/taote.htm) (Taoism) or the Gospel of Buddha (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/btg/index.htm). It's neat stuff. Shinto scriptures might be cool, too, because they had an influence on the Samurai's code of ethics, Bushido.

Plus, there's a middle-eastern religion out of Iran, called Ba'hai, founded about 200 years ago, which is neat. They basically teach the ethics seculars hold today: men and women are totally equal, there's no need for a priesthood, people should decide their beliefs for themselves, and all spiritual beliefs are equally valid. The Fundamentalist Muslims which dominate Iran, though, ("Mullahs") absolutely hate Ba'hais because of their secular-like nature. It's.. so.. UNSEXIST.. SO.. PACIFIST.. AND.. TOLERANT.. WE MUST KILL THEM ALL.

Yeah, don't knock all religion. Just the Fundamentalist western religions that think gay people are going to hell, that there's a demon trying to kill them, and that God is going to come down, kill everyone, and then take "the chosen ones" off to a wonderful place of lollypops and Tanakhs\Bibles\Korans.
Oh! Thank Brad. Someone skilled in mythology. There is a school of thought that traces a persistent rational pattern through Western religion, but unfortunately its origins (in the Mother Goddess) are not well received, as far as I know.

I have to get to bed, but I'll post more on Thursday.

I do not think it is 'fair' that religious opinions are given the credence they already are.

Well thought out, reasonable ideas merit a place in society, old religious claptrap does not.

Absurd religious ideas do not deserve special consideration or special rights because of their religious aspects.

One must deny a great deal of demonstrable facts to be a religious fundementalist, and no one with such a base regard for the value of truth can be trusted.

Basing decisions that effect the real world in absurd arcana makes somone incompetent to hold an influential position in society, it bespeaks a disregard for the real causes and effects of events.

In my opinion, the vast and seemingly wicked hypocricy of christian maniacs in the united states is rooted in the fundemental lack of integrity that comes from the degeneration that afflicts a mind that is steeped in what I mentioned above.

Is this person against religion in general or just fundamentallism?

I do not think it is 'fair' that religious opinions are given the credence they already are.

Well thought out, reasonable ideas merit a place in society, old religious claptrap does not.

Absurd religious ideas do not deserve special consideration or special rights because of their religious aspects.

One must deny a great deal of demonstrable facts to be a religious fundementalist, and no one with such a base regard for the value of truth can be trusted.

Calling religion Old claptrap is insulting

Calling relgion absurd is insulting

Saying you have to dismiss a great deal of truth to be religious is insulting

Can you perhaps give a good reason WHY I shouldn't report you to the mods

Its not so much that you have done all this, its that you havent offered any support for your ideas. You have not explained why you consider religious ideas to be "absurd" so perhaps you would care to attempt to defend your position.

.

Calling religion Old claptrap is insulting

Calling relgion absurd is insulting

Saying you have to dismiss a great deal of truth to be religious is insulting

Can you perhaps give a good reason WHY I shouldn't report you to the mods

Its not so much that you have done all this, its that you havent offered any support for your ideas. You have not explained why you consider religious ideas to be "absurd" so perhaps you would care to attempt to defend your position.

.
To be fair he did not call religion absud rather sounded more against specific "absurd" idea's

To be fair he did not call religion absud rather sounded more against specific "absurd" idea's

Not rearly much diffrence. He is basicly insulting religious beliefs, comes to the same thing. A massive generalisation with virtually no support. I think unless I see a convincing point back, I will report this.

Not rearly much diffrence. He is basicly insulting religious beliefs, comes to the same thing. A massive generalisation with virtually no support. I think unless I see a convincing point back, I will report this.
Not a generalization, more of a not clerified specific (he is not saying all ideas put forth by religion are absurd ... rather there are some) just has not specified as of yet
You are saying there are no religious based idea's that could be thought of as absurd?
(and if you feel the need report it ... dont hold it as a threat, the mods dont like that)

or behead you (Islam) if you don't accept it.


Ermm ...

"Tell those who believe, to forgive the people who do not look forward to the Days of Allah (unbelievers). It is for Him to recompense each People according to what they have earned." Qur'an 45:14

I'm not seeing anything about beheading ... maybe your Qur'an is different?

Calling religion Old claptrap is insulting

Calling relgion absurd is insulting

Saying you have to dismiss a great deal of truth to be religious is insulting

Can you perhaps give a good reason WHY I shouldn't report you to the mods

Its not so much that you have done all this, its that you havent offered any support for your ideas. You have not explained why you consider religious ideas to be "absurd" so perhaps you would care to attempt to defend your position.

.
The fact that you are insulted hardly constitutes a violation of forum rules. Deal with it.

Not a generalization, more of a not clerified specific (he is not saying all ideas put forth by religion are absurd ... rather there are some) just has not specified as of yet


Thats my problem. He has just stated "Absurd religious ideas" without supporting it at all. He hasnt given any examples or expressed any kind of viable opinion. You can have an opinion but if you wish to argue its truth, you must give examples. Basic logic.

The fact that you are insulted hardly constitutes a violation of forum rules. Deal with it.

He hasnt given any grounds for his logic. He has just genrealised "Absurd religious ideas". You cant go around calling religious ideas absurd without giving some kind of backing up.

Thats my problem. He has just stated "Absurd religious ideas" without supporting it at all. He hasnt given any examples or expressed any kind of viable opinion. You can have an opinion but if you wish to argue its truth, you must give examples. Basic logic.
Not suporting a supposition is hardly insulting or breaking any rules specialy when away
it may not be a good arguement but ...

Not suporting a supposition is hardly insulting or breaking any rules specialy when away
it may not be a good arguement but ...

Arbitary insult. He is insulting a very large section of the planets population with no good reasoning behind it. It would be like me saying "Athiest ideas are stupid" in a title thread and then refusing to support that idea.

He hasnt given any grounds for his logic. He has just genrealised "Absurd religious ideas". You cant go around calling religious ideas absurd without giving some kind of backing up.
gee, then i guess i will have to explain why i think the theory of magical invisible tigers controlling us all with mind-rays shot from their stripes is absurd, right? because there is just as much reason for anybody to believe in those tigers as there is for somebody to believe a book about talking snakes and magic zombies, and i'm sure there's someone around here who will be insulted if i claim invisible tigers are absurd.

many people think religious ideas are silly, absurd, or even stupid. you know this. don't whimper about how much it hurts your feelings when they announce their opinions, just deal and move on with your life. you don't like some ideas, and some people don't like your ideas...that's the way it goes.

It would be like me saying "Athiest ideas are stupid" in a title thread and then refusing to support that idea.
such threads have been founded and left open in the past. i can think of two in particular within the last 6 months.

Arbitary insult. He is insulting a very large section of the planets population with no good reasoning behind it. It would be like me saying "Athiest ideas are stupid" in a title thread and then refusing to support that idea.
Never the less nothing he said violates any forum rules. The fact that you are offended by it means nothing. I could insult someone by saying penguins are ugly, but that doesn't violate any rules. Even if I don't back up my argument about the ugliness of penguins.

Never the less nothing he said violates any forum rules. The fact that you are offended by it means nothing. I could insult someone by saying penguins are ugly, but that doesn't violate any rules. Even if I don't back up my argument about the ugliness of penguins.
exactly. i am deeply insulted by many things people around these forums say, but that's part of being around people with different ideas. i've heard my beliefs and values called far worse names than "absurd" or "stupid" during my time here...heck, i've been told my beliefs will get me sent to a torture dimension for the rest of eternity!

Why is killing someone illegal?
In nature, it's survival of the fittest. you tresspass into my territory (home) and don't leave, I will fight you... winner takes the territory.

Why do we have hospitals?
Evolution states that the sick and weak must fall to preserve the strength of the species...

Why do we have airplanes?
Nature provides what we need... if we were meant to fly, then we would've evolved wings.

Why is stealing Illegal?
If you cannot hold on to it, then do you deserve to keep it?

Aren't Laws imposing rules on us all? Telling us how to live our lives? Run our Countries? How is this different than Religion?

Those rules exist out of necessity, really (even anarchists don't believe killing is OK).

Arbitary insult. He is insulting a very large section of the planets population with no good reasoning behind it. It would be like me saying "Athiest ideas are stupid" in a title thread and then refusing to support that idea.
But he did not say "athiest ideas are stupid" nor did he say "religious ideas are stupid" he was making refference to specific ideas without backing bad arguement yes

But you dont know what ideas he was illuding to nor what religion he was alluding to because he did not make a blanket statement

exactly. i am deeply insulted by many things people around these forums say, but that's part of being around people with different ideas. i've heard my beliefs and values called far worse names than "absurd" or "stupid" during my time here...heck, i've been told my beliefs will get me sent to a torture dimension for the rest of eternity!
Very true ... not to mention that the origional poster was (it sounded like) alluding to specific religious ideas ... not the idea of religion there is a DIFFERENCE

I do not think it is 'fair' that religious opinions are given the credence they already are.

Well thought out, reasonable ideas merit a place in society, old religious claptrap does not.

Absurd religious ideas do not deserve special consideration or special rights because of their religious aspects.

One must deny a great deal of demonstrable facts to be a religious fundementalist, and no one with such a base regard for the value of truth can be trusted.

Basing decisions that effect the real world in absurd arcana makes somone incompetent to hold an influential position in society, it bespeaks a disregard for the real causes and effects of events.

In my opinion, the vast and seemingly wicked hypocricy of christian maniacs in the united states is rooted in the fundemental lack of integrity that comes from the degeneration that afflicts a mind that is steeped in what I mentioned above.
Humorous. You take something that is a matter of faith, and consider it to be utterly contemptible. Then you take evolution, which is also a matter of faith (you know as well as I do it is merely a theory, and actually it should only be a hypothesis), and which has as much evidence against it as for it, and you decide that you are therefore qualified to condemn religion based on your opinion that you have faith in a superior belief.

Now, if religious types like myself are so intolerant, why didn't I make a thread like this? Perhaps because I am comfortable with my faith, while you are not. Or perhaps you are simply the intolerant one. Meanwhile, you show an utter lack of knowledge of the subject material, which seems to indicate an intensely bigoted opinion of christians on your part. This does not lend credence to your opinion.

Now, offhand, where do you see a "fundamenral lack of integrity" within the christian church? Perhaps the current Catholic dilemma with paedophilia could count, but I am not Catholic, and a vow of celibacy has long been known to increase homosexual tendencies among men AND women, especially when they are constantly accompanied by members of the same sex. Since the Christian religion teaches naught BUT morals, I find it hard to believe that an attempt to pursue such a high-minded goal automatically leads to moral degradation.

If that is the case, then all liberals are consequently inescapably condemned to an amoral life because they also pursue a high-minded goal that is intended to help their fellow man.

The real "unfairness" of religion is that many believers will blindly submit the wishes of their leaders with no real reasoning, and it is the rest of us, religious and not who bear the consequences.

But you dont know what ideas he was illuding to nor what religion he was alluding to because he did not make a blanket statement
But he DID make a blanket statement. A statement that refers to "absurd religious claptrack" etc. with no qualifier to distinguish precisely WHAT religion or ideas he refers to therefore condemns all said ideas and religions due to the fact that he failed to distinguish between any of them.

The real "unfairness" of religion is that many believers will blindly submit the wishes of their leaders with no real reasoning, and it is the rest of us, religious and not who bear the consequences.
That's no different from the ones who would blindly submit to a military leader with no real reason (i.e. he has a sparkling personality).

The real "unfairness" of religion is that many believers will blindly submit the wishes of their leaders with no real reasoning, and it is the rest of us, religious and not who bear the consequences.

Can you name an moral and ethical system of thought that arose with its own exclusive ideas about morality and ethics, and either completely dispensed with any previous religious thought or can be said to not be derivative of any previous religious thought in any way?

That's no different from the ones who would blindly submit to a military leader with no real reason (i.e. he has a sparkling personality).

Yes, but it is assumed that the military leaders have to answer to government. Religious leaders general only have to answer to "God" and in that situation, religious leaders of the past have been a bit shaky in "interpreting" the will of God.

Can you name an moral and ethical system of thought that arose with its own exclusive ideas about morality and ethics, and either completely dispensed with any previous religious thought or can be said to not be derivative of any previous religious thought in any way?

No, religion is far too pervasive.

No, religion is far too pervasive.

I'm not sure I could go and then say that there would be no morality and ethics if we were entirely un-religious, but people might not feel the same obligation to stay with the system - they might become people who do things as long as they are "legal" in the governmental sense. Without any consideration of what might be "ethical" or "moral". Like a lot of people today.

Yes, but it is assumed that the military leaders have to answer to government. Religious leaders general only have to answer to "God" and in that situation, religious leaders of the past have been a bit shaky in "interpreting" the will of God.
NOTE TO YOU:

Not all religious organizations have a central headquarters with a single leader. Just thought I would point that out. Mine, for instance, is just individual churches led by a group of elders and a minister. You have anywhere from 5 to 20 people leading a church, and a group mentality prevents the worst ignorance and incorrect teachings from making it out into the congregation. Not to mention that not all churches foster that whole idea of "unquestioning belief." At my church, for example, people have actually disagreed with the minister after a service and pointed out an error to him, which he corrects the next Sunday and publicly apologizes for.

But he DID make a blanket statement. A statement that refers to "absurd religious claptrack" etc. with no qualifier to distinguish precisely WHAT religion or ideas he refers to therefore condemns all said ideas and religions due to the fact that he failed to distinguish between any of them.
I made no arguement as to that statement was talking about the other ... but I could argue that claptrap is just another word for pretentious

Even so hardly against the rules

NOTE TO YOU:

Not all religious organizations have a central headquarters with a single leader. Just thought I would point that out. Mine, for instance, is just individual churches led by a group of elders and a minister. You have anywhere from 5 to 20 people leading a church, and a group mentality prevents the worst ignorance and incorrect teachings from making it out into the congregation. Not to mention that not all churches foster that whole idea of "unquestioning belief." At my church, for example, people have actually disagreed with the minister after a service and pointed out an error to him, which he corrects the next Sunday and publicly apologizes for.
I would like to point out that "group mentality" is sometimes as bad as a dictator leading to a us against you sort of thinking. and 20 people saying the same thing is hardly foolproof protection against inaccuracies. Just helps even out the bigger glaring misunderstandings sometimes … does not guarantee accuracy

I made no arguement as to that statement was talking about the other ... but I could argue that claptrap is just another word for pretentious

Even so hardly against the rules
You see, though, I couldn't care less about the rules, because I'm not offended. I'm amused. And since the word pretentious carries an implication of undeserved attention, and claptrap refers to a generally false or insincere concept neither of those words really make a difference mate.

