Lord and Saviour ?

[going_home]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mkPa8v5p5mY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>




http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/the-truth.jpg




Barely a blip on any news.

If this was mocking islam what do you think would have happened ?

If this was the other political party what do you think would have happened ?

Just my two cents but it looks to me like theres coming some very dark days ahead, very soon.


:(

[Interceptor]

Why are you suprised? Remember that youtube video from the first election of all the celebs pledging their support fot BO? They stated that we should pledge to be better servants to Obama. Here it is:
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/pTQawLBC59g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Last I checked the president was the servant to the people, not the other way around.

My plan is to get all my debt paid off, stock up on supplies, food, ammo, medical, and weapons, and try to get my family through the next four years, and hopefully have a country left afterwards.

[cockerpunk]

if the economy tanks, and we go into hyper inflation, debt would be a good thing. just sayin'

[skipdogg]

Trying to insert logic into an illogical situation will make you go crazy. Just ride it out, and it will come to pass like all things. Continue to be a good, normal, responsible person, and it will leave some hope that this country can figure it out as a whole again one day. But dont hold your breath :rolleyes:

[DarkApollo]

Who cares..? Seriously. Who cares.

[going_home]

Who cares..? Seriously. Who cares.

That's the point.
Why don't you put something on YouTube or the internet mocking muslims.
See if you don't get death threats.

:argh:

[blacklegionfreak]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mkPa8v5p5mY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>




http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/the-truth.jpg




Barely a blip on any news.

If this was mocking islam what do you think would have happened ?

If this was the other political party what do you think would have happened ?

Just my two cents but it looks to me like theres coming some very dark days ahead, very soon.


:(


Agreed... dark days that have been in the making for a long, long time.

[MAGgot]

Agreed... dark days that have been in the making for a long, long time.

Poor persecuted christians. Gimme a break.

[Dayspring]

Anybody think that perhaps Jamie Foxx was making a joke?

[cockerpunk]

Anybody think that perhaps Jamie Foxx was making a joke?

only Limbaugh makes jokes. everyone else is dead serious all the time.

[DarkApollo]

That's the point.
Why don't you put something on YouTube or the internet mocking muslims.
See if you don't get death threats.

:argh:

It is my First Ammendment right to say anything about anything or anyone.
So again. Who cares. If you are just so easily offended by everything you are more then welcome to find a place to live where everyone coddles to your emotional instabilities. I hear China is nice. Everyone must conform to a communistic ideal and free thought is taboo.

If you make a Church of the Fonz and praise Henry Winkler, you will upset people. You will also get people who will follow you. If you need a 2000 year old book that is based on pegan rituals to tell you how to behave like a good human in society than I believe you have more to worry about than what Jamie Foxx has to say.

By 'YOU' I am not making a personal attack, it is a blanket 'YOU' directed at any one who fits the description.

[Lohman446]

Are we attempting to defend people who say something about someone from people who say something about them by saying that people have the right to say something about someone and somehow place the blame back on the second person?

Person A says something bad about person B
Person C says something bad about person A because they said something mean.
Person D says something bad about person C because they said something mean about person A and defends person A noting they have the right to say something mean

The logic (or lack of) it takes at this point is baffling me.

[blacklegionfreak]

Poor persecuted christians. Gimme a break.


I never said anything about christians being persecuted. They have a right to say whatever they want and I whole-heartedly support that, because that same amendment is what sustains my right to respond in whatever verbal manner I want. But what people choose to joke about is a good indication of who they are. And I think dark days are coming, not sure exactly whats gonna happen but its about time america had a reality check and sooner or later it will get one- I hope its nothing too horrible. Im not trying to instigate an "internet-onslaught" or anything but I figured I owe you my opinion. Think what you will and I will think what I will. :cheers:



btw, If it comes to persecution I will remember this:

“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. 21 They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the one who sent me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. Whoever hates me hates my Father as well. If I had not done among them the works no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. As it is, they have seen, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.’"- John 15:18-25

[Interceptor]

Atheists keep targeting christians for harrassment and law suits over crosses and the ten commandments, yet they ignore muslims and their crap. There is only one group that is actively blowing up things, and its not the christians, buddists, or hindus. Islam is evil to the core. Its all about control. But then athiests never seem to spread it around very well. They are only concerned with stopping christians.

The muslims are crying victim whenever someone says something bad about them but are actively working to get their laws passed and enforced over the rest of us. They are trying to get the UN to pass laws against antimuslim speech. Some of you need to stop with your stupid little coexist bumper stickers and wake up.

[blacklegionfreak]

Atheists keep targeting christians for harrassment and law suits over crosses and the ten commandments, yet they ignore muslims and their crap. There is only one group that is actively blowing up things, and its not the christians, buddists, or hindus. Islam is evil to the core. Its all about control. But then athiests never seem to spread it around very well. They are only concerned with stopping christians.

The muslims are crying victim whenever someone says something bad about them but are actively working to get their laws passed and enforced over the rest of us. They are trying to get the UN to pass laws against antimuslim speech. Some of you need to stop with your stupid little coexist bumper stickers and wake up.


:hail:

[cockerpunk]

Atheists keep targeting christians for harrassment and law suits over crosses and the ten commandments, yet they ignore muslims and their crap. There is only one group that is actively blowing up things, and its not the christians, buddists, or hindus. Islam is evil to the core. Its all about control. But then athiests never seem to spread it around very well. They are only concerned with stopping christians.

The muslims are crying victim whenever someone says something bad about them but are actively working to get their laws passed and enforced over the rest of us. They are trying to get the UN to pass laws against antimuslim speech. Some of you need to stop with your stupid little coexist bumper stickers and wake up.

our argument is not with the ten commandments or or crosses. you can display those on your private property all you want. the issue is when government supports and endorses religion. this is unconstitutional. for claiming to want liberals and atheists to read the constitution, you should try reading amendment number 1. the state cannot endorse religion. that means no ten commandments in front of courthouses, no public schools leading prayers, etc etc etc

when Muslims are trying to put there religious laws and symbols on our books, we will protest them just as hard as when you do it. i am for example, very very much against anti-anti-muslim laws, i have personally been a participant in both draw Muhammad days for example.

all religion is about control, all religion is evil at its core. the only way to be free, is to be free from religion.

[Lohman446]

all religion is about control, all religion is evil at its core. the only way to be free, is to be free from religion.

I cannot disagree more. The core value of the vast majority of religions are positive values. Its people that have used religion for selfish and evil means that have harmed them. Religion can be enlightening and uplifting - often you just need to seperate the religion from the institution.

[cockerpunk]

I cannot disagree more. The core value of the vast majority of religions are positive values. Its people that have used religion for selfish and evil means that have harmed them. Religion can be enlightening and uplifting - often you just need to seperate the religion from the institution.

the core values of all western religion is a worship of authority. this is antithetical to freedom.

[Lohman446]

the core values of all western religion is a worship of authority. this is antithetical to freedom.

Arguable. Christ gave a single command in John 13:34. There are reasonable arguments that point out this may have been intended to replace Mosaic law.

Is that as most institutions teach Christianity? Not always and perhaps not often. The teachings of Christ have been hammered into something else by various institutions but we are discussing the core values and teachings. In fact the more I look at the writings about Christ the more I find that he questioned authoirty openly and often.

I don't accept the sound byte argument. From either side. You have also adjusted your argument. Is your argument that control is evil? Are the two biconditionally equivilant?

[cockerpunk]

Arguable. Christ gave a single command in John 13:34. There are reasonable arguments that point out this may have been intended to replace Mosaic law.

Is that as most institutions teach Christianity? Not always and perhaps not often. The teachings of Christ have been hammered into something else by various institutions but we are discussing the core values and teachings. In fact the more I look at the writings about Christ the more I find that he questioned authoirty openly and often.