I do not think it is 'fair' that religious opinions are given the credence they already are.

Well thought out, reasonable ideas merit a place in society, old religious claptrap does not.

Absurd religious ideas do not deserve special consideration or special rights because of their religious aspects.

One must deny a great deal of demonstrable facts to be a religious fundementalist, and no one with such a base regard for the value of truth can be trusted.

Basing decisions that effect the real world in absurd arcana makes somone incompetent to hold an influential position in society, it bespeaks a disregard for the real causes and effects of events.

In my opinion, the vast and seemingly wicked hypocricy of christian maniacs in the united states is rooted in the fundemental lack of integrity that comes from the degeneration that afflicts a mind that is steeped in what I mentioned above.

Amen.

I would like to point out that "group mentality" is sometimes as bad as a dictator leading to a us against you sort of thinking. and 20 people saying the same thing is hardly foolproof protection against inaccuracies. Just helps even out the bigger glaring misunderstandings sometimes … does not guarantee accuracy
And if you really think that 20 Christians are all going to "say the same thing" then you truly are not interested in learning the truth. You have obviously fallen into that same bigoted perception most have of Christians being ignorant and weak-willed. If that is your belief, and you cannot imagine Christians choosing the 10 most well-informed and experienced indiciduals among them to lead them, individuals who can be trusted to make impartial and unbiased decisions, then I won't bother telling more. Besides, got to go to work.

When you can prove to me that you and I exist, that there is an objective reality, that said reality is perceived accurately by human beings, and that logic models accurately onto the universe, maybe I'll start giving your pet hypotheses more credence.

Cogito Ergo Sum

Swish 3 points.

My mind exists i know this because i am thinking, therefore i in a abstract sense exist, i my mind is also subject to a series of external senses (the outside world) therefore the outside world as perceived through sense data being fed into my mind exists as the effect on my mind exists. Therefore the outside world exists in an abstract sense at least. I, in this outside world observe what i perceive are other people, who appear to be showing symptoms of thinking, if i assume this is in fact thinking then to extrapolate they also exist.

I think therefore i am, and I think therefore you are.

Bing bang boosh, how’s your father. Existence according to Descartes

Sorry to deviate, but I’ve been doing epistemology revision and needed to show off.

Any who yes i agree, Religion should never govern the state, as it undermines the entire principle of democracy as people are told (often yes it happens) who to vote for by their church/mosque/whatever, the entire point of a secular state and this is why Franklin thought it was so great, is it provides a level playing field for everyone, atheists and theists

Amen.

And I suppose that you can point to an original school of thought that can provide morals and ethics that has absolutely no roots or origins in religious thought?

And I suppose that you can point to an original school of thought that can provide morals and ethics that has absolutely no roots or origins in religious thought?

Utilitarianism
again 3 points swish

Utilitarianism
again 3 points swish
It has to predate religion, or I'll be able to say it's derivative in some way.

It has to predate religion, or I'll be able to say it's derivative in some way.

Hell i don’t know, it really isn’t if you read it, but then again what am i a mad man who would actually read it before flaming me (Js Mill utilitarianism btw),

Feck i don’t know, Virtue theory by Aristotle. Its not a particularly great ethical theory but you honestly cannot argue it has any religious ties.

But really utilitarianism is not religious in any facet of it being, its comply based on the principle of utility and hedonism

Hell i don’t know, it really isn’t if you read it, but then again what am i a mad man who would actually read it before flaming me (Js Mill utilitarianism btw),

Feck i don’t know, Virtue theory by Aristotle. Its not a particularly great ethical theory but you honestly cannot argue it has any religious ties.

But really utilitarianism is not religious in any facet of it being, its comply based on the principle of utility and hedonism

Ah, hedonism might work. But I'm looking for a system that's self-enforcing. Hedonism is self-enforcing, but if I love to kill people...

then again, the Aztecs were killing people for fun in the name of religion...

Mill's system isn't very self-enforcing, as far as I can tell.

Ah, hedonism might work. But I'm looking for a system that's self-enforcing. Hedonism is self-enforcing, but if I love to kill people...

then again, the Aztecs were killing people for fun in the name of religion...

Mill's system isn't very self-enforcing, as far as I can tell.

Define self enforcing im not following you.

And I suppose that you can point to an original school of thought that can provide morals and ethics that has absolutely no roots or origins in religious thought?

And I suppose you can point to an original school of religion that can provide morals and ethics that have absolutely no roots or originals in another school of religious thought?

Its a silly question. Particularly as you are going to claim that religion predates morals and ethics. Even to the extent this is true, it is only true to the extent you count ancient religions.

Few serious schools of philosophy require religious belief for their ethical precepts.

Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle developed ethics that were not based on religion.

Utilitarianism is not religious.

Marxism is not religious.

Existentialism is not religious.

Deontology does not require religious belief.

Objectivism is not based on religion.

John Rawls's ethics are not based on religion.

Do I really need to go on and on?

I'm not sure I could go and then say that there would be no morality and ethics if we were entirely un-religious,

Good, because then I would counter that there would be no religion if we weren't moral and ethical to begin with. Then we would spiral out into a "chicken and the egg" debate that would go nowhere.

but people might not feel the same obligation to stay with the system - they might become people who do things as long as they are "legal" in the governmental sense. Without any consideration of what might be "ethical" or "moral". Like a lot of people today.

I did not mean my statements to be a condemnation of all religion. Many religious people use their beliefs to justify very decent ethical behavior.

I am more or less referring to extremists and those that tolerate extremists due to religion.

Religion has an inherent authoritarian nature that has been instilled by religious leaders since the dawn of civilization. While there are many who see their religious leadership as a way to spread the good things of their religion, there are just as many who have found that religion is even more useful for generating differences and hatred amongst their followers. And like I said before, it is the reasonable among us, religious and otherwise, who have to pay the price.

Define self enforcing im not following you.
In most religions, people follow its moral and ethical system because in the back of their heads, they're thinking, "the gods will smite me..."

In a godless system, there has to be something like immediate self-preservation or consuming self-interest to hold you to the system (you're thinking "everyone else will kick my ass on the spot).

Hedonism is the consuming self-interest. However, it might not prevent murder - because a lot of people like it. I can't argue, however, that religion is a real defense against that, because a lot of people have been murdered in the name of religion (the Aztecs did it quite formally, and by the thousands).

can't find an end-all argument? maybe there isn't one. just a thought... :D

I agree tho... there too many similar threads... the only problem is that as the thread ages...it devolves into flamewars.

there's many, just christians and many other religious people ignore them.

NOTE TO YOU:

Not all religious organizations have a central headquarters with a single leader. Just thought I would point that out. Mine, for instance, is just individual churches led by a group of elders and a minister. You have anywhere from 5 to 20 people leading a church, and a group mentality prevents the worst ignorance and incorrect teachings from making it out into the congregation. Not to mention that not all churches foster that whole idea of "unquestioning belief." At my church, for example, people have actually disagreed with the minister after a service and pointed out an error to him, which he corrects the next Sunday and publicly apologizes for.

I figured you were responding to me when you quoted me so the "NOTE TO YOU" was a little unnecessary.

I never said that all religious followers are blind followers, I even stated that many religious people suffer consequences that blind followers bring upon society.

In most religions, people follow its moral and ethical system because in the back of their heads, they're thinking, "the gods will smite me..."

In a godless system, there has to be something like immediate self-preservation or consuming self-interest to hold you to the system (you're thinking "everyone else will kick my ass on the spot).

Hedonism is the consuming self-interest. However, it might not prevent murder - because a lot of people like it. I can't argue, however, that religion is a real defence against that, because a lot of people have been murdered in the name of religion (the Aztecs did it quite formally, and by the thousands).

ahh yes utilitarianism is not 'self-enforcing' as you put it, mutual self interests probably the best tag, I cant think of one right now your right really, but doesn’t that make it in theory more morally justifiable than most religions then.

ahh yes utilitarianism is not 'self-enforcing' as you put it, mutual self interests probably the best tag, I cant think of one right now your right really, but doesn’t that make it in theory more morally justifiable than most religions then.

Hedonism is self-reinforcing. You do it because you like it.

And I'm not looking for moral justification - I'm looking for a system that won't fall apart if we don't hold people at gunpoint. You know, like communism. Look away, and people cheat the whole system.

Hedonism is self-reinforcing. You do it because you like it.

And I'm not looking for moral justification - I'm looking for a system that won't fall apart if we don't hold people at gunpoint. You know, like communism. Look away, and people cheat the whole system.

yes but utilitarianism is not hedonism its applying that principle to all of humanity


but true, the reason it fell apart it becuase people did not fully understand and accsept its principles and morality.

In most religions, people follow its moral and ethical system because in the back of their heads, they're thinking, "the gods will smite me..."

In a godless system, there has to be something like immediate self-preservation or consuming self-interest to hold you to the system (you're thinking "everyone else will kick my ass on the spot).

Hedonism is the consuming self-interest. However, it might not prevent murder - because a lot of people like it. I can't argue, however, that religion is a real defense against that, because a lot of people have been murdered in the name of religion (the Aztecs did it quite formally, and by the thousands).

Again, this is nonsense.

A religion is only "self-enforcing" if (a) people believe in it and (b) follow its teachings. (And, as you admit, following a religion does not necessarily mean following ethics or morals.)

If someone (a) believes in and (b) follows an ethical system, it is -- by the same definition -- self-enforcing.

But more important, neither religious-based morals nor ethical systems need rely purely on self-enforcement to prevent immoral actions like murder. That is what socio-political bodies (i.e., governments) are for.

EDIT: By your own standard, point to a religion that has actually produced self-enforcing morals.

In a godless system, there has to be something like immediate self-preservation or consuming self-interest to hold you to the system (you're thinking "everyone else will kick my ass on the spot).


I would disagree that self-interest is the only thing to "hold you to the system." An argument could be made that one should do the "right" thing simply because it is the right thing, not because someone will kick my ass. I hold the opinion that people are basically good, and will do good things out of human compassion and not out of fear (be it God or ass-kicking).

Again, this is nonsense.

A religion is only "self-enforcing" if (a) people believe in it and (b) follow its teachings. (And, as you admit, following a religion does not necessarily mean following ethics or morals.)

If someone (a) believes in and (b) follows an ethical system, it is -- by the same definition -- self-enforcing.

But more important, neither religious-based morals nor ethical systems need rely purely on self-enforcement to prevent immoral actions like murder. That is what socio-political bodies (i.e., governments) are for.

It's not nonsense. Believing in some omnipotent God who will ALWAYS (in your belief) catch you and fry you like an egg is a much more effective deterrent than an ineffective government that everyone knows will rarely catch you. And if you add the onus in the religion that God will fry anyone who doesn't believe, then the system is far more self-enforcing than simple utilitarianism. Hedonism, however, seems to take the cake for reinforcement.

I think you're missing the point on self-enforcement. Why did Catholicism last so much longer than Communism? Because it didn't rely on a "real" enforcement mechanism - it relied on an "imagined" enforcement mechanism.

I would disagree that self-interest is the only thing to "hold you to the system." An argument could be made that one should do the "right" thing simply because it is the right thing, not because someone will kick my ass. I hold the opinion that people are basically good, and will do good things out of human compassion and not out of fear (be it God or ass-kicking).

I dont know about people being innately good, some build in instincts that stop us doing certain things yes, hmm thats a great debate, what is good. hell ill start it now.

Hooray, one of these threads.
Anyway, I just felt like outlinging my opinions on this one, and at the same time, I shall have a pick at a few points that I disagree with.
Mmk, I'm an devout atheist. A bit of background on that, first 10 years of my life, I had christianity forced down my throat. Never did believe it, but all that enforced going to church and all of that that made me think the way I do. Yarr, back on the topic. I do not disagree with people having religous beliefs. What I do disagree with is the enforcement of one's religous beliefs upon another (evangelical christianity is one good example of this) and the many years of hatred spawned by religous belief.

What I find truly curious it that so many rationalists who ask for proof of a deity who gives us the arbitrary laws of the universe fail miserably to seriously question their lack of proof for their own belief. What I find disgusting is that many rationalists think themselves superior because of their rationalism, when they of all people should be agnostic in the broadest sense of the word and make no value judgements about anything because they feel the need for proof and know that proof cannot be found. That sort of hypocrisy (not to mention the immense irony) really annoys me.
Many? Possibly. As you spoke of the "arbitrary laws of the universe", I'll assume we're talking mainly about physics here. I've taken the liberty of getting a definition to work around:
Physics - The science of matter and energy and of interactions between the two, grouped in traditional fields such as acoustics, optics, mechanics, thermodynamics, and electromagnetism, as well as in modern extensions including atomic and nuclear physics, cryogenics, solid-state physics, particle physics, and plasma physics.
Oh, and what's this word science that I see?
Science - The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Ok, that's that sorted out. Now to expand. The "laws" of the universe are not firm. The laws of physics are, in fact, simply trying to discover an accurate model for the entire universe (something that we've not yet reached). All of the laws are based on fundamental assumptions - mainly that the universe we are trying to explain actually exists. Physical models are constructed from experimentation. For example, we can show that gravity works by dropping something. Go ahead, try it. But don't drop something too heavy or something too damaging, I wouldn't want you to get hurt. Now, I've never heard a single piece experimental evidence that a god exists. Thus, I have insufficient reason to believe that a god exists. As a personal preference, I take experimental evidence above all other, as that is the way my mind works.

Cogito Ergo Sum
My mind exists i know this because i am thinking, therefore i in a abstract sense exist, i my mind is also subject to a series of external senses (the outside world) therefore the outside world as perceived through sense data being fed into my mind exists as the effect on my mind exists. Therefore the outside world exists in an abstract sense at least. I, in this outside world observe what i perceive are other people, who appear to be showing symptoms of thinking, if i assume this is in fact thinking then to extrapolate they also exist.


Are you thinking? I can easily debate that. Could you not simply be a figment of my imagination? And couldn't I just be a figment of someone else's imagination?

:confused: :mp5:

By the way, if anyone feels the need for further comment (unlikely, but you never know...) from me, could you send a message to me, I've never been too good with finding threads on these new fangled forum thingies...

Are you thinking? I can easily debate that. Could you not simply be a figment of my imagination? And couldn't I just be a figment of someone else's imagination?


Take this in no offence mate but that’s bullocks, that whole imagine nation bullocks is dealt with in old Descartes boyo's second wave of doubt (i think), besides that arguments just a solipsist pile of crap, firstly it makes the assumption that the human mind, or your own mind it capable of infinite calculations, and imaginative enough to come up with galaxy's and novels in milliseconds ockhams razor shoots it to pieces, now I’m not a rationalist, I’m somewhere in between empiricism and the former my self, i just think that Descartes, well you know being the founder of modern philosophy and all well he knew his game. its essentially a flaw less argument, bar that.

Who came up with it anyway, probably a pretentious poet or something, bastards i hate poets.

Nothing personal

Right then, appologies for distracting from the argument about whether or not I am insulting or merely unsupportive of my claims.

I will offer some specific examples of facts which a genuinely religious person must deny and absurd ideas which religious people believe.

I will state ahead of time that no 'appeal to democracy' or any such will be regarded, it is not important how many people in the world are religious or nonreligious.

To be a strongly religious, at least in the christian sense is to deny several noted facts.

Among them are the origin of species and the age of the earth. Also, one must deny other facts such as the facts which discount the possibility of a worldwide flood as is described in the bible.

It is worth noting that these facts are not controversial and are well understood and accepted unanimously by serious lifelong students of the disciplines involved.

--

On to absurd religious ideas.

A major one ties into the previously mentioned denial of facts and involves some worldwide conspiracy of scientific liars and their shadowy allies in academia who seek for some reason (oftentimes supernatural answers, such as the devil, are given) to propagate a body of "evidently false and illogical" lies to the effect that the account of the universe's creation in the bible is not authoritive.

Other absurdities are reliance upon miraculous divine intervention in real-world events and outlandishly inane pronouncements on things like contraception and the 'humanity from the moment of conception.'

Perhaps the least credible assertion made by religious people is that the will of god almighty the creator of heaven and earth is put down in an old book, the shady provenance of which is a matter of record. (Nicea in the christian case, muhammad in the muslim)

Ideas like "divine inspiration" are absurd. Religious people consider it absurd when others speak of their own 'divine inspiration' and regardless of how many people are willing to come forth and genuinely 'witness' for space alien UFOs, psychics and other claptrap, no credibility is given or deserved.


Again, it is unfair to all the people in history who have sought to provide real answers to problems and gain real understanding of the world that the absurdities of religion are afforded something even close to an equal place or equally valid consideration.

There is no fundemental difference between believing the christian or muslim religion and believing that space aliens kidnap people and brainwash them with their psychic powers or believing in phrenology or the curing of colds by chopping off toes.

Keep up the good work, New Granada.

Two quotes. They may not be helpful or relevant, but this first occurred to me and was handy.

Excerpt from Betrand Russell, "Why I Am Not A Christian":

Fear, the Foundation of Religion
Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing -- fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand-in-hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by the help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the Christian religion, against the churches, and against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.

What We Must Do

We want to stand upon our own feet and look fair and square at the world -- its good facts, its bad facts, its beauties, and its ugliness; see the world as it is and be not afraid of it. Conquer the world by intelligence and not merely by being slavishly subdued by the terror that comes from it. The whole conception of a God is a conception derived from the ancient oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings. We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages. A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. It needs a fearless outlook and a free intelligence. It needs hope for the future, not looking back all the time toward a past that is dead, which we trust will be far surpassed by the future that our intelligence can create.

And, only because it happened to come on while I was reading this,
Nivana, "Jesus Doesn't Want Me For A Sunbeam" (Vaseline cover):

Jesus don't want me for a sunbeam.
Sunbeams are not made like me.
Don't expect me to cry for all the reasons you had to die.
Don't ever ask your love of me.

Don't expect me to cry.
Don't expect me to lie.
Don't expect me to die for thee.

Now you can rant about how I, not New Granada, am insulting.

I will state ahead of time that no 'appeal to democracy' or any such will be regarded, it is not important how many people in the world are religious or nonreligious.

Well there is the number of people you are insulting


To be a strongly religious, at least in the christian sense is to deny several noted facts.

Among them are the origin of species and the age of the earth. Also, one must deny other facts such as the facts which discount the possibility of a worldwide flood as is described in the bible.

The origin of the speieces and the age of the Earth are not disconted by the Bible. There is nothing anywhere in the Bible which says "the Earth is X old at this point". And even if there were (which no doubt someone will claim now) that hardly matters. You cant disprove with either of those the idea that God created the world by saying "the Earth is this old". The fact that we understand evolution and possibly the big bang does not disprove God. Those are just theories about how the process happened. To put it another way, Sam knows that a cars engine starts when you turn the key in the ignition. He knows how this works, he knows why this happens. He has a full knowledge of the workings of an internal combustion engine and the relationship between the gears, pedals, key etc and in short all the internal workings of a car. However, such knowledge does not give him an awareness of the internal workings of the factory that built the car and the machinery used to produce it. Just because you understand how the world works and how it came into being, doesnt mean you understand what caused that in the first place.

In terms of the flood, it can be argued that the Cambrian Strata is evidence of the flood. Equally it can be argued it isnt but the fact that it is possible evidence of the flood proves it is possible and therefore not discountable. Since no one can prove it certian either way.


It is worth noting that these facts are not controversial and are well understood and accepted unanimously by serious lifelong students of the disciplines involved.

So your quite happy to use the lofty credentials of scientists but not theologians.


On to absurd religious ideas.

A major one ties into the previously mentioned denial of facts and involves some worldwide conspiracy of scientific liars and their shadowy allies in academia who seek for some reason (oftentimes supernatural answers, such as the devil, are given) to propagate a body of "evidently false and illogical" lies to the effect that the account of the universe's creation in the bible is not authoritive.

That is not a religious idea. Thats not part of the Bible. Thats just people with an idea of their own about current events.


Other absurdities are reliance upon miraculous divine intervention in real-world events and outlandishly inane pronouncements on things like contraception and the 'humanity from the moment of conception.'

That idea comes from the simple undetectablity of the soul. Since Christians beleive there is a soul (which you cannot disprove) there is no way to know when it enters a life form. The most logical idea would be that it starts at the very begining.


Perhaps the least credible assertion made by religious people is that the will of god almighty the creator of heaven and earth is put down in an old book, the shady provenance of which is a matter of record. (Nicea in the christian case, muhammad in the muslim)

Ideas like "divine inspiration" are absurd. Religious people consider it absurd when others speak of their own 'divine inspiration' and regardless of how many people are willing to come forth and genuinely 'witness' for space alien UFOs, psychics and other claptrap, no credibility is given or deserved.

And tell me why not. If 5000 people come forward to you with the same account, that one man with no more than two fish and five loaves of bread not only managed to feed an entire crowd but had 12 baskets of bread left over, what would you think. Now I know that there are not 5000 individual accounts but think about this for a second. The Bible was distriubuted in Israel within the lifetimes of those who had heard and seen Jesus. If they knew this claim to be false they would have dismissed it along with a great deal of other myths of the time. But they didnt, they took hold of it and believed it because they had seen it.

Bottom line, you cant disprove something with this kind of evidence. Its far closer to being certianly proven than it is disproven.


There is no fundemental difference between believing the christian or muslim religion and believing that space aliens kidnap people and brainwash them with their psychic powers or believing in phrenology or the curing of colds by chopping off toes.

There is a rather big difference. The main one being the documented facts. We know Jesus existed and we can be sure he died on a cross. We can be less sure that he rose again but thats what faith is. The primary diffrence is the time over which this happened. UFO encounters are a recent phonomana when compared to Biblical events. These happened over a period of several thousand years and they all followed a basic thread. If you look at the Bible, despite being written over such a long time it all makes perfect sense. Jesus and his life is predicted in over 300 places throught the old testement. And these predictions come true in Jesus's life. UFO events are isolated and sparadic and follow no common idea other than that they are flying objects in the sky that they dont recognise. UFO sightings are primarly of the 20th century anyway so the whole notion of them can be disconted by the fact that they came about at a time when the idea of life on other planets was becoming acceptable. Only then did so many occur. The Christian and Muslim faith are based on logic within themselves. Now this logic may make no sense to the idea of emperical science or accepted philosphy but that does not make it invalid.

Well there is the number of people you are insulting
It doesnt matter if people get insulted, they have no right "not to be insulted" there is no aim to insult anyone, if in the course of the presentation of reasonable ideas and facts they are insulted, the problem is not with reason or facts but with their false and unreasonable beliefs.


The origin of the speieces and the age of the Earth are not disconted by the Bible. There is nothing anywhere in the Bible which says "the Earth is X old at this point". And even if there were (which no doubt someone will claim now) that hardly matters. You cant disprove with either of those the idea that God created the world by saying "the Earth is this old". The fact that we understand evolution and possibly the big bang does not disprove God. Those are just theories about how the process happened. To put it another way, Sam knows that a cars engine starts when you turn the key in the ignition. He knows how this works, he knows why this happens. He has a full knowledge of the workings of an internal combustion engine and the relationship between the gears, pedals, key etc and in short all the internal workings of a car. However, such knowledge does not give him an awareness of the internal workings of the factory that built the car and the machinery used to produce it. Just because you understand how the world works and how it came into being, doesnt mean you understand what caused that in the first place.
There is nothing reasonable that leads a person to conclude that an intellect designed the universe, and even less to lead a person to conclude that the universe was designed by jehova or zeus or other storybook deities.

In terms of the flood, it can be argued that the Cambrian Strata is evidence of the flood. Equally it can be argued it isnt but the fact that it is possible evidence of the flood proves it is possible and therefore not discountable. Since no one can prove it certian either way.
It cannot, however, be argued that there is sufficient water in the earth to flood the entire planet at once or that at any point water existed as a 'mist' but didnt 'rain' or that a boat could be constructed that would fit all the animals in the world &c.



So your quite happy to use the lofty credentials of scientists but not theologians.If i were interested in theological arguements, which is to say interpretation of theological texts then the credentials of theologians would have some bearing. I dont ask a car mechanic about quantum physics or a quantum physicist to do open heart surgery or a heart surgeon to fix cars. Nor would any of them be capable or trustworthy in those endevors.




That idea comes from the simple undetectablity of the soul. Since Christians beleive there is a soul (which you cannot disprove) there is no way to know when it enters a life form. The most logical idea would be that it starts at the very begining.Depends on how you choose to define "soul" if the soul is conscious self awareness then it logically does not 'enter' the body until quite a bit later than the moment when a sperm fertilizes an egg. It could be argued with exactly equal validity to the soul-from-conception hypothesis that the soul enters the body at age four, or perhaps at sixteen days of age, or a week before delivery. there is no basis in objective reality for any of it.



And tell me why not. If 5000 people come forward to you with the same account, that one man with no more than two fish and five loaves of bread not only managed to feed an entire crowd but had 12 baskets of bread left over, what would you think. Now I know that there are not 5000 individual accounts but think about this for a second. The Bible was distriubuted in Israel within the lifetimes of those who had heard and seen Jesus. If they knew this claim to be false they would have dismissed it along with a great deal of other myths of the time. But they didnt, they took hold of it and believed it because they had seen it.
The bible was written after jesus died and edited repeatedly, with the culmination of this process being the nicean council where the christians were 'divinely inspired' to vote on how to set the bible up (in 325 AD, some OLD PEOPLE back then I guess, what being around to "hear and see jesus"). I suppose that by your reasoning, every text of any antiquity that makes claims regarding magic or supernatural phenomena is valid and should be considered strong evidence for its claims. Nevermind that nothing of the sort has ever been objectively recorded in the entire history of objective recording.



There is a rather big difference. The main one being the documented facts. We know Jesus existed and we can be sure he died on a cross. We can be less sure that he rose again but thats what faith is. The primary diffrence is the time over which this happened. UFO encounters are a recent phonomana when compared to Biblical events. These happened over a period of several thousand years and they all followed a basic thread. If you look at the Bible, despite being written over such a long time it all makes perfect sense. Jesus and his life is predicted in over 300 places throught the old testement. And these predictions come true in Jesus's life. UFO events are isolated and sparadic and follow no common idea other than that they are flying objects in the sky that they dont recognise. UFO sightings are primarly of the 20th century anyway so the whole notion of them can be disconted by the fact that they came about at a time when the idea of life on other planets was becoming acceptable. Only then did so many occur. The Christian and Muslim faith are based on logic within themselves. Now this logic may make no sense to the idea of emperical science or accepted philosphy but that does not make it invalid.

shall the age of hindu texts and the continued belief in them and continued reports of hindu miracles be taken on the same standard of evidence you seek to create for similar christian things? if so, the fact that hinduism predates christianity compells you to accept it as more valid.

should we consider the interpretations made by ignorant people througout history to have any real validity as evidence in lieu of what we know now about how the world works? Should we, considering that there is not a single rigorously recorded instance of an event for which every cause but divine interference or space alien interference or psychic powers can be ruled out, - not a single one - still consider tales written ages ago by people with no understanding of factual causation to be evidence for anything?

Doing so debases the notions of truth and reason and honesty.

The fact remains that there is no substantial difference between an absurd belief in christianity and an absurd belief in a space alien-government coverup.

Ermm ...

"Tell those who believe, to forgive the people who do not look forward to the Days of Allah (unbelievers). It is for Him to recompense each People according to what they have earned." Qur'an 45:14

I'm not seeing anything about beheading ... maybe your Qur'an is different?
I didn't say it's directly in the scripture, but that's how it's interpreted. Even in Christianity, Christ talks about forgiveness, but the Catholics and Puritans used obscure passages from the Old Testament to support torturing innocent people.

As I said, even in Iran, where it's fairly civilized, Ba'hais are persecuted for being Muslim 'heretics.' You can't deny that the actions taken by the Mullahs and their supporters have some basis in the Koran, even if you consider their interpretation false.

Arbitary insult. He is insulting a very large section of the planets population with no good reasoning behind it. It would be like me saying "Athiest ideas are stupid" in a title thread and then refusing to support that idea.
No, that's a poor analogy, because you're singling out a specific group.