I don't accept the sound byte argument. From either side. You have also adjusted your argument. Is your argument that control is evil? Are the two biconditionally equivilant?

i do not disagree that religion has been and will always be distorted. this is why it is so dangerous, it can and has been used to justify anything you want to justify. but the core belief of all western religions is that we are subject to an authority, god. whether we want to be or not, because he created us, he has authority over us.

this is the exact opposite of the foundation of democracy, where we consent to be governed. locke's natural man, a man who was not created by god, and thus is TOTALLY free. subject to only the authorities he gives consent to.

these two ideas cannot co-exist.

[Lohman446]

because he created us, he has authority over us.

Are you certain this must be true? I will grant my own person philosophy borrows from Hinduism as much as Christianity but I think you are mistaken in that premise.

Creation of a being is not biconditionally equivilant to having authority over said being. Does a parent have authority over their competent adult child? If you created, in the lab, a sentient being would you have authority over it?

[cockerpunk]

Are you certain this must be true? I will grant my own person philosophy borrows from Hinduism as much as Christianity but I think you are mistaken in that premise.

Creation of a being is not biconditionally equivilant to having authority over said being. Does a parent have authority over their competent adult child? If you created, in the lab, a sentient being would you have authority over it?

that is the premise of all western religions. we will all be judged when we die, and by him won't we? means he has authority over us. we do not consent to that authority, it is in our nature, as his creations.

[Lohman446]

that is the premise of all western religions. we will all be judged when we die, and by him won't we? means he has authority over us. we do not consent to that authority, it is in our nature, as his creations.

Actually concepts such as universal salvation argue that mankind has been spared such judgement and they are a component of some religions

If that authority exists is it evil? I am bound by the principles of physics (ie I cannot fly unaided). Does this make those principles evil?

[cockerpunk]

Actually concepts such as universal salvation argue that mankind has been spared such judgement and they are a component of some religions

If that authority exists is it evil? I am bound by the principles of physics (ie I cannot fly unaided). Does this make those principles evil?

well that's fine if we are all forgiven our sins, and saved by the "grace of god" or whatever. that is just further license to do anything you wan to. if you are forgiven, then there are no consequences to breaking gods moral code. not the only "short circuit" through christian dogma mind you, just like the classic, hilter was baptized, the jews he murdered by the millions were not. which ones went to heaven? example question to illustrate the point. if we are all forgiven no matter what, then the entire discussion is rendered moot. lets not forget also that the bible explicitly states there is an unforgivable sin - blasphemy. does this mean that i will go to hell (frequent blasphemer) while hilter (not a blasphemer) will be forgiven?

i did not say authority is evil, i said that non-consensual authority means we are not free.

[Lohman446]

i did not say authority is evil, i said that non-consensual authority means we are not free.

Ok. Let me ask the reasoning for the following then:



all religion is about control, all religion is evil at its core. the only way to be free, is to be free from religion.

I disagreed that all religion is evil at its core. Are you saying that I misinterperted your position that all religion is evil at its core? If it is not the authority why is all religion evil

[Ando]

You guys are boring the **** out of me

[cockerpunk]

Ok. Let me ask the reasoning for the following then:



I disagreed that all religion is evil at its core. Are you saying that I misinterperted your position that all religion is evil at its core? If it is not the authority why is all religion evil

i think ease at which religion can get people to stop thinking and feeling, is what makes religion evil.

morality is tough subject, and it takes a lot of time, thought and effort to try and do the right thing. religion short circuits this - here is a list! don't have to justify it, god said this is what is right, so do it. and that list ... changes ALL THE TIME. so its an arbitrary and easily manipulated list of right and wrong. and it has the backing of the creator of the universe.

this can be summed up by, the religious are afraid of what will happen when people think for themselves, the atheist is afraid when the don't think for themselves.

I believe, that when given the right information, people try to make the best decisions they can. this is why instead of short circuiting this ability to think and reason and feel, morality should be based on that.

second point:

if you seriously believe, that you are listening to, and talking to, and doing god's will - nothing should stop you. your family, your friends, the laws .... if you sincerely believe that you are doing the express will of the creator of the universe - that is an inherently dangerous idea.

so your argument could be "well, what if that idea is to justify and drive people to help each other"

well great, except helping each other does not need supernatural justification. you can see the results directly.

this can accuracy be summed up by the idea that good people will do good with or without religious justification, but for good people to do evil: it takes religion.

[Lohman446]

i think ease at which religion can get people to stop thinking and feeling, is what makes religion evil.

morality is tough subject, and it takes a lot of time, thought and effort to try and do the right thing. religion short circuits this - here is a list! don't have to justify it, god said this is what is right, so do it. and that list ... changes ALL THE TIME. so its an arbitrary and easily manipulated list of right and wrong. and it has the backing of the creator of the universe.

this can be summed up by, the religious are afraid of what will happen when people think for themselves, the atheist is afraid when the don't think for themselves.

I believe, that when given the right information, people try to make the best decisions they can. this is why instead of short circuiting this ability to think and reason and feel, morality should be based on that.

second point:

if you seriously believe, that you are listening to, and talking to, and doing god's will - nothing should stop you. your family, your friends, the laws .... if you sincerely believe that you are doing the express will of the creator of the universe - that is an inherently dangerous idea.

so your argument could be "well, what if that idea is to justify and drive people to help each other"

well great, except helping each other does not need supernatural justification. you can see the results directly.

this can accuracy be summed up by the idea that good people will do good with or without religious justification, but for good people to do evil: it takes religion.

I think you attempted an argument of verbosity.

Your statement was that all religion is, at its core, evil. We have adjusted the argument so that authority is not the reason it is evil. Is your argument now that religion causes people to do evil and is thus evil? I don't agree with this. Atrocities are committed by both religious and non-religious people.

Your first point addresses the institutions of religion - not religion itself.

I don't agree that religion, let alone all religion, is evil. I don't see your argument that it is as being very robust.

[cockerpunk]

I think you attempted an argument of verbosity.

Your statement was that all religion is, at its core, evil. We have adjusted the argument so that authority is not the reason it is evil. Is your argument now that religion causes people to do evil and is thus evil? I don't agree with this. Atrocities are committed by both religious and non-religious people.

Your first point addresses the institutions of religion - not religion itself.

I don't agree that religion, let alone all religion, is evil. I don't see your argument that it is as being very robust.

all religion at its core is evil, because it stops people from thinking. it short circuits there ability to reason and solve problems, and do good for the sake of good.

the non-religious do commit crimes and atrocities, but they also don't justify there crimes and atrocities with there non-religion. they make no qualms with the pure selfishness of those terrible acts. religion gives those crimes and acts a veneer of legitimacy.

my first point applies to a much larger group then just the institution of religion.

religion and faith itself makes a virtue out of not thinking. this is inherently evil in and of itself.

[Lohman446]

all religion at its core is evil, because it stops people from thinking. it short circuits there ability to reason and solve problems, and do good for the sake of good. .

I think you are wrong.

I can name religions that encouraged the use of logic, reason, and conscious (Unitarian Universalism, Unitarianism before that).

As universal salvation (a tenent of some religions) argued that salvation was already attained the "bribery" to do good was gone and doing good was done for its own sake.

Has religion been used for evil purposes? Sure it has. So have swords and guns. So has government. That does not make the instrument evil. Even if you could argue successfully that some religions were evil I do not think you could make the argument that it applied to all.

[Lohman446]

Maybe our disagreement is one of definition. What do you define religion as?

[Interceptor]

The problem with arguing with CP is that he keeps moving t he goal posts. You try to nail him doen to one thing and he starts with something else. Its fun to watch.

[cockerpunk]

I think you are wrong.

I can name religions that encouraged the use of logic, reason, and conscious (Unitarian Universalism, Unitarianism before that).

As universal salvation (a tenent of some religions) argued that salvation was already attained the "bribery" to do good was gone and doing good was done for its own sake.