What he said is the equivalent of saying, "People with absurd opinions are stupid."

Neo, simply because your religious beliefs have been called absurd (and that's really your issue-your own personal experiences), is no reason to have a shit fit.

As for the rest of what you said, on your little soapbox to defend Christianity, I suggest you and everyone else here take a look at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/ - A pro-evolution discussion group, made up of mostly ex-Christians who became disillusioned with their beliefs.
http://www.exchristian.net/ - A large group of forums, made up of ex-Christians, discussing the flaws in Christian scripture and\or doctrine.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ - A collection of evil or contradictory things in the Bible. Some of it is taken out of context, but not all of it. I haven't looked through the Christian response to this yet, but I'm sure it's not 100%.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/ - The author doesn't fully reveal his educational background (although he says he's said that he's lectured at colleges) and he doesn't specifically cite his sources. So, it isn't exactly reliable, but interesting to read-and it's about as reliable as some of wacko, Fundamentalists' sites out there. ;) Even so, there are some good sources at the bottom of the page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_America/ - Disproves some of the myths about early, American settlers. I only wish it added more, but it would be difficult, as people would remove it and endlessly debate over it. Basically, Puritans were brutal. They had a habit of branding people for crimes like adultery and mutilating themselves for "sinning." They're also the ones that did the Salem Witch Trials.
http://ihatepatrobertson.com/movies/love.mov - An example of how "loving" Christian Fundamentalists sometimes are. (If you're gay, you'd be advised not to watch.)

And as for what everyone else said about religion, you don't realize that there are a great deal of benefits to religion. The problem is not religion, but religious fundamentalism. A theology major who's a friend of mine says that religious ethics and interpretations adapt with the times. So, 150 years ago, it would've been socially acceptable to interpret the Mark of Cain as meaning blacks shouldn't marry whites. And 350 years ago, in some areas (such as Massachusetts), it would have been socially acceptable to believe Christians are superior to all others, and that certain religions (paganism, Islam, etc) should be exterminated. This might be shocking to you, but in the original Massachusett's Constitution, it stated that only CHRISTIANS could run for goverment. The terrorists today are what the Catholic Church used to be: a barbaric culture, and because of that, they interpret their scriptures, barbarically.

But as I said, there are benefits to religion. Scientific studies have shown that it increases a person's overall physical, mental, and emotional health. Religious people tend to have more friends, not do drugs, commit less crimes, get sick less often, and be generally happier. After the Vietnam war, there was a study done by the U.S. military which said that the number one factor in whether a prisoner of war survived or not, was how religious they were. It's for this reason (as well as general morale of troops) that militaries offer chaplains for all different kinds of religions, even paganism.

So, no, like I said before-don't knock religion overall. But I agree these fundamentalists are insane. Look at these quotes of various 'Christian' fundamentalists, in America.

(Most of these are from IHatePatRobertson.com (http://www.ihatepatrobertson.com/archives/category/movies/) - Check out their other videos. They open with Quicktime. Windows Media Player or Winamp either won't play them, or only play audio.)

"If you are not a born-again Christian, you are a failure as a human being."
-Jerry Falwell, religious leader

"We are all proud that through God's powerful aid, we have once again become true Germans."
-Adolf Hitler, Conservative politician

"[About terrorism] We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
-Ann Coulter, (sort of) respected author

"We're not attacking Islam but Islam has attacked us. The God of Islam is not the same God. He's not the son of God of the Christian or Judeo-Christian faith. It's a different God, and I believe it is a very evil and wicked religion."
-Franklin Graham, religious leader

"Many of those people involved in Adolf Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals-the two things seem to go together."
-Pat Robertson, Conservative politician

Go to any anti-homosexual protest and you'll see the problems of fundamentalism. Both Muslim terrorists, and Christian extremists in America, such as the KKK members who killed that judge recently, or the people in the Army of God who have bombed abortion clinics-they're all fundamentalists. Their interpretations are rigid and ignorant, they believe they're superior to everyone else, and that everyone who disagrees with them is posessed by demons. They're highly superstitious and tend to interpret scriptures COMPLETELY literally, except in places where it's been traditionally interpreted metaphorically (such as the Christian interpretation of the Messiah). And that's basically what fundamentalists base their beliefs on-the core foundation of them-tradition. Christ spoke out against beliefs based on "tradition", rather than love, kindness, and reason. Yet fundamentalists today attack homosexuals in America, murder Palestinian children in Israel, persecute Ba'hais in Iran, and fly planes into American buildings. And then, when you express your contempt for their hatred, they take it as a personal insult, acting as if you are the ones persecuting them, when it's the other way around. Yes, there is Christian persecution in America. But homosexuals, atheists, muslims, liberal theologians, and minorities are the ones being thrown to the lions. And the Fundamentalists are in the stands cheering.

And tell me why not. If 5000 people come forward to you with the same account, that one man with no more than two fish and five loaves of bread not only managed to feed an entire crowd but had 12 baskets of bread left over, what would you think. Now I know that there are not 5000 individual accounts but think about this for a second. The Bible was distriubuted in Israel within the lifetimes of those who had heard and seen Jesus. If they knew this claim to be false they would have dismissed it along with a great deal of other myths of the time. But they didnt, they took hold of it and believed it because they had seen it.

Bottom line, you cant disprove something with this kind of evidence. Its far closer to being certianly proven than it is disproven.

... Yeah, something that was compiled around 300 years later by a pagan is really definitive evidence, and by people who saw Jesus within their lifetimes, too! The gospels may have been written earlier, but Constantine, the patron of Christianity (who didn't convert until his deathbed, though he supported it for political gain and remained pagan for more political gain) chose what to keep and what to toss, as well as editing bits he disliked, before sanctioning any Bible as a valid religious text accepted by the state.

Cogito Ergo Sum

Swish 3 points.

My mind exists i know this because i am thinking, therefore i in a abstract sense exist, i my mind is also subject to a series of external senses (the outside world) therefore the outside world as perceived through sense data being fed into my mind exists as the effect on my mind exists. Therefore the outside world exists in an abstract sense at least. I, in this outside world observe what i perceive are other people, who appear to be showing symptoms of thinking, if i assume this is in fact thinking then to extrapolate they also exist.

Sorry to deviate, but I’ve been doing epistemology revision and needed to show off.

Not bad, but you still have to prove the third and fourth items on the list. And even if you managed it, I could still question one of the basic assumptions (which in this case is that thinking requires an agent, that knowledge is related to thinking, etc) underlying your proof, and even if you were able to prove that assumption, I could merely question yet another assumption and go on in that vein until it became obvious that your entire belief system is one giant and complex circular argument. However, I have no intention of wasting your time or mine on such an activity. :)

Any who yes i agree, Religion should never govern the state, as it undermines the entire principle of democracy as people are told (often yes it happens) who to vote for by their church/mosque/whatever, the entire point of a secular state and this is why Franklin thought it was so great, is it provides a level playing field for everyone, atheists and theists

I also agree that religion should never govern the state. That is just my personal opinion.

Are you a fan of Franklin? I rather enjoy his thought and work myself. :)

Many? Possibly. As you spoke of the "arbitrary laws of the universe", I'll assume we're talking mainly about physics here. I've taken the liberty of getting a definition to work around:

Oh, and what's this word science that I see?

I would appreciate your tone being a bit less patronising.

Ok, that's that sorted out. Now to expand. The "laws" of the universe are not firm. The laws of physics are, in fact, simply trying to discover an accurate model for the entire universe (something that we've not yet reached). All of the laws are based on fundamental assumptions - mainly that the universe we are trying to explain actually exists. Physical models are constructed from experimentation. For example, we can show that gravity works by dropping something. Go ahead, try it. But don't drop something too heavy or something too damaging, I wouldn't want you to get hurt. Now, I've never heard a single piece experimental evidence that a god exists. Thus, I have insufficient reason to believe that a god exists. As a personal preference, I take experimental evidence above all other, as that is the way my mind works.

And I have no problem with your personal preference or the way your mind works. Ain't it grand? :)

Talkorigins is a classic website, A+.

If you present fundamentalism as an evil that is tormenting society, then I must ask what the other extreme is. Fundamentalists, as I assume you could call me, simply adhere to their religions. Indeed, I believe that certain things are ultimate, such as the Ten Commandments, and that these ideals cannot be infringed without chronically degrading society, but I am incensed that Christianity would be labeled as a religion that seeks to shove their beliefs down others' throats. I would say that all matters that I have seen championed by Christian "fundamentalists" have at least basic arguments that could be used to support them, based on truth, and they are far from the fantasies that I have seen them attempted to be poprtrayed as.

I am willing to make a statement that will be both a confession and an accusation: All sides in this debate are clouded by their own paradigms. For example, every one of the websites listed by a previous person here that bashed Christians were just as biased towards secularism as were Christian viewpoints towards theism. It is only my hope that we can debate these matters in a civilized manner, without spreading innuendo or lies about the other side. Viewing the battle in black-and-white terms, much more would be constructively accomplished and much more gained in understanding if we could just all put aside any misgivings about our respective opponents and talk in the terms of issues, not slander about one side or the other.

Indeed, I believe that certain things are ultimate, such as the Ten Commandments, and that these ideals cannot be infringed without chronically degrading society, but I am incensed that Christianity would be labeled as a religion that seeks to shove their beliefs down others' throats.

Christianity has a very long and very bloody history of shoving itself down people's throats and has cut quite a few throats in the process.

You must understand that when people see christians in the US today trying to legislate their religion and put their religion in schools to be taught to children instead of science, they will take serious issue.

You may believe whatever you like about following the christian religious commandments and the effect of failing to do so on society, but I can point to the secular countries of europe which are (by objective standards) the best places in the world to live.

If you present fundamentalism as an evil that is tormenting society, then I must ask what the other extreme is. Fundamentalists, as I assume you could call me, simply adhere to their religions.
No, they delude themselves into believing that their subjective beliefs are somehow objective and superior to everyone else. Fundamentalists say, "A Christian is someone who believes in the Bible."

Well, what is the Bible? It's what you interpret from it. Two people can read the same words and get different messages.

Even geniuses like Bobby Fischer can be led to believe nonsense, like the world is going to end in the 70's. And groups are led to believe it today as well. Protestants often ridicule Mormons and Jehovas for not believing in the trinity or having some strange interpretation of it. And yet, if it's socially acceptable among Christians to find Jehovas and Mormons ridiculous, why shouldn't we be allowed to view fundamentalists the same way, who believe there's a demon deep within the earth, and that during this century, the dead will be resurrected, and that Christians will magically vanish, so the rest of us can fight a huge beast? Doesn't that sound a bit mythological to you? Flood myths, for example, are quite common in modern religions. If you compare what many religious leaders have said and the many stories in different religions, you find there's a striking distinction.

Christ said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", Buddha said, "Consider others as yourself", and the Islamic prophet, Muhammed, said similar things as well. (I'm sure a Muslim here can give the exact quote.)

Indeed, I believe that certain things are ultimate, such as the Ten Commandments, and that these ideals cannot be infringed without chronically degrading society, but I am incensed that Christianity would be labeled as a religion that seeks to shove their beliefs down others' throats. I would say that all matters that I have seen championed by Christian "fundamentalists" have at least basic arguments that could be used to support them, based on truth, and they are far from the fantasies that I have seen them attempted to be poprtrayed as.
And there's a great deal of bias there. If you believe every argument supported by any one group is true, you're obviously very naive. "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal", and from that, all people are inherently flawed. For all you know, the great people you support today, are the Catholic Priests, the Hitlers, the Oral Roberts, and the Rush Limbaughs of tomorrow. Psychologically, we tend to believe things not because they're reasonable, but because we want to. Western religions tend to play on this, by saying you should believe something, even if it's believable-saved by faith, not by reason. Studies in Theology have shown that religious ethics and interpretations tend to reflect the culture of the time. Christianity is no exception!

But, like the founder of Ba'hai, I believe mankind is mature enough to determine its own religious beliefs, without a priesthood or dogma. "Christianity" never makes society as a whole more moral, because it can lead to mob mentality and violence. Look at the Army of God today or what the Catholic Church once was. You can deny that these people were Christians, but these people had Bibles just like you, read them just like you, and believed their interpretations were "ultimate" and that their ideals could not be infringed without chronically degrading society. The original Massachusetts Constitution stated that only Christians could run for office. There are many who would certainly bring such policies back.

I am willing to make a statement that will be both a confession and an accusation: All sides in this debate are clouded by their own paradigms. For example, every one of the websites listed by a previous person here that bashed Christians were just as biased towards secularism as were Christian viewpoints towards theism. It is only my hope that we can debate these matters in a civilized manner, without spreading innuendo or lies about the other side. Viewing the battle in black-and-white terms, much more would be constructively accomplished and much more gained in understanding if we could just all put aside any misgivings about our respective opponents and talk in the terms of issues, not slander about one side or the other.
Of course, they are biased! And that is true! But you and every person or group in the world are no different.

One thing I need to find is the 19-page research article I wrote on the psychology of religion. Interesting stuff. As I said in a previous post, religious beliefs, individually, have an extremely positive effect on many aspects of a person's health. It doesn't even matter what the religion is. You could be Buddhist or Christian, but it's irrelevant. This makes sense to me, because Christ said, "Faith will move mountains", not faith in me or faith in the Judeo-Christian God, but just simply faith. There have been studies experiments in psychology to show that faith has an affect on our health as well as the outcome of actual events. One group is told they have the "smart" mice, the other group is told they have the "dumb" mice, and even though the mice are equal, one group outperforms the other.

Christianity has a very long and very bloody history of shoving itself down people's throats and has cut quite a few throats in the process.

Yes, and so has practically every other religion that has ever existed. Secularists, under the guise of various regimes such as Josef Stalin or Adolf Hitler, have done their fair share too. Now, I'm sure someone would like to argue that Stalin and Hitler weren't adherent to creating a secular society, but the (dare I say it) FUNDAMENTAL laws of the Soviet Union espoused the prominence of the state over any religion, and there are quotes by Lenin, Marx, etc., that I'm too lazy to find that support this dogma.