Has religion been used for evil purposes? Sure it has. So have swords and guns. So has government. That does not make the instrument evil. Even if you could argue successfully that some religions were evil I do not think you could make the argument that it applied to all.

arguably you are correct, for instance you can be a Buddhist and atheist at the same time. Buddhism does not require one to believe in a deity.

while i think the eastern religions and paganism are silly if they include the super-natural, they are not inherently evil either as long as they do not force authority on man. they do not conflict with reason in there pursuit of truth.

in fact there it is. i believe any religion that conflicts with empiricism and rationalism in its pursuit of truth, is inherently evil. this means that any western religion, and some eastern religions, and the only ones that don't fall under that umbrella, its hard to make a serious case for them being 1. relevant to the discussion at hand and 2. religions at all. so with that we can then circle back around to "all religions* are evil"

and again, to the greater point: you still can't be free if you believe in an authority greater then man.

[Lohman446]

arguably you are correct, for instance you can be a Buddhist and atheist at the same time. Buddhism does not require one to believe in a deity.

while i think the eastern religions and paganism are silly if they include the super-natural, they are not inherently evil either as long as they do not force authority on man. they do not conflict with reason in there pursuit of truth.

in fact there it is. i believe any religion that conflicts with empiricism and rationalism in its pursuit of truth, is inherently evil. this means that any western religion, and some eastern religions, and the only ones that don't fall under that umbrella, its hard to make a serious case for them being 1. relevant to the discussion at hand and 2. religions at all. so with that we can then circle back around to "all religions* are evil"

and again, to the greater point: you still can't be free if you believe in an authority greater then man.

So anything that restricts freedom is evil? I thought we just got done with the discussion and concluded that it was not the authority that made it evil.

Universal salvation is a Christan doctrine dating back at least to the German Dunkers

[Flatliner333]

There are people in every "religion" and organization who try to manipulate others to benifit themselves in some way. There are also people involved who are not trying to help themeselves but are trying to help others and by doing so are pleasing their maker.
To Believe or not believe in a higher power is your choice and this is the basis of "Faith".
Some people will only know the truth in the very end. Many people are hyped up and scared about the end of days. Some people are preparing to survive the end of days. Some people have already prepared themselves for the end by the way they have lived up until that point.
I believe this is why some people are worried and some are not. As for me... I AINT Skeered.

[cockerpunk]

So anything that restricts freedom is evil? I thought we just got done with the discussion and concluded that it was not the authority that made it evil.

Universal salvation is a Christan doctrine dating back at least to the German Dunkers

no, again stop putting words in my mouth. i never said that.

[Lohman446]

no, again stop putting words in my mouth. i never said that.

Ok then. Why is all religion evil?

[cockerpunk]

Ok then. Why is all religion evil?

you can re-read my posts, i already defined it really quite well.

[Lohman446]

you can re-read my posts, i already defined it really quite well.

No you did not. From what I read you argued it was their authoritarianism that made them evil but you are denying that authoritarianism is evil. Thus your premise is flawed

[cockerpunk]

No you did not. From what I read you argued it was their authoritarianism that made them evil but you are denying that authoritarianism is evil. Thus your premise is flawed

nowhere have i argued that authority is necessarily evil.

[Lohman446]

nowhere have i argued that authority is necessarily evil.

But you stated religion was evil. When asked why you cited authoritarianism. Now you say authority is not evil. So why is religion evil if its not authority?

[cockerpunk]

But you stated religion was evil. When asked why you cited authoritarianism. Now you say authority is not evil. So why is religion evil if its not authority?

i explained why i think all religions* are evil.

i did not cite authority as the reason they are evil. i cited natural authority as the reason religion and freedom are antithetical.

[OPBN]

Atheists keep targeting christians for harrassment and law suits over crosses and the ten commandments, yet they ignore muslims and their crap. There is only one group that is actively blowing up things, and its not the christians, buddists, or hindus. Islam is evil to the core. Its all about control. But then athiests never seem to spread it around very well. They are only concerned with stopping christians.

The muslims are crying victim whenever someone says something bad about them but are actively working to get their laws passed and enforced over the rest of us. They are trying to get the UN to pass laws against antimuslim speech. Some of you need to stop with your stupid little coexist bumper stickers and wake up.
I think you would find that atheists would be equally offended at Islamic symbols being present at publicly funded facilities as well. I have yet to hear of a case where any such thing has occurred here in the U.S. , so it is sort of a moot argument. And atheists are not about stopping Christians, they are simply asking that they not be subjected to religous symbolism in publicly funded places such as courthouses, schools, etc. I dont see how this is an arguable issue? Now if an atheist were filing a lawsuit against a local church for say a 40foot statue of Jesus in front of their church, I would find that absurd as it is on church property. A statehouse or courthouse is not church property and should not be subject to having these types of biased religious artilcles present for a society that pays for it and may or may not be of that religion. How you would feel as a tax payer to have your tax dollars spent on a big statue of Buddha in the middle of your local courthouse is probably akin to how an atheist feels about the ten commandments being displayed in that same courthouse.

And while I do find the Coexist bumper stickers somewhat laughable since it is typically in a religions favor to try and convert other religions to their beliefs, it is directed at EVERYONE. It isnt directed at only Christians, It is directed at all religions to attempt to coexist with all other religions. Think about how much less fighting there would be in the world if we all just stopped killing our fellow man in the name of God. And before you argue it, Christians have killed just as many if not more Muslims throughout history than the other way around. Heck, in the last century, "Christians" killed 6+ million Jews. How tolerant is that?

[Lohman446]

i explained why i think all religions* are evil.

i did not cite authority as the reason they are evil. i cited natural authority as the reason religion and freedom are antithetical.

Natural authority must occur naturally if it exists. Like gravity if it exists it exists as a natural state

[Lohman446]

i do not disagree that religion has been and will always be distorted. this is why it is so dangerous, it can and has been used to justify anything you want to justify. but the core belief of all western religions is that we are subject to an authority, god. whether we want to be or not, because he created us, he has authority over us.

this is the exact opposite of the foundation of democracy, where we consent to be governed. locke's natural man, a man who was not created by god, and thus is TOTALLY free. subject to only the authorities he gives consent to.

these two ideas cannot co-exist.

Are you arguing that anything that interferes with John Lockes principles of natural rights (life, liberty and property) is evil?

[onedude36]

So... John Locke is your god?

[cockerpunk]

Natural authority must occur naturally if it exists. Like gravity if it exists it exists as a natural state

so then if you believe in authority by our very nature exists, then you cannot be free.

why is this a hard concept to grasp?


Are you arguing that anything that interferes with John Lockes principles of natural rights (life, liberty and property) is evil?

nope


So... John Locke is your god?

nope

[Lohman446]

I am having a hard time grasping how your conclusion "all religion is evil at its core" is supported by your premises. When I asked you why you went off about authoratarianism. I asked you if authoratarianism was evil. You stated no and then went on to talk about Locke's natural man. So now I am asking if interferring with the natural rights was evil. You state no.

So I am lost. You have not presented one premise that supports your conclusion. Effectively you are saying the answer is 4 and then supplying the formula 3+5.

If you believe authoratarianism is not evil and you believe interference with Locke's natural rights is not evil you have presented zero explanation for your conclusion that all religion is evil.

[cockerpunk]

I am having a hard time grasping how your conclusion "all religion is evil at its core" is supported by your premises. When I asked you why you went off about authoratarianism. I asked you if authoratarianism was evil. You stated no and then went on to talk about Locke's natural man. So now I am asking if interferring with the natural rights was evil. You state no.

So I am lost. You have not presented one premise that supports your conclusion. Effectively you are saying the answer is 4 and then supplying the formula 3+5.

If you believe authoratarianism is not evil and you believe interference with Locke's natural rights is not evil you have presented zero explanation for your conclusion that all religion is evil.

I already spoke to the reason why all religion* is evil. the sticky wicket is you seem to think that my point about freedom, and my point about evil are related. they are not. i already presented my reasoning why religion is evil - it stops people from thinking about actual issues by issuing them a cheat sheet to morality that comes with the notion that the creator of the universe wrote it. and it allows them to reject information and instead make decisions based on bronze age mythology. and my second point: that if you believe that when we die our lives will be judged by a deity of some type, this is in direct opposition to freedom. these two points are not really related, at least at the depth we have so far gone in our conversation.

[Lohman446]

I already spoke to the reason why all religion* is evil. the sticky wicket is you seem to think that my point about freedom, and my point about evil are related. they are not. i already presented my reasoning why religion is evil - it stops people from thinking about actual issues by issuing them a cheat sheet to morality that comes with the notion that the creator of the universe wrote it. and it allows them to reject information and instead make decisions based on bronze age mythology. and my second point: that if you believe that when we die our lives will be judged by a deity of some type, this is in direct opposition to freedom. these two points are not really related, at least at the depth we have so far gone in our conversation.

Point 1: Unitarian Universalism specifically upholds free thought and reason as vital to the human experience. Universalism before that did. Because your argument involves "all" a single counterpoint renders it invalid. Besides I still don't see how that is evil. Is anything that does not promote the free and concious thought process evil? Is the method of teaching multiplication tables (which relies on memorization rather than learning the process) evil because it does not teach the logical process and as such simply supplied a mental cheat sheet? If your justification for the argument that religion is evil is that it supplies moral principles without the user concluding on those principles themselves I find it to be a poor argument. I think one would have to further show that those principles that it supplied were incorrect to continue that line of reasoning.

Point 2: I don't understand how judgement alone makes something evil. Are you saying the court systems are evil for judging people? Are you saying all opposition to freedom is evil?

As an interesting aside what is the source of morality then? Is it Mill's principle of autonomy, the harm thereom, utilitarianism, Locke's natural rights? Something else?

[cockerpunk]

Point 1: Unitarian Universalism specifically upholds free thought and reason as vital to the human experience. Universalism before that did. Because your argument involves "all" a single counterpoint renders it invalid. Besides I still don't see how that is evil. Is anything that does not promote the free and concious thought process evil? Is the method of teaching multiplication tables (which relies on memorization rather than learning the process) evil because it does not teach the logical process and as such simply supplied a mental cheat sheet? If your justification for the argument that religion is evil is that it supplies moral principles without the user concluding on those principles themselves I find it to be a poor argument. I think one would have to further show that those principles that it supplied were incorrect to continue that line of reasoning.

Point 2: I don't understand how judgement alone makes something evil. Are you saying the court systems are evil for judging people? Are you saying all opposition to freedom is evil?

As an interesting aside what is the source of morality then? Is it Mill's principle of autonomy, the harm thereom, utilitarianism, Locke's natural rights? Something else?

point 1: already dealt with this. this is why since that post i have been using the term "religion*"

point 2: no one is saying judgement alone makes something evil. just that if we are by our nature subject to an authority then we cannot be free. a court is not an example of this either, because we consent to be governed, and are free to leave if we wish. if we are judged by god when we die, we do not consent to this, its is in our nature, thus the difference.

[Lohman446]

Ok. So point two had nothing to do with the concept that religion was evil?

[cockerpunk]

Ok. So point two had nothing to do with the concept that religion was evil?

nope, just what i have been saying for 2 pages, that authoritative religion, and freedom are antithetical concepts. one cannot be free if one is naturally subject to an authority.

[Lohman446]

nope, just what i have been saying for 2 pages, that authoritative religion, and freedom are antithetical concepts. one cannot be free if one is naturally subject to an authority.

I assumed since you said it in response to the question as to why religion was evil in your mind it had to do with being an answer rather than some random off topic statement.

[Lohman446]

I think you are down to the argument that religion is evil because it stands to state morality rather than allowing individuals to come to conclusions on morality on their own through logic and reason. Is that true?

[cockerpunk]

I think you are down to the argument that religion is evil because it stands to state morality rather than allowing individuals to come to conclusions on morality on their own through logic and reason. Is that true?

its because people, when given good and accurate information, tend to make pretty decent decisions.

and it turns out, we have a lot more accurate and just simply a lot more information then bronze age shepherds had.

[Lohman446]

its because people, when given good and accurate information, tend to make pretty decent decisions.

and it turns out, we have a lot more accurate and just simply a lot more information then bronze age shepherds had.

What information do we have today that we did not have a thousand years ago on the morality of killing another person that are readily available and used by individuals (ie psychological measurements of the dangers to psychological health of killing another human on the murderer do not count)?

[cockerpunk]

What information do we have today that we did not have a thousand years ago on the morality of killing another person that are readily available and used by individuals (ie psychological measurements of the dangers to psychological health of killing another human on the murderer do not count)?

murder is a moral issue we wrestle with today? that one was settled a nice long time ago, and new information has not cropped up in that department for a nice long time. the closest i can come to an "issue" with murder would be Nuremberg trials or my lai, if following orders absolves from a moral imperative not to do something. if new information does crop up, i'd love to see it, and if it disagrees with something we think we "know" right now, i'll be the first to change my mind.

murder is a terrible example, its hard to think of an "issue" with murder. how about stem cell research? or even more basic, and to highlight another great moral issue (situationality): should you jump into a river to save someone drowning?

[Lohman446]

murder is a terrible example, its hard to think of an "issue" with murder. how about stem cell research? or even more basic, and to highlight another great moral issue (situationality): should you jump into a river to save someone drowning?

I did not know religion answered this question with its great moral authority. What moral authority that religion takes are you at issue with?

And it depends who that person is. As I have no moral bond requiring action for most people the answer is likely no. Nor am I told, by most religions, that I have such a moral requirement.

And I mean religion - not the institution of religion. I mean the religion

[cockerpunk]

I did not know religion answered this question with its great moral authority.

And it depends who that person is. As I have no moral bond requiring action for most people the answer is likely no. Nor am I told, by most religions, that I have such a moral requirement.

that situation merely highlights the situational nature of morality. the devil is in the details often times. this is another grip i have with religious mandates, they are always in rock solid generalities, when often, what is moral is time or situationally dependent.

should you jump into the river? idk, depends on a lot of things. how far out are they? how well do you swim? how rough is the water? is there any other way to help them? how old are they? how capable of a swimmer are they?

but if there was a religious mandate on the topic it would be something like: always save people in rivers

for example: abortion

should you get an abortion? idk, depends on a lot of things. this is a fun one because even the religious are split, based on situation of conception, danger of the pregnancy, etc etc etc. and even though the religious disagree, they still claim that there opinion is gods!

this is just another gripe about religious based morality. i have plenty if you want more :rofl: :cheers:

[Lohman446]

And your opinion is more valid than theirs because?

Remember that the religious restraint on abortion is based on the premise that life begins at conception. You may disagree with this premise but I don't think that said disagreement makes you, or religion, evil.

[cockerpunk]

And your opinion is more valid than theirs because?

Remember that the religious restraint on abortion is based on the premise that life begins at conception. You may disagree with this premise but I don't think that said disagreement makes you, or religion, evil.

who's opinion is more valid then whom's on what topic?

and to the second point: i think it does. if you just say "life begins at conception" without reason or justification, then you are committing that evil which i have spoke about many times here in this thread. also, still doesn't absolve you of the issue of other folks, who even claim to worship the same god, are ok with abortions in some cases. and if you equate abortion to murder, that is like saying you are ok with murder, in some cases. it merely gets more nonsensical the farther down that subject line you go. that phase also is not defined well. what is "life?"

here is another moral issue with religion, i like to call it calvin and hobbs christmas issue

calvin always deals with wanting to do good, because he wants to get what he wants for christmas. so calvin wants to do good things, for all the wrong reasons. he wants to do good, for a reward.

this is why the notion of heaven and hell destroy morality. if you are merely doing what you do because you will go to heaven, that is a terrible reason to do "good," you are just acting selfishly, not properly. and if you are avoiding doing "bad" things to avoid going to hell, that means you are just acting under threat.

this is why in so many arguments, theists will threaten you with hell.

the truly moral person does good for the sake of good, and avoids evil because of the consequences of it. not because he/she is being rewarded or punished for there actions.