My point is that whenever you say that "Christians" have slaughtered innocents, you must realize that, according to Old Testament and New Testament teachings, innocent killing is wrong. Execution in punishment for a crime is upheld by these Scriptures, granted, but if I talk of this, then I digress. This same generalization can be extrapolated (ah, it sounded good :) ) to other religions, even an ideology like secularism. Even though "Christians" murdered, they aren't Christians to me, and are an over-generalization of Christianity in whole. Most Christians that I know of are not murderers, and the same goes, again, for any religion.

You must understand that when people see christians in the US today trying to legislate their religion and put their religion in schools to be taught to children instead of science, they will take serious issue.

This argument, on your part, is that "you can't legislate morality." A whole different topic, but it still does apply in part. My response to that is that any law is based on a moral doctrine in some way, no matter if it's America or Uzbekistan. Several ultimates, including most human rights, are guaranteed by the religious codes of the various peoples within the nations.

You may believe whatever you like about following the christian religious commandments and the effect of failing to do so on society, but I can point to the secular countries of europe which are (by objective standards) the best places in the world to live.

Well, first of all, I'd like you to show me these examples. Second, by what standards are you judging these examples? You could say that Holland is more libertarian and thus more free than America, but that is (assuming your debating the legality of pot) only your own opinion formed through your paradigm or worldview. I think it's dead wrong, not talking directly to you, NG, but to a theoretical person who opposes me on this subject.

This argument, on your part, is that "you can't legislate morality." A whole different topic, but it still does apply in part. My response to that is that any law is based on a moral doctrine in some way, no matter if it's America or Uzbekistan. Several ultimates, including most human rights, are guaranteed by the religious codes of the various peoples within the nations.

actually, that's a big assumption on your part. first of all, many people don't object to religious laws on the grounds that "you can't legislate morality," they object because (supposedly, in America) you can't legislate superstition. also, it is perfectly possible to show that the majority of our laws are not necessarily based on morality; you can have a law for practical reasons rather than moral ones, for instance. you can forbid murder not because you claim it is morally wrong but because the society will be unable to function effectively if individual citizens are permitted to end each other's lives without consequence.

No, they delude themselves into believing that their subjective beliefs are somehow objective and superior to everyone else. Fundamentalists say, "A Christian is someone who believes in the Bible."

Well, what is the Bible? It's what you interpret from it. Two people can read the same words and get different messages.

Even geniuses like Bobby Fischer can be led to believe nonsense, like the world is going to end in the 70's. And groups are led to believe it today as well. Protestants often ridicule Mormons and Jehovas for not believing in the trinity or having some strange interpretation of it. And yet, if it's socially acceptable among Christians to find Jehovas and Mormons ridiculous, why shouldn't we be allowed to view fundamentalists the same way, who believe there's a demon deep within the earth, and that during this century, the dead will be resurrected, and that Christians will magically vanish, so the rest of us can fight a huge beast? Doesn't that sound a bit mythological to you? Flood myths, for example, are quite common in modern religions. If you compare what many religious leaders have said and the many stories in different religions, you find there's a striking distinction.

Christ said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", Buddha said, "Consider others as yourself", and the Islamic prophet, Muhammed, said similar things as well. (I'm sure a Muslim here can give the exact quote.)

Well, quite frankly, if you can point out to me any one religion that considers itself not to be on the right path, then that's news to me. The entire basis of religion is to, aside from worshipping deities that are considered to be the only ones, follow a set code for living that is "right" to you. I'm sure you can come up with a better definition for the basis of religion, so please, help me here! :)

In response to a quote of mine, you also said:
And there's a great deal of bias there. If you believe every argument supported by any one group is true, you're obviously very naive. "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal", and from that, all people are inherently flawed. For all you know, the great people you support today, are the Catholic Priests, the Hitlers, the Oral Roberts, and the Rush Limbaughs of tomorrow. Psychologically, we tend to believe things not because they're reasonable, but because we want to. Western religions tend to play on this, by saying you should believe something, even if it's believable-saved by faith, not by reason. Studies in Theology have shown that religious ethics and interpretations tend to reflect the culture of the time. Christianity is no exception!

But, like the founder of Ba'hai, I believe mankind is mature enough to determine its own religious beliefs, without a priesthood or dogma. "Christianity" never makes society as a whole more moral, because it can lead to mob mentality and violence. Look at the Army of God today or what the Catholic Church once was. You can deny that these people were Christians, but these people had Bibles just like you, read them just like you, and believed their interpretations were "ultimate" and that their ideals could not be infringed without chronically degrading society. The original Massachusetts Constitution stated that only Christians could run for office. There are many who would certainly bring such policies back.

And you mean to tell me that you're not biased against Christianity, or against "fundamentalist" Christianity! (On fundamentalism, by the way, I am in dispute with you over its definition, basically on the foundation that I, nor my acquaintances of whom I characterize as funadamentalist, don't try to place myself in a position of authority over another.) Your entire set of points here match up with my comments in the first post, stating that "we are all clouded by our own biases" or something of the matter. I was saying that I too am biased on the side of my own beliefs, and that everyone else is as well. It's a matter of human nature, and of just old-fashioned stubborness, too!

Also, you were inferring that people such as myself would like to limit public office-holders to only Christians. This is totally unbased, because that would infringe upon your above quote of Jesus, in which he said to treat others according to your wishes of being treated. If I did that, I would be a hypocrite, because I would have abandoned the very religion that I am standing up for.

Oh, yeah, and I'm clueless on your Ba'hai thing. :confused:

Of course, they are biased! And that is true! But you and every person or group in the world are no different.

One thing I need to find is the 19-page research article I wrote on the psychology of religion. Interesting stuff. As I said in a previous post, religious beliefs, individually, have an extremely positive effect on many aspects of a person's health. It doesn't even matter what the religion is. You could be Buddhist or Christian, but it's irrelevant. This makes sense to me, because Christ said, "Faith will move mountains", not faith in me or faith in the Judeo-Christian God, but just simply faith. There have been studies experiments in psychology to show that faith has an affect on our health as well as the outcome of actual events. One group is told they have the "smart" mice, the other group is told they have the "dumb" mice, and even though the mice are equal, one group outperforms the other.

Your analysis of Jesus' faith quote is, in my opinion, wrong, because in the context of the passage, and I'm looking at it, Jesus is discoursing his disciples after they have failed to cast out a demon. In other passages, Jesus affirms his identity as the "Son of Man" and several other times directly as the Son of God. The disciples evidently aren't asking a man who thinks that all religions are the truth and that God is located where many paths lead ot him when they ask him why they couldn't drive this demon out (Matthew 17:19). So, taken in context, your quote of "Faith can move mountains" is uttered in a religion that believes in the presence of demons and of the divinity of Jesus, certainly not to a man who adheres to a philosophy of "Everything is true," or "Faith is plural among many religions" in regards to his quote. Whether you believe in Jesus' divinity or in demons is really beside the point; my point is that Jesus' apparent vindication of plural pathways to heaven is really taken in the context of a thoroughly Christian passage and setting.

*sigh* Glad that that's over! Also, nothing was personal in that response, as I'm sure one could get very angry at my comments (What else is new?).

actually, that's a big assumption on your part. first of all, many people don't object to religious laws on the grounds that "you can't legislate morality," they object because (supposedly, in America) you can't legislate superstition. also, it is perfectly possible to show that the majority of our laws are not necessarily based on morality; you can have a law for practical reasons rather than moral ones, for instance. you can forbid murder not because you claim it is morally wrong but because the society will be unable to function effectively if individual citizens are permitted to end each other's lives without consequence.

Good point, but these laws also have the dual foundation in moral concepts. If you look at an Islamic concept (Okay, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that this is true) is the giving of money to the poor. Our institution of welfare does this, and there are no practical neccessities for it, because many civilizations have practiced social Darwinism, where the weak or poor are thrown to the curb.

The issue isnt "legislating morality" it is legislating theology.

Replacing science classes with religious lessons is not an issue of morality.

Denying equal civil rights to gay people is not an issue of morality.

Both are based in specific religious theologies.

Good point, but these laws also have the dual foundation in moral concepts. If you look at an Islamic concept (Okay, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that this is true) is the giving of money to the poor. Our institution of welfare does this, and there are no practical neccessities for it, because many civilizations have practiced social Darwinism, where the weak or poor are thrown to the curb.
many people argue there most certainly IS a practical necessity for welfare. whether or not they are right, there are plenty who say that welfare is a means of increasing quality of life for children born in poverty (something that could be argued to provide practical benefit by increasing the likelihood those children will grow up and become productive), of decreasing crime (by providing poor people with a way to survive other than theft), of improving the over-all standard of living in the country, etc etc etc. again, i'm not saying these claims are right, but it is quite easy to find non-religious and non-"moral" reasons to support things like welfare.

put it this way; there are laws (like the prohibition of murder) which happen to line up with religious or moral doctrines. these laws may or may not exist because we endevor to "legislate morality." they may simply happen to match up with our moral values, or our moral values may have evolved from practical concerns that are the root of our laws. just because a religious belief happens to match up with a practical concern does not mean that practical concern is inextricably twined with morality.

The issue isnt "legislating morality" it is legislating theology.

Replacing science classes with religious lessons is not an issue of morality.

Denying equal civil rights to gay people is not an issue of morality.

Both are based in specific religious theologies.

I've never endeavored to replace science classes with religious classes, so I don't think that you're talking about the majority of Christians there. I suppose that you think that I would like to have evolution banished from schools, but in that, you're wrong. All that I want is a healthy debate in the schools, where questions are asked.

On your second point, where are some examples.

And on your third point, my religious creed prohibits me from hating others or doing things that would be considered hateful to others. Sure, I'm human, and I do act in anger at times, but it's the idea of trying to live by those standards that gets you through.

many people argue there most certainly IS a practical necessity for welfare. whether or not they are right, there are plenty who say that welfare is a means of increasing quality of life for children born in poverty (something that could be argued to provide practical benefit by increasing the likelihood those children will grow up and become productive), of decreasing crime (by providing poor people with a way to survive other than theft), of improving the over-all standard of living in the country, etc etc etc. again, i'm not saying these claims are right, but it is quite easy to find non-religious and non-"moral" reasons to support things like welfare.

put it this way; there are laws (like the prohibition of murder) which happen to line up with religious or moral doctrines. these laws may or may not exist because we endevor to "legislate morality." they may simply happen to match up with our moral values, or our moral values may have evolved from practical concerns that are the root of our laws. just because a religious belief happens to match up with a practical concern does not mean that practical concern is inextricably twined with morality.

Point taken. Morality is sometimes uniform among religions, sometimes different. Sometimes, as you are pointing out, religions are in accordance with secular society on some issues of morality. But, in general, where you don't get fed a good moral foundation or base early in your life, you don't carry those principles on later into your life. Religions, whether their concerns are practical or ecumenical, do, in most cases, teach these principles. Secular society at times does, too, through some methods with whcich I am unfamiliar, but if you get into the habit of abiding by your religious code, you do follow certain moral premises that can carry over into a good life in the public realm.

Also, one could make an argument for the legislation of morality thing in earlier times, I suppose, but right now I'm too lazy to do so. And thanks for debating in a good fashion; no anger, just a level-headed debate. This may actually acomplish something.

I do not think it is 'fair' that religious opinions are given the credence they already are.

Well thought out, reasonable ideas merit a place in society, old religious claptrap does not.

Absurd religious ideas do not deserve special consideration or special rights because of their religious aspects.

One must deny a great deal of demonstrable facts to be a religious fundementalist, and no one with such a base regard for the value of truth can be trusted.

Basing decisions that effect the real world in absurd arcana makes somone incompetent to hold an influential position in society, it bespeaks a disregard for the real causes and effects of events.

In my opinion, the vast and seemingly wicked hypocricy of christian maniacs in the united states is rooted in the fundemental lack of integrity that comes from the degeneration that afflicts a mind that is steeped in what I mentioned above.


It is not up to us to prove that God exists but up to you to prove that he does not.

It is not up to us to prove that God exists but up to you to prove that he does not.
incorrect. as it is impossible to prove a negative, the burden of proof rests with the positive position. if you assert God exists, you assume the burden of proof to support your assertion.

otherwise, if i assert the universe is run by a race of magical 2000-ton fluorescent orange centaurs then you would have to PROVE that this is not the case, or else you would have to admit i am right...can you see why that system doesn't work?

It is not up to us to prove that God exists but up to you to prove that he does not.


:rolleyes:

The onus (which is a fancy word for 'burden of proof') falls upon the person who makes a claim.

In your case, you are making a bizzare and extraordinary claim - namely that undetectable magical forces are at play in the world for which there is no evidence.

It is to be expected that to prove such an extraordinary claim, you will produce extraordinary evidence.

If you do not produce evidence for your extraordinary claim, then the claim is considered not to have merit.

It is just like any other extraordinary and bizzare claim, you'd may as well rant about the purple unicorn of saturn and how we need to follow it's sacred laws.

The fact is that unless you can provide conclusive evidence that the unicorn or jehova or zeus or whichever storybook deity you prefer exists, a reasonable person must assume that it doesnt.

It is not up to us to prove that God exists but up to you to prove that he does not.

Okay, my pooka friend Harvey says God does not exist.

That is my proof.

It is not up to me to prove that Harvey exists or is right. It is up to you to prove he does not or is not.

QED

Harvey is a figment of your imagination as demonstrated by these CT scans I'm holding.

:rolleyes:

The onus (which is a fancy word for 'burden of proof') falls upon the person who makes a claim.

In your case, you are making a bizzare and extraordinary claim - namely that undetectable magical forces are at play in the world for which there is no evidence.

It is to be expected that to prove such an extraordinary claim, you will produce extraordinary evidence.

If you do not produce evidence for your extraordinary claim, then the claim is considered not to have merit.

It is just like any other extraordinary and bizzare claim, you'd may as well rant about the purple unicorn of saturn and how we need to follow it's sacred laws.

The fact is that unless you can provide conclusive evidence that the unicorn or jehova or zeus or whichever storybook deity you prefer exists, a reasonable person must assume that it doesnt.

In science the burden of proof is reversed, theories are never proven, only disproven and replaced.

Harvey is a figment of your imagination as demonstrated by these CT scans I'm holding.

Deja vu.

Harvey says God is a figment of your imagination as demonstrated by the CT scans he is holding.

Since my scans disprove harvies existance then he would have to disprove the CT's not God.