[Lohman446]

I am ok with murder in some cases. The law references it as justifiable homicide. You demand to know someones motivation to judge action. Why? Is a good action less good based on motivation?

[Lohman446]

Here is an interesting thought. If one defines Christianity as the following of Christ's example Christ questioned those who would use religion to demand moral authority. At this level I do not see how the religion based on his example can be evil by your definition

[cockerpunk]

I am ok with murder in some cases. The law references it as justifiable homicide. You demand to know someones motivation to judge action. Why? Is a good action less good based on motivation?

motive is important sometimes, other times it is not. such are the details of morality.


Here is an interesting thought. If one defines Christianity as the following of Christ's example Christ questioned those who would use religion to demand moral authority. At this level I do not see how the religion based on his example can be evil by your definition

that would be be great, if that was how Christians dealt with morality. i would argue however, using Jesus as your justification to question is in an of itself, another authority argument. this is like the classic line i find so very very annoying "cockerpunk says this ..."

it should be irreverent who says what, only why it is important or accurate matters.

also, spending merely a minute int he bible, Jesus breaks that rule many many many many times. such is the reality of a document written by men 50-200 years after said events were supposed to take place by men who never even knew each other, and then voted on 900 years later as to what was important enough to make the cut.

[Ando]

if you are merely doing what you do because you will go to heaven, that is a terrible reason to do "good," you are just acting selfishly, not properly. and if you are avoiding doing "bad" things to avoid going to hell, that means you are just acting under threat.

I brought this point up in another forum...and got kicked out :rofl:

The site owner didn't like my point of view nor my alter universe of how the world would be if those (what I like to call) "safe guards" weren't put in place for a select few people in this world.

[Lohman446]

also, spending merely a minute int he bible, Jesus breaks that rule many many many many times. such is the reality of a document written by men 50-200 years after said events were supposed to take place by men who never even knew each other, and then voted on 900 years later as to what was important enough to make the cut.

But at this point it is less about the religion and about how people use the religion. The council of Nicea was a council ON religion but it was a political council - a council intended to use religion to unite an empire (it failed). The religion in this case was not evil. We can argue if the use of the religion was or was not.

Religion is a tool. If it is used to justify good actions (feeding the poor because it is commanded by Allah) then it is being used positively. As long as the action is done does motivation really matter? If it is used to justify negative actions (burning at the stake or the Calvinistic argument "I am here because God wants me here") then it is negative.

Religion is not inherently good or evil. For every point you may argue is evil I can argue a positive one. I can make the same discussions about the ethical principles of utilitarianism. While I personally see utilitarianism as extremely dangerous there are incidents where it is used for good.

[cockerpunk]

But at this point it is less about the religion and about how people use the religion. The council of Nicea was a council ON religion but it was a political council - a council intended to use religion to unite an empire (it failed). The religion in this case was not evil. We can argue if the use of the religion was or was not.

Religion is a tool. If it is used to justify good actions (feeding the poor because it is commanded by Allah) then it is being used positively. As long as the action is done does motivation really matter? If it is used to justify negative actions (burning at the stake or the Calvinistic argument "I am here because God wants me here") then it is negative.

Religion is not inherently good or evil. For every point you may argue is evil I can argue a positive one. I can make the same discussions about the ethical principles of utilitarianism. While I personally see utilitarianism as extremely dangerous there are incidents where it is used for good.

yes, religion is a tool, a tool for manipulation.

it is not a tool for finding truth, or making accurate predictions.

your entire last paragraph is merely assertion. you have proven no such "good" case that one cannot just skip a step (religion) and get to the same conclusion for actual reasons.

[Lohman446]

yes, religion is a tool, a tool for manipulation.

it is not a tool for finding truth, or making accurate predictions.

your entire last paragraph is merely assertion. you have proven no such "good" case that one cannot just skip a step (religion) and get to the same conclusion for actual reasons.

Can I not say the same for every philosophical theory or anything that builds on previous knowledge?

So is anything that can be used to manipulate someone evil?

[cockerpunk]

Can I not say the same for every philosophical theory or anything that builds on previous knowledge?

So is anything that can be used to manipulate someone evil?

the point is that anytime you try to justify good with religion, the real case for it being good is purely naturalistic. meanwhile, every time religion teaching people to do do bad, there are real costs to civilization, again, which can be determined naturalistically.

so why not skip a step? if we can already determine right and wrong using naturalism, why involve the supernatural and thus the temptation and ease by which it can manipulate otherwise reasonable and good people to do evil?

because people are intellectually lazy. the religious are intellectually lazy. if they weren't, they wouldn't be religious.

[Lohman446]

the point is that anytime you try to justify good with religion, the real case for it being good is purely naturalistic. meanwhile, every time religion teaching people to do do bad, there are real costs to civilization, again, which can be determined naturalistically.

so why not skip a step? if we can already determine right and wrong using naturalism, why involve the supernatural and thus the temptation and ease by which it can manipulate otherwise reasonable and good people to do evil?

because people are intellectually lazy. the religious are intellectually lazy. if they weren't, they wouldn't be religious.

Really. I would classify myself as religious. I would not classify myself as intellectually lazy. I would not classify the Jesuit's as either not religious or intellectually lazy either. I find the argument on your part offensive and extremely egotistical.

I'm not even certain naturalism can be used to argue morality. Regardless its not a philosophy you invented (unless we want to discuss reincarnation which I'm a fan of). As such you are using someone elses thoughts in an attempt to manipulate others concepts of morality - which I think would be evil by your definition.

If naturalism somehow becomes a moral argument are you back to arguing that interfering with Locke's natural man is evil? Because I thought we were passed this and you stated it wasn't the argument you were making

[cockerpunk]

Really. I would classify myself as religious. I would not classify myself as intellectually lazy. I find the argument on your part offensive and extremely egotistical.

I'm not even certain naturalism can be used to argue morality. Regardless its not a philosophy you invented (unless we want to discuss reincarnation which I'm a fan of). As such you are using someone elses thoughts in an attempt to manipulate others concepts of morality - which I think would be evil by your definition.

If naturalism somehow becomes a moral argument are you back to arguing that interfering with Locke's natural man is evil? Because I thought we were passed this and you stated it wasn't the argument you were making

nope, because i am not using authority to justify naturalism, i am using results. and of course all morality is derived from naturalism, because morality deals with real life actions, and there real world effects. all of this is simple naturalism.

locke's natural man is capable of both good and evil, he is free, he is by definition capable of both.

[Lohman446]

nope, because i am not using authority to justify naturalism, i am using results. and of course all morality is derived from naturalism, because morality deals with real life actions, and there real world effects. all of this is simple naturalism.

locke's natural man is capable of both good and evil, he is free, he is by definition capable of both.

Ok. But is interferring with Locke's natural man - ie manipulaiton - evil? Your major complaint with religion seems to be that it interferes with Locke's natural man through manipulation. My question is if this is what makes you conclude it is evil.

Edit: On another question: Did you honestly make the argument that Jesuit's by nature of being religious are intellectually lazy?

[cockerpunk]

Ok. But is interferring with Locke's natural man - ie manipulaiton - evil? Your major complaint with religion seems to be that it interferes with Locke's natural man through manipulation. My question is if this is what makes you conclude it is evil.

Edit: On another question: Did you honestly make the argument that Jesuit's by nature of being religious are intellectually lazy?

:facepalm:

i never said anything about interfering with the natural man being evil. at any point. in this entire thread. i said only that if you believe in an authority that by our very nature, we are subject to, then you cannot compromise that with the natural man, and thus cannot be free.

and, yes.