In science the burden of proof is reversed, theories are never proven, only disproven and replaced.
God is not a scientific theory, as the existence of a supernatural Creator-being is not open to scientific falsification.

Since my scans disprove harvies existance then he would have to disprove the CT's not God.
how so? Harvey has asserted God is a figment of your imagination. the burden is on you to prove he is wrong, remember?

also, if you claim you can disprove Harvey with CT scans then you clearly haven't the faintest idea how that technology works :).

how so? Harvey has asserted God is a figment of your imagination. the burden is on you to prove he is wrong, remember?

also, if you claim you can disprove Harvey with CT scans then you clearly haven't the faintest idea how that technology works :).


Excellent point.

Plus I would say that CT scans of Harvey are excellent proof that Harvey does exist. He is at least as real as the CT scans.

The CT scans show increased activity in portions of your brain when you speak to harvey, these portions of the brain have nothing to do with speech.

God is not a scientific theory, as the existence of a supernatural Creator-being is not open to scientific falsification.

That is where you are wrong, there are many ways to "explain" acts of God, but all of them are either outright fallacy or highly improbable.

That is where you are wrong, there are many ways to "explain" acts of God, but all of them are either outright fallacy or highly improbable.


The problem is that there are only 'acts of god' in storybooks.

That is where you are wrong, there are many ways to "explain" acts of God, but all of them are either outright fallacy or highly improbable.
huh?

it is impossible to scientifically test supernatural "theories" like God, because anything can be explained by saying "well, God just made it that way." any inconsistency can be explained away as "part of the miracle." there is no way to scientifically test the existence of God(s).

put it this way: name a piece of evidence that science could produce which would irrefutably disprove God. if you can't, God's not a scientific theory.

Indeed, there are certainly acts of God in insurance claims. Seriously though, an act of God qualifies as the creation, which is the only reasonable explanation, since if evolution is followed to it's logical start, along with chaos theory, then it would take approximately 4.6 billion years for even the simplest life forms to have been formed, according to geologists the earth is only about 4.6 billion years old.

The CT scans show increased activity in portions of your brain when you speak to harvey, these portions of the brain have nothing to do with speech.

Who said I speak to Harvey?

And Harvey says you are lying about having CT scans of either of us.

Harvey says that if there were a God your lying would make her sad.

That is where you are wrong, there are many ways to "explain" acts of God, but all of them are either outright fallacy or highly improbable.

ROFLASTC :D "acts of God" :D

I do not think it is 'fair' that religious opinions are given the credence they already are.

Well thought out, reasonable ideas merit a place in society, old religious claptrap does not.

Absurd religious ideas do not deserve special consideration or special rights because of their religious aspects.

One must deny a great deal of demonstrable facts to be a religious fundementalist, and no one with such a base regard for the value of truth can be trusted.

Basing decisions that effect the real world in absurd arcana makes somone incompetent to hold an influential position in society, it bespeaks a disregard for the real causes and effects of events.

In my opinion, the vast and seemingly wicked hypocricy of christian maniacs in the united states is rooted in the fundemental lack of integrity that comes from the degeneration that afflicts a mind that is steeped in what I mentioned above.

Very well put, except the last bit is a bit short-sighted. You forget that almost every religion is as bad. In countries where religion has taken a grip, we see the most hideous crimes of humanity. I don't mean murder, just that, I mean brain-washing.

To live by the bible is like living with Roman ideals. It's stupid, and archaic.

Indeed, there are certainly acts of God in insurance claims. Seriously though, an act of God qualifies as the creation, which is the only reasonable explanation, since if evolution is followed to it's logical start, along with chaos theory, then it would take approximately 4.6 billion years for even the simplest life forms to have been formed, according to geologists the earth is only about 4.6 billion years old.
so in other words, you cannot meet my challenge.

Very well put, except the last bit is a bit short-sighted. You forget that almost every religion is as bad. In countries where religion has taken a grip, we see the most hideous crimes of humanity. I don't mean murder, just that, I mean brain-washing.

To live by the bible is like living with Roman ideals. It's stupid, and archaic.


Well, the last bit does state that it deals with christianity in the US specifically.

It stands to reason that similar forces are at work to a degree elsewhere that religious maniacs are out to ruin things.

I consider the maniacs in the US to be the linear descendents of the barbarians who sacked and destroyed rome.

huh?

it is impossible to scientifically test supernatural "theories" like God, because anything can be explained by saying "well, God just made it that way." any inconsistency can be explained away as "part of the miracle." there is no way to scientifically test the existence of God(s).

put it this way: name a piece of evidence that science could produce which would irrefutably disprove God. if you can't, God's not a scientific theory.

If you could somehow acquire evidence that it would take less than 4.6 billion years for evolution to work then you would be able to disprove God's existence, as things stand the only people to actually do the math on this (it took a couple of years with a supercomputer) have found evidence suggesting that evolution would take 4.6 billion years to form the simplest organism, much less humans..

If you could somehow acquire evidence that it would take less than 4.6 billion years for evolution to work then you would be able to disprove God's existence, as things stand the only people to actually do the math on this (it took a couple of years with a supercomputer) have found evidence suggesting that evolution would take 4.6 billion years to form the simplest organism, much less humans..
proving or disproving the theory of evolution has nothing to do with proving or disproving God.

If you could somehow acquire evidence that it would take less than 4.6 billion years for evolution to work then you would be able to disprove God's existence, as things stand the only people to actually do the math on this (it took a couple of years with a supercomputer) have found evidence suggesting that evolution would take 4.6 billion years to form the simplest organism, much less humans..


Which peer reviewed journal published this?

Or did you get it from a faith-based false witness site.

Or did you make it up yourself?

If you could somehow acquire evidence that it would take less than 4.6 billion years for evolution to work then you would be able to disprove God's existence, as things stand the only people to actually do the math on this (it took a couple of years with a supercomputer) have found evidence suggesting that evolution would take 4.6 billion years to form the simplest organism, much less humans..

Natural forces are responsible for the universe as we know it.

It is not our burden to prove it was natural forces. It is your burden to prove it was not.

(Are you starting to see how your "burden of proof" is idiotic?)

so in other words, you cannot meet my challenge.

I just did, there are acts of God, creation is enough because SCIENCE says evolution would take 4.6 BILLION years if the assumptions of chaos and evolution are applied to the "primordial ooze" without evolution primordial ooze is fallacy, without chaos nothing would ever combine to make any thing because there would be no probability of it occuring.

Biblical Literalism is perhaps the most foolish of all things I have encountered. It's utter adherence to a book of scriptures that Biblical literalists claim is the word of God, directly or indirectly.

A) According to recent historical evidence much of the Bible we read today is translated from the Latin copies generated en mass when Constantine wanted to blast the Empire into christianity to hold it together. (Funny how it keeps empires: The British, the Roman etc. alive to an extent ;)).

b) Scientific evidence constantly flies in the face of creationism etc. but still they believe it's all truth. I even heard one biblical literalist claim evolution was a racist lie generated by English Victorians before the country "underwent atheistic changes". Riiiiight, and some, yes, some believe the world is flat.

c) What is the point of following such an ancient text anyway? It simply doesn't work in modern societies...they keep having to reinterpret it all the time so Biblical Literalism is something quite contrary nowadays to what it was originally.

In short, why let a book (probably packed with lies and Roman propaganda) dominate your life? Surely you can follow jesus or whatnot without it?

I just did, there are acts of God, creation is enough because SCIENCE says evolution would take 4.6 BILLION years if the assumptions of chaos and evolution are applied to the "primordial ooze" without evolution primordial ooze is fallacy, without chaos nothing would ever combine to make any thing because there would be no probability of it occuring.
honey, you did not answer the challenge at all.

name one piece of evidence science could produce that would disprove God. DO NOT BLATHER ABOUT EVOLUTION. THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS IRRELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION.

Natural forces are responsible for the universe as we know it.

It is not our burden to prove it was natural forces. It is your burden to prove it was not.

(Are you starting to see how your "burden of proof" is idiotic?)

It was proven, by technicians that ran the numbers through a supercomputer, it took them approximately 2 years and the result was that evolution would take at least 4.6 billion years to create the simplest organism.

honey, you did not answer the challenge at all.

name one piece of evidence science could produce that would disprove God. DO NOT BLATHER ABOUT EVOLUTION. THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS IRRELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION.

Name one piece of evidence religion could produce that would prove his existence.

Personally, I've felt a distinct lack of God throughout my existence and the notion of such a being doesn't compute with my way of thinking. Evolution and the big bang is enough, for me, to prove he doesn't exist. However, I realise it's not enough for everyone so they're entitled to carry on following what I believe to be the wrong 'faith' as it were :)

I would say that God's existence is disproved by the Lamarr Experiment, where they brought up two children. One was passively introduced to the notion of God, the other not at all through their lives. Neither came to believe he existed, thereby I don't think he does. After all, if he did, surely he'd make himself known, at least in part, to them?

honey, you did not answer the challenge at all.

name one piece of evidence science could produce that would disprove God. DO NOT BLATHER ABOUT EVOLUTION. THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS IRRELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION.

If God did not create the earth then evolution created everything, correct? However, if evolution is false then the only remaining possibility is creation, thereby fulfilling the requirements of the challenge. Since evolution is effectively disproven by the facts presented it is adequate evidence to support creation, thereby proving God exists.

Not more of this again...

I agree with the original poster, ones spirituality should remain within the person that experiences it and should have absolutely NO bearing on ANY other person whatsoever, especially not in politics.

Regardless of whether you beleive god exists or not, what amount to extremely powerful pixies should not be influencing whether thousands of people die, whether a bill on abortion is passed or whether stem cell research should be carried out.

If you want to argue those things from a moralistic standpoint - Foetus are people too; We were deposing an evil dictator, then that is one thing.

You don't give credence to a homicidal maniac when he says "God told me to do it" why should you trust the "divine inspiration" of a politician? Or anyone for that matter.

If God did not create the earth then evolution created everything, correct? However, if evolution is false then the only remaining possibility is creation, thereby fulfilling the requirements of the challenge. Since evolution is effectively disproven by the facts presented it is adequate evidence to support creation, thereby proving God exists.

Evolution has been proven to be correct, though.

Name one piece of evidence religion could produce that would prove his existence.

Personally, I've felt a distinct lack of God throughout my existence and the notion of such a being doesn't compute with my way of thinking. Evolution and the big bang is enough, for me, to prove he doesn't exist. However, I realise it's not enough for everyone so they're entitled to carry on following what I believe to be the wrong 'faith' as it were :)

I would say that God's existence is disproved by the Lamarr Experiment, where they brought up two children. One was passively introduced to the notion of God, the other not at all through their lives. Neither came to believe he existed, thereby I don't think he does. After all, if he did, surely he'd make himself known, at least in part, to them?

There are not enough subjects in that experiment to provide a reasonable margin of error, experiments are repeatedly rejected bcause they have too few participants to ensure a true sample of humanity is represented, an experiment of that type would require at leat 1000 participants to have even a chance of gaining wide respectability, and 1000 is on the low side of possibility, not even near a probability.

If God did not create the earth then evolution created everything, correct? However, if evolution is false then the only remaining possibility is creation, thereby fulfilling the requirements of the challenge. Since evolution is effectively disproven by the facts presented it is adequate evidence to support creation, thereby proving God exists.
If evolution is false, my money's on the aliens doing it all.

There are not enough subjects in that experiment to provide a reasonable margin of error, experiments are repeatedly rejected bcause they have too few participants to ensure a true sample of humanity is represented, an experiment of that type would require at leat 1000 participants to have even a chance of gaining wide respectability, and 1000 is on the low side of possibility, not even near a probability.

Still, to me God doesn't exist. You can't change my mind. EVER

Evolution has been proven to be correct, though.

How?

If evolution is false, my money's on the aliens doing it all.

The aliens would have to evolve to a point where they had faster than light travel, that is still improbable.

How?

Read a basic school textbook, that'll provide the basics. Then, look it up on the web. I really can't be bothered to spam everyone with the evidence. Honestyl, google it. You're so, so wrong.

Still, to me God doesn't exist. You can't change my mind. EVER

That is fine I merely wish to stop others from trying to force their beliefs on me, by saying that there is no God society says that churches are all liars, some are most are not, as such I cannot condone the fact that junk science is used to disprove religion.

The aliens would have to evolve to a point where they had faster than light travel, that is still improbable.
Meh, they're not constrained to the time limits you set for the Earth, so I see no problem there.

Organised religion is definetly wrong...by default is stands for evangelisation and conversion. That is what the bloody thing is for.

We also have to pay for them through taxes, which is a fucking disgrace and is why I'm not paying mine.

It was proven, by technicians that ran the numbers through a supercomputer, it took them approximately 2 years and the result was that evolution would take at least 4.6 billion years to create the simplest organism.

That is the age of the earth which is half the age of the universe. Hmmmm so that means by now we would be simple organisms simply adding proof of at least a Deity

That is fine I merely wish to stop others from trying to force their beliefs on me, by saying that there is no God society says that churches are all liars, some are most are not, as such I cannot condone the fact that junk science is used to disprove religion.

But it is ok for you atheists to try to convert us?

But it is ok for you atheists to try to convert us?

For one, his evidence concerning creationism is incorrect (Hammers, that is). He pulled those figures out of his arse.

Second, no. I don't believe we should be able to BUT I do believe we should be allowed to 'pull down churches' just as you build them. Right? That's fair. I mean, you're allowed to build centres of evangelism so surely atheists are allowed to pull them down? ;)

Name one piece of evidence religion could produce that would prove his existence.

Personally, I've felt a distinct lack of God throughout my existence and the notion of such a being doesn't compute with my way of thinking. Evolution and the big bang is enough, for me, to prove he doesn't exist. However, I realise it's not enough for everyone so they're entitled to carry on following what I believe to be the wrong 'faith' as it were :)

I would say that God's existence is disproved by the Lamarr Experiment, where they brought up two children. One was passively introduced to the notion of God, the other not at all through their lives. Neither came to believe he existed, thereby I don't think he does. After all, if he did, surely he'd make himself known, at least in part, to them?

Deism.
Anyway you disproved him therefore you proved that he couldnt exist which i dont see how you can do that
Big Bang theory states that all matter came from a thing the size of a golf ball. Where did that matter come from? I do believe in the big bang theory but it has a major flaw

I take my big elephant gun loaded with "trivial" and shoot the epistemology pig right in the head.