[Lohman446]

:facepalm:

i never said anything about interfering with the natural man being evil. at any point. in this entire thread. i said only that if you believe in an authority that by our very nature, we are subject to, then you cannot compromise that with the natural man, and thus cannot be free.

and, yes.

You said it in response to questions about why religion is evil. So that entire discussion had nothing to do with why relgiion was evil.

So why again is religion evil?

[cockerpunk]

You said it in response to questions about why religion is evil. So that entire discussion had nothing to do with why relgiion was evil.

So why again is religion evil?

read the thread. i did not say it in response to religion being evil.

talk about intellectually lazy, circles and circles and circles from you.

[Lohman446]

read the thread. i did not say it in response to religion being evil.

talk about intellectually lazy, circles and circles and circles from you.

Circles. I did not offer the conclusion that "all religions are evil" you did. I called you on it, disagreed, and asked you to explain why.

You went off about authoratarianism. When questioned you said this was not evil.

You went off about interfering with Locke's natural man. When asked if this was evil you said no.

So you offered the conclusion and then offered no support to it. When you did offer any discussion the discussion you offered would not make something evil according to you.

Then you attacked the intellect of anyone who was religion because you could not actually defend your first premise.

Lets take a little poll: Does anyone, besides CP himself, have any clue on why he thinks religion is evil based on the content of this thread?

[cockerpunk]

Circles. I did not offer the conclusion that "all religions are evil" you did. I called you on it, disagreed, and asked you to explain why.

You went off about authoratarianism. When questioned you said this was not evil.

You went off about interfering with Locke's natural man. When asked if this was evil you said no.

So you offered the conclusion and then offered no support to it. When you did offer any discussion the discussion you offered would not make something evil according to you.

Then you attacked the intellect of anyone who was religion because you could not actually defend your first premise.

Lets take a little poll: Does anyone, besides CP himself, have any clue on why he thinks religion is evil based on the content of this thread?

if you read the thread, it all becomes clear. you keep trying to make me defend something i never claimed. and then you say since i wont defend it i made a claim without support, but i never made the claim you think i did in the first place. religion is evil, for the reasons i cited, and if you believe in an authority that will judge us when we die, then you arn't free. i started with those claims, and have defended and support them. you have spent the entire thread trying to find a tiny hole either position to stick your finger in.

i also did not attack the intellect of the religious, i called them intellectually lazy. i would also call them intellectual cowards, none of which are akin to calling them stupid.

[Lohman446]

I'm not certain if you really are that full of yourself or if you are simply attempting to troll at this point. If you think you effectively communicated why you believe all religion is evil (and it had nothing to do with John Locke's natural man or authoratirianism) you are mistaken.

[cockerpunk]

I'm not certain if you really are that full of yourself or if you are simply attempting to troll at this point. If you think you effectively communicated why you believe all religion is evil (and it had nothing to do with John Locke's natural man or authoratirianism) you are mistaken.

i do think i have conveyed more then a few different ways that religion is evil. and i have not talked about authoritarianism at all. i have talked about how if you believe that we are all subject to an authority by our very nature of existing, then we can't be free. because, you know, logic and the definition of words.

if you are confused, then you need ask more probing questions, because its all well explained in the thread so far. you keep trying to make me defend something i never claimed, despite that for 3 pages i have been clarifying that exact point to you over and over again.

[Lohman446]

you keep trying to make me defend something i never claimed, despite that for 3 pages i have been clarifying that exact point to you over and over again.

You stated all religion was evil. You have yet to explain why. When you go into explanations and are asked does ____________ make it evil you say no.

So. Let me help

According to you all religion is evil because _________________________

Fill in the second blank.

[cockerpunk]

You stated all religion was evil. You have yet to explain why. When you go into explanations and are asked does ____________ make it evil you say no.

So. Let me help

According to you all religion is evil because _________________________

Fill in the second blank.


i do not disagree that religion has been and will always be distorted. this is why it is so dangerous, it can and has been used to justify anything you want to justify.


well that's fine if we are all forgiven our sins, and saved by the "grace of god" or whatever. that is just further license to do anything you wan to. if you are forgiven, then there are no consequences to breaking gods moral code. not the only "short circuit" through christian dogma mind you, just like the classic, hilter was baptized, the jews he murdered by the millions were not. which ones went to heaven? example question to illustrate the point. if we are all forgiven no matter what, then the entire discussion is rendered moot. lets not forget also that the bible explicitly states there is an unforgivable sin - blasphemy. does this mean that i will go to hell (frequent blasphemer) while hilter (not a blasphemer) will be forgiven?


i think ease at which religion can get people to stop thinking and feeling, is what makes religion evil.

morality is tough subject, and it takes a lot of time, thought and effort to try and do the right thing. religion short circuits this - here is a list! don't have to justify it, god said this is what is right, so do it. and that list ... changes ALL THE TIME. so its an arbitrary and easily manipulated list of right and wrong. and it has the backing of the creator of the universe.

this can be summed up by, the religious are afraid of what will happen when people think for themselves, the atheist is afraid when the don't think for themselves.

I believe, that when given the right information, people try to make the best decisions they can. this is why instead of short circuiting this ability to think and reason and feel, morality should be based on that.

second point:

if you seriously believe, that you are listening to, and talking to, and doing god's will - nothing should stop you. your family, your friends, the laws .... if you sincerely believe that you are doing the express will of the creator of the universe - that is an inherently dangerous idea.

so your argument could be "well, what if that idea is to justify and drive people to help each other"

well great, except helping each other does not need supernatural justification. you can see the results directly.

this can accuracy be summed up by the idea that good people will do good with or without religious justification, but for good people to do evil: it takes religion.


all religion at its core is evil, because it stops people from thinking. it short circuits there ability to reason and solve problems, and do good for the sake of good.

the non-religious do commit crimes and atrocities, but they also don't justify there crimes and atrocities with there non-religion. they make no qualms with the pure selfishness of those terrible acts. religion gives those crimes and acts a veneer of legitimacy.

my first point applies to a much larger group then just the institution of religion.

religion and faith itself makes a virtue out of not thinking. this is inherently evil in and of itself.


I already spoke to the reason why all religion* is evil. i already presented my reasoning why religion is evil - it stops people from thinking about actual issues by issuing them a cheat sheet to morality that comes with the notion that the creator of the universe wrote it. and it allows them to reject information and instead make decisions based on bronze age mythology.


that situation merely highlights the situational nature of morality. the devil is in the details often times. this is another grip i have with religious mandates, they are always in rock solid generalities, when often, what is moral is time or situationally dependent.

should you jump into the river? idk, depends on a lot of things. how far out are they? how well do you swim? how rough is the water? is there any other way to help them? how old are they? how capable of a swimmer are they?

but if there was a religious mandate on the topic it would be something like: always save people in rivers

for example: abortion

should you get an abortion? idk, depends on a lot of things. this is a fun one because even the religious are split, based on situation of conception, danger of the pregnancy, etc etc etc. and even though the religious disagree, they still claim that there opinion is gods!

this is just another gripe about religious based morality. i have plenty if you want more :rofl: :cheers:


here is another moral issue with religion, i like to call it calvin and hobbs christmas issue

calvin always deals with wanting to do good, because he wants to get what he wants for christmas. so calvin wants to do good things, for all the wrong reasons. he wants to do good, for a reward.

this is why the notion of heaven and hell destroy morality. if you are merely doing what you do because you will go to heaven, that is a terrible reason to do "good," you are just acting selfishly, not properly. and if you are avoiding doing "bad" things to avoid going to hell, that means you are just acting under threat.

this is why in so many arguments, theists will threaten you with hell.

the truly moral person does good for the sake of good, and avoids evil because of the consequences of it. not because he/she is being rewarded or punished for there actions.


yes, religion is a tool, a tool for manipulation.

it is not a tool for finding truth, or making accurate predictions.



the point is that anytime you try to justify good with religion, the real case for it being good is purely naturalistic. meanwhile, every time religion teaching people to do do bad, there are real costs to civilization, again, which can be determined naturalistically.

so why not skip a step? if we can already determine right and wrong using naturalism, why involve the supernatural and thus the temptation and ease by which it can manipulate otherwise reasonable and good people to do evil?

because people are intellectually lazy. the religious are intellectually lazy. if they weren't, they wouldn't be religious.

there are half a dozen reasons listed here, with multiple examples of each, and rebuttal to any counter claims.