So ... on this thread, this would constitute the first sacrifice for faith ... what faith is this representative of again? ;)
I'd love to see some scripture written 'round this scenario. Maybe there is some i forgot about ....

For one, his evidence concerning creationism is incorrect (Hammers, that is). He pulled those figures out of his arse.

Second, no. I don't believe we should be able to BUT I do believe we should be allowed to 'pull down churches' just as you build them. Right? That's fair. I mean, you're allowed to build centres of evangelism so surely atheists are allowed to pull them down? ;)

So we can pull down nonchurch taught schools just as you built them up? That should be fair

Deism.
Anyway you disproved him therefore you proved that he couldnt exist which i dont see how you can do that
Big Bang theory states that all matter came from a thing the size of a golf ball. Where did that matter come from? I do believe in the big bang theory but it has a major flaw

Perhaps people should try an explanation that isn't three letters long, staring with a G and ending in a d? Hmmm

So we can pull down nonchurch taught schools just as you built them up? That should be fair

No. They're not seeking to propagandise the young, if anything, they are neutral. It is 'monofaith' schools that are in the wrong. Nonchurch taught schools are simply providing a neutral area where children can learn unhindered by their religious beliefs

Perhaps people should try an explanation that isn't three letters long, staring with a G and ending in a d? Hmmm

He was always there just like time. Since the universe was created by him he could technically bend the rules but according to the BB theory the matter compacted was the universe and now it is just the expanded form

Read a basic school textbook, that'll provide the basics. Then, look it up on the web. I really can't be bothered to spam everyone with the evidence. Honestyl, google it. You're so, so wrong.

Hold please, loading.. loading..., I will.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/01-ma5.htm
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/05agee3.htm#Evidence%20from%20Living]
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/07prim05.htm

that sould be enough.

He was always there just like time. Since the universe was created by him he could technically bend the rules but according to the BB theory the matter compacted was the universe and now it is just the expanded form

Expanding! It's still growing...in fact they think it might even be shrinking. You didn't answer my question. What would happen if you took God out of the picture of the explanation and considered another theory? perhaps string theory for example?

Hold please, loading.. loading..., I will.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/01-ma5.htm
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/05agee3.htm#Evidence%20from%20Living]
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/07prim05.htm

that sould be enough.
Enough biased sources, Pathlights is a christian site...:S

No. They're not seeking to propagandise the young, if anything, they are neutral. It is 'monofaith' schools that are in the wrong. Nonchurch taught schools are simply providing a neutral area where children can learn unhindered by their religious beliefs

Unhindered by religious beliefs when schools were created by the Catholic church in the 1400s. Religion had more benefits then good besides the neanderthals had religion, and seeing as they didnt use it to explain anything since they wouldnt care why would they have a religion?

Expanding! It's still growing...in fact they think it might even be shrinking. You didn't answer my question. What would happen if you took God out of the picture of the explanation and considered another theory? perhaps string theory for example?

Then where did the strings come from.
They no that the universe wont shrink, but some speculate that it might continue to grow at a faster speed over time and would cas a Big Rip which would destroy everything or that it would slow and cause a massive freeze.

Where did the strings come from, in the string theory and what about the other 7 dimensions?

But it is ok for you atheists to try to convert us?

You Aethiests? I've been arguing creation versus evolution and that God exists for the last couple of hours and I was just dubbed an aethiest.. I would laugh, but if I started I probably wouldn't stop til my lungs burst.

You Aethiests? I've been arguing creation versus evolution and that God exists for the last couple of hours and I was just dubbed an aethiest.. I would laugh, but if I started I probably wouldn't stop til my lungs burst.

I read your thing wrong.

Unhindered by religious beliefs when schools were created by the Catholic church in the 1400s. Religion had more benefits then good besides the neanderthals had religion, and seeing as they didnt use it to explain anything since they wouldnt care why would they have a religion?

Religion doesn't have more benefits than it does a non-benefits AT ALL.
Brain-washing, wars, waste of money, drain the taxpayer-
How are these benefits?

I have no clue what the heck you guys were talking about earlier, but I have one thing to say: The Big Bang does not disprove God.

A Big Bang out of nothing is an impossibility that cannot occur without intervention from a force that is above nature. That is simply the bottom line, whether you're atheist, agnostic, Christian, Buddhist, or whatever. Now, you may believe differently, but if you adhere to the theory of the Big Bang, which is in vogue with many scientists currently, then getting something out of nothing, which is what it amounts to, is a miracle.

Actually, while I'm on this subject, I must recall a quote of an evolutionary author, Bill Bryson, in his book, which I believe is called A Short History of Everything or something along those lines. He says, and I'm jogging my memory for this quote, that "it may seem impossible for the Big Bang to arise out of nothing, but since it happened, then that proves its possibility." Now, that may not be exact, but it's pretty close. Anyway, Bryson basically steps outside of his scientific and atheistic dogma that declares that nature is all that there is, that the universe is all that there is, and says that something totally illogical. That statement is as reliant on a blind faith as is any argument coming from a theist of any sort. There is no other explanation that is valid for the origin of the universe, except for the plethora of multiple universe and vacuum and a bunch of other theories that say that our universe was created in another expanse of space. That's all fine and dandy until you ask where that "super-universe" came from, and then you're back at square one. So, in the end, all roads lead to a Creator. Argue till your blue in the face about evolution after this fact, but if you look at it logically, which a bunch of people on both sides don't, then the Big Bang does indeed prove God's existance.

Now, let everyone slander me or lie or do whatever they want, but I've said what I believe and know to be true from a simple glance at the facts. You can argue a static universe or whatever, and that would be an entirely new debate, but my point still stands on the Big Bang. You can't get something out of nothing.

Please, everyone, before you call me a fool, please take a look at your own biases and beliefs before you judge. I will be the first on to admit that I believe that I'm right a lot of the time, and of course I'm biased, but so is everyone else. I believe that's all I'll say on this thread, because I'm simply tired of arguing. I may be back, but until then, good luck on this debate!

-Armany

Religion doesn't have more benefits than it does a non-benefits AT ALL.
Brain-washing, wars, waste of money, drain the taxpayer-
How are these benefits?

Religion helped the base of US and euro law system such as lawyer, fair trial, jury, free lawyer if you cant afford one. Religion started the renaissance through the wars, help the developement of guns, provided the peasents with reading, writing, math, science, and provided hospitals to treat the plague sufferers. Since the crusades help cause the plague to spread it also led rise to the middle class, enlightenment age and the guns helped make US.

I do not think it is 'fair' that religious opinions are given the credence they already are.....

One must deny a great deal of demonstrable facts to be a religious fundementalist, and no one with such a base regard for the value of truth can be trusted.
Fundamentalist opinions generally don't have credibility. People listen to religious moderates, but findamentalists are generally a joke.

Religion helped the base of US and euro law system such as lawyer, fair trial, jury, free lawyer if you cant afford one. Religion started the renaissance through the wars, help the developement of guns, provided the peasents with reading, writing, math, science, and provided hospitals to treat the plague sufferers. Since the crusades help cause the plague to spread it also led rise to the middle class, enlightenment age and the guns helped make US.

Rule of the Law, and Juries were invented in England. They were, from the very beginning, utterly disassociated from religion. The first seeds of secularism. Religion helped the development of guns? wow. Reading of peasants? Only allowed to read the bible though! The Enlightenment age...well that was the first time Atheism became popular, wasn't it? Yep. And that the US was made is not a good thing in many, many people's opinions.

Armany, if, as you would have us believe, there must be "higher" (a meaningless term) causes for everything, then there is no possiblity of a first cause, ergo no creator.


The big bang was not the creation of the matter and energy in the universe, it was the redistribution of the matter and energy in the universe.

The dimension of time was singular prior to the redistribution, matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed. The dimension of time is not constant, matter and energy do not have a beginning or an end.

Enough biased sources, Pathlights is a christian site...:S

Immaterial, the facts are unbiased, as the site says, few quoted creationists in the evidence, but if you insist maybe this "biased" site will work

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/rapid-fossils-rapid-petrifaction.htm

Fundamentalist opinions generally don't have credibility. People listen to religious moderates, but findamentalists are generally a joke.


Except in say... the theocracies of the middle east and much of middle america.

Immaterial, the facts are unbiased, as the site says, few quoted creationists in the evidence, but if you insist maybe this "biased" site will work

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/rapid-fossils-rapid-petrifaction.htm


If your website didnt bear false witness then it would have citations to reputable journals.

People made this stuff up and they are false witnesses.

Rule of the Law, and Juries were invented in England. They were, from the very beginning, utterly disassociated from religion. The first seeds of secularism. Religion helped the development of guns? wow. Reading of peasants? Only allowed to read the bible though! The Enlightenment age...well that was the first time Atheism became popular, wasn't it? Yep. And that the US was made is not a good thing in many, many people's opinions.

So winning several wars like WW1 and WW2 for the allies wasnt good?
Britains may have had law but modern law came from the churches during the inquisition (not the Portugese or spanish). They could read books other then the bible and thats how the renaissance came about since they could read the works of the greeks.

I cannot tell if you believe the gun remark so i would help you out there. Once upon the time there was a series of wars called the crusades. After the third or fourth the Muslims allowed the Europeans passage to the middle east where the europeans could buy gun powder by going along the silk road or staying in the middle east and hope someone is selling. The europeans discovered how to make guns with gun powder and the british discovered how to make missles.

.....

Actually, while I'm on this subject, I must recall a quote of an evolutionary author, Bill Bryson, in his book, which I believe is called A Short History of Everything or something along those lines. He says, and I'm jogging my memory for this quote, that "it may seem impossible for the Big Bang to arise out of nothing, but since it happened, then that proves its possibility." Now, that may not be exact, but it's pretty close. Anyway, Bryson basically steps outside of his scientific and atheistic dogma

....
Umm, you do know that Bill Bryson is a humorous travel writer and journalist, not a scientist, don't you?

Armany, if, as you would have us believe, there must be "higher" (a meaningless term) causes for everything, then there is no possiblity of a first cause, ergo no creator.


The big bang was not the creation of the matter and energy in the universe, it was the redistribution of the matter and energy in the universe.

The dimension of time was singular prior to the redistribution, matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed. The dimension of time is not constant, matter and energy do not have a beginning or an end.

A deity could exist since they always existed such as how you claim matter.

BUT you are WRONG. Matter has a BEGINNING and an END. It is very simple to explain this but i am to LAZY to

I have no clue what the heck you guys were talking about earlier, but I have one thing to say: The Big Bang does not disprove God.

A Big Bang out of nothing is an impossibility that cannot occur without intervention from a force that is above nature. That is simply the bottom line, whether you're atheist, agnostic, Christian, Buddhist, or whatever. Now, you may believe differently, but if you adhere to the theory of the Big Bang, which is in vogue with many scientists currently, then getting something out of nothing, which is what it amounts to, is a miracle.

Actually, while I'm on this subject, I must recall a quote of an evolutionary author, Bill Bryson, in his book, which I believe is called A Short History of Everything or something along those lines. He says, and I'm jogging my memory for this quote, that "it may seem impossible for the Big Bang to arise out of nothing, but since it happened, then that proves its possibility." Now, that may not be exact, but it's pretty close. Anyway, Bryson basically steps outside of his scientific and atheistic dogma that declares that nature is all that there is, that the universe is all that there is, and says that something totally illogical. That statement is as reliant on a blind faith as is any argument coming from a theist of any sort. There is no other explanation that is valid for the origin of the universe, except for the plethora of multiple universe and vacuum and a bunch of other theories that say that our universe was created in another expanse of space. That's all fine and dandy until you ask where that "super-universe" came from, and then you're back at square one. So, in the end, all roads lead to a Creator. Argue till your blue in the face about evolution after this fact, but if you look at it logically, which a bunch of people on both sides don't, then the Big Bang does indeed prove God's existance.

Now, let everyone slander me or lie or do whatever they want, but I've said what I believe and know to be true from a simple glance at the facts. You can argue a static universe or whatever, and that would be an entirely new debate, but my point still stands on the Big Bang. You can't get something out of nothing.

Please, everyone, before you call me a fool, please take a look at your own biases and beliefs before you judge. I will be the first on to admit that I believe that I'm right a lot of the time, and of course I'm biased, but so is everyone else. I believe that's all I'll say on this thread, because I'm simply tired of arguing. I may be back, but until then, good luck on this debate!

-Armany
very true...
this point is actually something that some christians/scientists can actually agree on (the fact the big bang happened)
another reason why the big bang happened: what else could've? armany already ruled out the static model, but didnt touch on a couple others:
1)oscillating model
2)"steady state" model

these two are incorrect because the universe, according to them, has and is infinite.

and with that, i'm gone!!

Bye! :) :confused: :( :eek: :D :cool: :p :sniper: :mp5:

So winning several wars like WW1 and WW2 for the allies wasnt good?
Britains may have had law but modern law came from the churches during the inquisition (not the Portugese or spanish). They could read books other then the bible and thats how the renaissance came about since they could read the works of the greeks.

I cannot tell if you believe the gun remark so i would help you out there. Once upon the time there was a series of wars called the crusades. After the third or fourth the Muslims allowed the Europeans passage to the middle east where the europeans could buy gun powder by going along the silk road or staying in the middle east and hope someone is selling. The europeans discovered how to make guns with gun powder and the british discovered how to make missles.

Americans didn't win WW1, and the Russians won WW2. Get over it, and take that somewhere else.

Americans didn't win WW1, and the Russians won WW2. Get over it, and take that somewhere else.

Um so britain, france and russia stood a chance against the strongest navy while being killed by the machine guns that the germans had? Germany was much stronger then all of them even with the tank, but if you add austria, then they are toast.

Russia got slaughtered in WW2. That is why the Germans marched to moscow only to be tooken out of due to british attack.

I am not an ethnocent United statian, i am the opposite

A deity could exist since they always existed such as how you claim matter.

BUT you are WRONG. Matter has a BEGINNING and an END. It is very simple to explain this but i am to LAZY to


You've made a shocking error in your english.

For the upright defense of English and the education of the children:

"lazy" is not a synonym for "incorrect."

In any event, i did not posit a first cause, as the religious person did.

Matter is energy, and energy is neither created nor destroyed.