[Lohman446]

i do not disagree that religion has been and will always be distorted. this is why it is so dangerous, it can and has been used to justify anything you want to justify.

Dangerous is not evil. Anything can be distorted by those willing to do so




So anything that can be distorted in a way to justify whatever the distorter wants is evil?




[quote=cockerpunk]
well that's fine if we are all forgiven our sins, and saved by the "grace of god" or whatever. that is just further license to do anything you wan to. if you are forgiven, then there are no consequences to breaking gods moral code. not the only "short circuit" through christian dogma mind you, just like the classic, hilter was baptized, the jews he murdered by the millions were not. which ones went to heaven? example question to illustrate the point. if we are all forgiven no matter what, then the entire discussion is rendered moot. lets not forget also that the bible explicitly states there is an unforgivable sin - blasphemy. does this mean that i will go to hell (frequent blasphemer) while hilter (not a blasphemer) will be forgiven?


If I was to concede the entire argument on this example (I don't) it would only be indicative of a single religion and surely not all





i think ease at which religion can get people to stop thinking and feeling, is what makes religion evil.

So anything that gives people a conclusion rather than making them think about it is evil?


second point:

if you seriously believe, that you are listening to, and talking to, and doing god's will - nothing should stop you. your family, your friends, the laws .... if you sincerely believe that you are doing the express will of the creator of the universe - that is an inherently dangerous idea.

so your argument could be "well, what if that idea is to justify and drive people to help each other"

well great, except helping each other does not need supernatural justification. you can see the results directly.

this can accuracy be summed up by the idea that good people will do good with or without religious justification, but for good people to do evil: it takes religion.

There are multiple points here. One that argues that a moral action is only just depending on intent. I can make a reasonable argument based on psychological theory that this line of reasoning presents its own problems. Brain scans indicate that when helping others pleasure portions of the brain are lit up - same thing happens when someone smiles at you or thanks you. Thus I can make an argument that it is psychological impossible to help someone without gaining something yourself.

As to the point of the constraints of society... it does not take religion to believe that what you are doing is right regardless of the laws of society.





all religion at its core is evil, because it stops people from thinking. it short circuits there ability to reason and solve problems, and do good for the sake of good.

the non-religious do commit crimes and atrocities, but they also don't justify there crimes and atrocities with there non-religion. they make no qualms with the pure selfishness of those terrible acts. religion gives those crimes and acts a veneer of legitimacy.

my first point applies to a much larger group then just the institution of religion.

religion and faith itself makes a virtue out of not thinking. this is inherently evil in and of itself.


So providing answers without forcing "valid" reasoning to achieve the conclusions is evil?

There are plenty of people who have justified their crimes and attrocities with something other than religion. Is whatever they use to justify those evil?




My point is this. You want to say evil is religion because of ______________. However you do not want to allow me to apply ___________ to making other things evil so argue those things are not evil.

[cockerpunk]

Dangerous is not evil. Anything can be distorted by those willing to do so

it is inherently dangerous, and thus evil

So anything that can be distorted in a way to justify whatever the distorter wants is evil?

no, and that counter point is already dealt with

If I was to concede the entire argument on this example (I don't) it would only be indicative of a single religion and surely not all

nope, all religions contain this logical assumption

So anything that gives people a conclusion rather than making them think about it is evil?

no, it gives them a conclusion based on what bronze age shepherds thought.

There are multiple points here. One that argues that a moral action is only just depending on intent. I can make a reasonable argument based on psychological theory that this line of reasoning presents its own problems. Brain scans indicate that when helping others pleasure portions of the brain are lit up - same thing happens when someone smiles at you or thanks you. Thus I can make an argument that it is psychological impossible to help someone without gaining something yourself.

cool, not a counter point. you are going to line that nice feeling you get when someone smiles at you to the promise of eternal paradise? that's just a few leaps and bounds different.

As to the point of the constraints of society... it does not take religion to believe that what you are doing is right regardless of the laws of society.

nope but it sure is an easy way to!

So providing answers without forcing "valid" reasoning to achieve the conclusions is evil?

yes, conclusions based on bronze age shepherds taken on faith are not valid.

There are plenty of people who have justified their crimes and attrocities with something other than religion. Is whatever they use to justify those evil?

yup, and that point is already dealt with in the post you quoted

My point is this. You want to say evil is religion because of ______________. However you do not want to allow me to apply ___________ to making other things evil so argue those things are not evil.

i can't help it that you want to apply what you think i say to something that i don't mean to say. that's not my problem.



^^^^^^

[Lohman446]

What logical assumption do all religions contain?

Are you now taking the position that dangerous is biconditionally equivilant to evil?

As to your "what bronze aged shepherds thought" comment. Antiquated is not the same as wrong. Many things in religion cannot be empirically tested. They are taken or rejected as a matter of faith. Many have held that logic and reason must be used in regards to that faith but in the end at least some tenents are accepted or rejected on faith.

[cockerpunk]

What logical assumption do all religions contain?

Are you now taking the position that dangerous is biconditionally equivilant to evil?

As to your "what bronze aged shepherds thought" comment. Antiquated is not the same as wrong. Many things in religion cannot be empirically tested. They are taken or rejected as a matter of faith. Many have held that logic and reason must be used in regards to that faith but in the end at least some tenents are accepted or rejected on faith.

all religions* contain the same factor of natural authority taken on faith alone.

no, i think people who think they are talking to god on a daily basis, who have control over the power to literally destroy the world, is not a pleasant state of affairs. do you trust folks that care so little about making sense they claim to speak to god, in control of nuclear weapons?

isnt that the exact reason why we so scared of dirty bomb threats and the like? irrational people in control of powerful weapons of destruction? isn't that the STATED reason someone in this very thread called islam evil? now who isn't applying there definitions broadly enough?

i already dealt with how much more and much more accurate our understanding of the world is from the bronze age.

are you even reading this stuff?

[Lohman446]

all religions* contain the same factor of natural authority taken on faith alone.

no, i think people who think they are talking to god on a daily basis, who have control over the power to literally destroy the world, is not a pleasant state of affairs. do you trust folks that care so little about making sense they claim to speak to god, in control of nuclear weapons?

isnt that the exact reason why we so scared of dirty bomb threats and the like? irrational people in control of powerful weapons of destruction? isn't that the STATED reason someone in this very thread called islam evil? now who isn't applying there definitions broadly enough?

i already dealt with how much more and much more accurate our understanding of the world is from the bronze age.

are you even reading this stuff?

I didn't think Islam was evil. I think people have used Islam for evil (and Christianity, and Zen Buddhism) but I do not think the faith is evil.

Take the Christmas truce of 1914. Peace literally broke out in the middle of the war - granted far more sporadicaly and less splendidly then some of the tales tell but still at least in places people stopped shooting at each other and greeted each other in the middle of the trenches (they would later resume shooting at each other). This is one of the times that religion is used positively. The Spanish inquisition - not so much.

I disagree on the inherent evil of religion. Its a tool. It can be used for positive or negative. How people have used it does not make it evil. The fact that it can be used for negatives does not make it evil. You may argue those uses are evil but the tool is not evil.

[OPBN]

Lohmans is bigger.

/thread.

[cockerpunk]

I didn't think Islam was evil. I think people have used Islam for evil (and Christianity, and Zen Buddhism) but I do not think the faith is evil.