It isnt difficult...

And the pope is going to die today, so for Christ's sake be reasonable.

Um so britain, france and russia stood a chance against the strongest navy while being killed by the machine guns that the germans had? Germany was much stronger then all of them even with the tank, but if you add austria, then they are toast.

Russia got slaughtered in WW2. That is why the Germans marched to moscow only to be tooken out of due to british attack.

I am not an ethnocent United statian, i am the opposite


When you take World History, in your second year at high school, you might want to pay attention.

You'll learn something, just a heads up.

Okay, one more post before I retire. :)
Armany, if, as you would have us believe, there must be "higher" (a meaningless term) causes for everything, then there is no possiblity of a first cause, ergo no creator.

No, I never said that. If there was a first cause, this cause must have transcended time, because, contrary to your belief, I believe that time began with the creation of the universe, i.e. the Big Bang. Many scientists that are very secular assert that matter and energy did originate at the Big Bang, or else it had to have been created before then. For example, if you have a complete vacuum, and you have some random atoms or whatever in that vacuum, then it is illogical to say that the atoms had always been there. Using this example in the context of the universe, then you get this: If that is the truth, then the universe is static, and thus it has lasted forever. Very few scientists believe that the universe is static, as it was most of your Aristotles and Platos that believed that. They are, unfortuantely, antiquated by centuries of scientific advance, and I, for one, would trust a current scientist, even if he was pro-evolution, over a millenia-old philosopher. Maybe some see it differently, but I just don't think that a static universe is possible.

The dimension of time was singular prior to the redistribution, matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed. The dimension of time is not constant, matter and energy do not have a beginning or an end.

Again, I believe that modern science contradicts you. Matter has to have a beginning, or else you open up a whole other can of worms and of metaphysical theorems. If matter has no beginning, then it sounds more like a hypothesis of God's pre-Creation existence, which you seem to disdain heartily, than a legit scientific theory. If matter and energy has no beginning, then what caused it to centralize and begin expanding in the Big Bang. If it had no beginning, then why would it come under the influence of a force that compacts it to the tiniest fraction of any unit of measure, eventually beginning as, in concurrence with many scientists, evolutionary and anti-evolutionary, nothing.

Okay, this time I promise to quit for at least a while, because a basketball game is coming on soon and I'll be coerced into dragging my eyes away from this debate. :)

Um so britain, france and russia stood a chance against the strongest navy while being killed by the machine guns that the germans had? Germany was much stronger then all of them even with the tank, but if you add austria, then they are toast.

Russia got slaughtered in WW2. That is why the Germans marched to moscow only to be tooken out of due to british attack.

I am not an ethnocent United statian, i am the opposite

WW1- The British ball game. They were the ones who made the greatest advances over land, and it was their naval blockades that broke germany.

You've made a shocking error in your english.

For the upright defense of English and the education of the children:

"lazy" is not a synonym for "incorrect."

In any event, i did not posit a first cause, as the religious person did.

Matter is energy, and energy is neither created nor destroyed.

It isnt difficult...

And the pope is going to die today, so for Christ's sake be reasonable.

So I used lazy for incorrect, no I think that you dont know science well do you?

Ill explain it simply trying not to directly insult you which is pretty hard

There is this thing called a virtual pair. What is a virtual pair you may ask, well it is a simple thing that is an atom of matter and an atom of antimatter that normally annihilate eachother right away. This leads to the developement of how to destroy black holes and i think it is call mccarthy's radiation theory but i am not sure. Well anyway, when a stray antimatter or matter particle doesnt annihilate the other then you have two new particles.

It is simple to destroy matter, much simplier then the creation. First you take a piece of matter of any mass you want. Then you take an equal mass of a-matter and it will annihilate the matter particle. Both get destroyed permanently, then one of three things happens. The things are:
A) It releases electromagnetic energy (I forgot but it is probably somthing similar that starts with an e)
B) It creates a new matter particle
C) It creates a new antimatter particle
What everyone happens, annihilation releases an enourmous amount of energy.
Na isotope 22 naturally eminates positrons which is an anti electron
Some other elements decay by releasing positrons
Antihydrogen was made

WW1- The British ball game. They were the ones who made the greatest advances over land, and it was their naval blockades that broke germany.

That is why it was considered a stalemate until america came?

That is why it was considered a stalemate until america came?

It wasn't.

When you take World History, in your second year at high school, you might want to pay attention.

You'll learn something, just a heads up.

Ill look in the book written by the people who write the AP exams

"Although the Germans reached the suburbs of Moscow they had too little time before a terrible winter to achive vitory. Stalin was SAVED by British intervention. US entry into the war and the valor of his people aroused by a patriotic fervor inspired by the butality and racism of the Nazis. Some where between 20-30 million Russians died. "

Now for WW1 "Mustard gas airplanes tanks flame-throwers and other new technologies were applied to the stalemate without success.

It wasn't.

Twas.

Ill look in the book written by the people who write the AP exams

"Although the Germans reached the suburbs of Moscow they had too little time before a terrible winter to achive vitory. Stalin was SAVED by British intervention. US entry into the war and the valor of his people aroused by a patriotic fervor inspired by the butality and racism of the Nazis. Some where between 20-30 million Russians died. "

Now for WW1 "Mustard gas airplanes tanks flame-throwers and other new technologies were applied to the stalemate without success.

Well, no...but the British Blockade actually crippled the German economy. The soldiers ran out of food, Germany buckled and WW1 was over.

Your textbook is unbelievably biased, and it just shows you what textbooks are like. The Germans lost WW2 at Kursk and the Battle of Britain, not when America joined.

Twas.

Nothing to do with this thead, anyway.

Well, no...but the British Blockade actually crippled the German economy. The soldiers ran out of food, Germany buckled and WW1 was over.

Your textbook is unbelievably biased, and it just shows you what textbooks are like. The Germans lost WW2 at Kursk and the Battle of Britain, not when America joined.

So my book is unreliable which is specifically about Euro History? Who told you your information a russian text book written during the cold war?

The name of the book is Multiple-choice & Free-Response Questions with DBQ in Preparation For THe AP EUROPEAN HISTORY EXAMINATION Fifth Edition written by D&S Marketing systems inc.
I hope most of the countries that except the AP exams (21 last time i checked) would know that if this book is biased then know one knows what happened during the 1914-1992 gap in history.

Nothing to do with this thead, anyway.

I am defending my thesis, which is US was the reason the allies won WW1 and WW2 to show that US is a good country since it has to deal with one of my posts based on this topic.

I am defending my thesis, which is US was the reason the allies won WW1 and WW2 to show that US is a good country since it has to deal with one of my posts based on this topic.

It was your thesis? I'm sorry to hear you failed your degree. :(

It was your thesis? I'm sorry to hear you failed your degree. :(

Fine give me evidence that russia caused the win for ww2 and gb caused the win for ww1. You havent done that yet although i proved my thesis based on AP books that the whole course is about Euro history. Why would it be biased i ask you? US gave the soviets and british the tanks through the lend lease program, liberated france through d day, supplied the allies with weapons and money before entering the war in ww1. WW1 was a stalemate and all historians said that until US came to help the allies after the sinking of that one british ship.

Fine give me evidence that russia caused the win for ww2 and gb caused the win for ww1. You havent done that yet although i proved my thesis based on AP books that the whole course is about Euro history. Why would it be biased i ask you? US gave the soviets and british the tanks through the lend lease program, liberated france through d day, supplied the allies with weapons and money before entering the war in ww1. WW1 was a stalemate and all historians said that until US came to help the allies after the sinking of that one british ship.

Not so.

The British blockaded major German ports, and this effectively crippled the German economy. This is why German soldiers were often wooed into surrendering by the promise of bread and potted meat. The people had turned on them.

In addition to this, there were barely any German tanks after Kursk and the Battle of Britain all but destroyed the luftwaffe. On the contrary, the British and Russian build and developed their own tanks. Without the British espionage (e.g tricking the germans into believing the allies were invading at calais, the enigma machine etc.) D-Day would have failed anyway. The Russians won ww2 by catching German bullets, the British won WW1 by inventing the tank and blockading Germany.

Not so.

The British blockaded major German ports, and this effectively crippled the German economy. This is why German soldiers were often wooed into surrendering by the promise of bread and potted meat. The people had turned on them.

In addition to this, there were barely any German tanks after Kursk and the Battle of Britain all but destroyed the luftwaffe. On the contrary, the British and Russian build and developed their own tanks. Without the British espionage (e.g tricking the germans into believing the allies were invading at calais, the enigma machine etc.) D-Day would have failed anyway. The Russians won ww2 by catching German bullets, the British won WW1 by inventing the tank and blockading Germany.

Again I quote now this is for WW1 "The prospect of fighting against millions of freshly trained, well fed. and well armed amreicans finally did them in"
"Britain and france tried to break the stale mate by attackiing the dardanelles which would knock out the ottomans and allow them to supply russia. The attack failed"
Never did it say anything about germany's decreasing economy.

WW2 i know russia created its own tank. Nothing special unlike the Tiger mark II which was superior to the US sherman tank and the soviet T-180.
Another quote, but i cant find one that said anything like russia caused the allied victory. All it said was russia halted the advance at the bloodiest battle, stalingrad. Nothing else. But it did say was adolf declared war on US but know one knows why and blame it on ignorance.

Again I quote now this is for WW1 "The prospect of fighting against millions of freshly trained, well fed. and well armed amreicans finally did them in"
"Britain and france tried to break the stale mate by attackiing the dardanelles which would knock out the ottomans and allow them to supply russia. The attack failed"
Never did it say anything about germany's decreasing economy.

WW2 i know russia created its own tank. Nothing special unlike the Tiger mark II which was superior to the US sherman tank and the soviet T-180.
Another quote, but i cant find one that said anything like russia caused the allied victory. All it said was russia halted the advance at the bloodiest battle, stalingrad. Nothing else. But it did say was adolf declared war o
n US but know one knows why and blame it on ignorance.

No historian would write so clumsily. They really wouldn't, that's BS you typed on the spot.

You still have yet to give an exceptable quote from a reliable source. Could it be because there was none? The only thing i found correct was
WW1 britain managed to keep germany to 1 port
WW2 RAF defeated laffeuta (spelt wrong isnt it?)

You still have yet to give an exceptable quote from a reliable source. Could it be because there was none? The only thing i found correct was
WW1 britain managed to keep germany to 1 port
WW2 RAF defeated laffeuta (spelt wrong isnt it?)

Yes...but I don't believe you're any authority at all on the subject, so why should I humour you? And your sources were hardly acceptable.

No historian would write so clumsily. They really wouldn't, that's BS you typed on the spot.

Then why dont you search for the book i quoted it from. I believe i wrote the title on the last page. Since they write the exam for college courses i hope they did get the write information from historians.

Yes...but I don't believe you're any authority at all on the subject, so why should I humour you? And your sources were hardly acceptable.

Hardly exceptable? HA HA HA HA. Are you saying that since you cant handle the fact that you are wrong?

Hardly exceptable? HA HA HA HA. Are you saying that since you cant handle the fact that you are wrong?

American college courses. Not to be trusted, as far as I am concerned. Funny how I'm not actually bothered by your opinion at all, since I am well informed on the subject. Tell me, how do you believe WW1 started? America wasn't around to prevent it? HAH poppycock. It's people like you who uphold ignorance to suit their own nation's opinions that I hate.

American college courses. Not to be trusted, as far as I am concerned. Funny how I'm not actually bothered by your opinion at all, since I am well informed on the subject. Tell me, how do you believe WW1 started? America wasn't around to prevent it? HAH poppycock. It's people like you who uphold ignorance to suit their own nation's opinions that I hate.

I dont like america (second time stated on this forum).
WW1 was caused by growth of nationalism, the assasination of the archduke (i think he was ferdinand) of austria, alliances, the fact that serbia and russia were both slavic and (almost forgot) Serbia did not comply with Austria's demands. US illegally entered the war on the neutral side at the beginning by selling arms to a side of the war which was against the laws of neutrality. Serbia assassinated the guy because of its dream to be greater Serbia, Austria retaliated when its demands were not met, russia thought it had a duty to help a slavic country since it was the biggest slavic country, Germany realized that it had to defend austria, france was pissed off at germany since the franco-prussian war, belgium was invaded by germany to get to france, great britain joined since germany broke the treaty that made belgium a country, and america (US) officially entered since the british ship was sunk during unrestricted unterseeboot warfare which held US passengers. Some where which i dont know or care italy entered on the side of the allies and the ottoman empire entered on the side of the central powers.

American college courses. Not to be trusted, as far as I am concerned. Funny how I'm not actually bothered by your opinion at all, since I am well informed on the subject. Tell me, how do you believe WW1 started? America wasn't around to prevent it? HAH poppycock. It's people like you who uphold ignorance to suit their own nation's opinions that I hate.

What you write seems to be written during the cold war by the Soviets.

So I used lazy for incorrect, no I think that you dont know science well do you?

Ill explain it simply trying not to directly insult you which is pretty hard

There is this thing called a virtual pair. What is a virtual pair you may ask, well it is a simple thing that is an atom of matter and an atom of antimatter that normally annihilate eachother right away. This leads to the developement of how to destroy black holes and i think it is call mccarthy's radiation theory but i am not sure. Well anyway, when a stray antimatter or matter particle doesnt annihilate the other then you have two new particles.

It is simple to destroy matter, much simplier then the creation. First you take a piece of matter of any mass you want. Then you take an equal mass of a-matter and it will annihilate the matter particle. Both get destroyed permanently, then one of three things happens. The things are:
A) It releases electromagnetic energy (I forgot but it is probably somthing similar that starts with an e)
B) It creates a new matter particle
C) It creates a new antimatter particle
What everyone happens, annihilation releases an enourmous amount of energy.
Na isotope 22 naturally eminates positrons which is an anti electron
Some other elements decay by releasing positrons
Antihydrogen was made


You've missed one of the fundemental concepts of physics.

E = MC^2

Matter is, according to einstein, condensed energy.

When antimatter and matter are combined, the energy (an enormous ammount, MC^2) is released.

No energy is created or destroyed, and by extension no matter is created or destroyed.

The problem with many mistaken ideas about the big bang is that there was a "time before" the big bang when the energy it released did not exist, or that it existed in concentration *relative to something else.*