Take the Christmas truce of 1914. Peace literally broke out in the middle of the war - granted far more sporadicaly and less splendidly then some of the tales tell but still at least in places people stopped shooting at each other and greeted each other in the middle of the trenches (they would later resume shooting at each other). This is one of the times that religion is used positively. The Spanish inquisition - not so much.

I disagree on the inherent evil of religion. Its a tool. It can be used for positive or negative. How people have used it does not make it evil. The fact that it can be used for negatives does not make it evil. You may argue those uses are evil but the tool is not evil.

i didn't say you did, i said others here did.

the issue with the truce of 1914, is that peace should break out in the middle of the war, and we have great reasons to declare peace in the middle of a war. religion is unnecessary to declaring a truce, or peace at all. meanwhile, religion is REQUIRED if you want to use religion to murder women and intellectuals.

thus, in declaring peace, religion is unnecessary, but to do horrible evils like the inquisition - its required. so why not skip a step - just do good for the sake of good! religion is all but unnecessary.

all religion* teaches that we should have faith in something unprovable. this is evil, dangerous, and a bad way to live. it is a tool to bring us back to the dark ages, it is a tool that will bring us from where we are today, to where islam is today. it is anti-progress. if you do not place a moral judgement on that, and call that evil, then we cannot agree.

[Lohman446]

meanwhile, religion is REQUIRED if you want to use religion .

And you accused me of circular logic? No doubt. If someone wants to use a gun to kill someone a gun is required as well.

[Lohman446]

all religion* teaches that we should have faith in something unprovable. this is evil, .

Unproveable by whom? I can't personally prove that what I learned about molecular science is true. Do I have to be able to prove it directly or can I take someone elses word for it?

I have faith in the overall goodness of mankind. I can't prove it. Does this make that faith evil?

[cockerpunk]

And you accused me of circular logic? No doubt. If someone wants to use a gun to kill someone a gun is required as well.

im sorry, can you think of a naturalistic reason to kill and persecute intellectuals and women? it typically takes religion to do that.

[Lohman446]

im sorry, can you think of a naturalistic reason to kill and persecute intellectuals and women? it typically takes religion to do that.

Oh. So its not been done outside of religion? I didn't realize the Soviet persecutions were religiously based

[cockerpunk]

Oh. So its not been done outside of religion? I didn't realize the Soviet persecutions were religiously based

the soviets didn't persecute women and intellectuals for being women and intellectuals, they punished ANYONE who dared defy there politics. kinda a big difference. also, still not a justified reason to persecute anyone, so not a naturalistic reason to persecute women and intellectuals.

[Lohman446]

the soviets didn't persecute women and intellectuals for being women and intellectuals, they punished ANYONE who dared defy there politics. kinda a big difference. also, still not a justified reason to persecute anyone, so not a naturalistic reason to persecute women and intellectuals.

So persecution is evil - I can agree with this one.

[cockerpunk]

So persecution is evil - I can agree with this one.

and you didn't need religion to come to that conclusion. and yet, persecution in this country, in every form has come from religion. as has persecution of the jews, muslims, women, intellectuals, Catholics .....

yet another case of we can make the moral decision on our own, without religion, and the best way to subvert that moral conclusion is with religion .... so why even bother with religion at all? why not skip a step?

[Lohman446]

and you didn't need religion to come to that conclusion. and yet, persecution in this country, in every form has come from religion.

So persecution in this country has not occured outside of religion? Religion was used to justify slavery (I never denied it was a tool) and it was used by others to fight it (two sided). However slavery was an economic decision not one based on religion No. It did not come from religion.

Is my statement that persecution is wrong lessened if I use a biblical quote to strengthen it? What if I use a quote of John Stewart Mill?

[dahoeb]

Countries that enforced atheism or tightly regulate any form of religion:

North Korea
China during the "Cultural Revolution," rules relaxed in the 70's-80's.
Cambodia
Vietnam
USSR
Cuba (probably the most religiously tolerant of all the countries on the list)
Czechoslovakia

Over a 70 year period, these shining examples of non-religious states don't seem like a big step up from any state with widespread religion and the sciences certainly weren't advanced any faster.

Atrocities, war, genocide, mass roundups, brain washing etc all still occurred and were tolerated by their onlooking citizenry.

Lesson: The problem is with the human condition, not religion (generally speaking).

[Flatliner333]

Do you believe in : (yes or no )

God ?
Jesus ?
Heaven ?
Angels ?
Miracles ?
Devine intervention ?

The Devil ?
The Antichrist ?
Demons ?
Hell ?

[cockerpunk]

Countries that enforced atheism or tightly regulate any form of religion:

North Korea
China during the "Cultural Revolution," rules relaxed in the 70's-80's.
Cambodia
Vietnam
USSR
Cuba (probably the most religiously tolerant of all the countries on the list)
Czechoslovakia

Over a 70 year period, these shining examples of non-religious states don't seem like a big step up from any state with widespread religion and the sciences certainly weren't advanced any faster.

Atrocities, war, genocide, mass roundups, brain washing etc all still occurred and were tolerated by their onlooking citizenry.

Lesson: The problem is with the human condition, not religion (generally speaking).

mandating any religion is the problem. you cannot mandate atheism any more then you can mandate religion, because you cannot regulate what people think and believe. these are not examples of what an atheist state would look like, they are examples of totalitarian dictatorships look like. you can tell because religious totalitarian dictatorships are the exact same way.

in fact, most of them on that list do have a religion - state or leader worship.

no where have i advocated or supported the idea of religious controls, or mandated atheism. in fact, the exactly opposite, a faith in humanity, that we can trust ourselves to make good decisions, and have the freedom to make those decisions.


Do you believe in : (yes or no )

God ?
Jesus ?
Heaven ?
Angels ?
Miracles ?
Devine intervention ?

The Devil ?
The Antichrist ?
Demons ?
Hell ?

none of the above.

[cockerpunk]

So persecution in this country has not occured outside of religion? Religion was used to justify slavery (I never denied it was a tool) and it was used by others to fight it (two sided). However slavery was an economic decision not one based on religion No. It did not come from religion.

Is my statement that persecution is wrong lessened if I use a biblical quote to strengthen it? What if I use a quote of John Stewart Mill?

since i do not recognize authority as the basis of an argument, it is the logic, not the source that is important.

[Lohman446]

since i do not recognize authority as the basis of an argument, it is the logic, not the source that is important.

So if I use an argument based on atheism to hunt down and kill the Jesuits (or others who practice religion as was done in China) by your argument atheism would be evil?

I have arrived at a beleif in religion through the use of logic and reason - as did Channing in the late 1800s. I do not see it as evil.

[MANN]

none of the above.

I too am an engineer, and I feel that is the reason for most of your beliefs (I am man enough to admit that engineers are defiantly an "off breed"). You don't have to change your stance today. I don't expect you to. All I would suggest is that you keep an open mind about everything. One day you will have a child, and one day you will more than likely change your stance after experiencing a miracle, or some other unexplainable action.

[cockerpunk]

I too am an engineer, and I feel that is the reason for most of your beliefs (I am man enough to admit that engineers are defiantly an "off breed"). You don't have to change your stance today. I don't expect you to. All I would suggest is that you keep an open mind about everything. One day you will have a child, and one day you will more than likely change your stance after experiencing a miracle, or some other unexplainable action.

i do have an open mind. and i would say i am an engineer because of my baser beliefs, those we are discussing here, not the other way around. a strict adherence to logic, data, and empiricism as a foundation to solve humanities problems. making up **** and believing in things for which you have no good reason to, doesn't help humanity solve its problems, and certainly does not help in engineering. that is the very definition of a poor engineer.

subjective experience is not proof of anything, as an engineer you should know that best of all.

why would having a child change my opinion? it won't but im curious why you'd think that.

[cockerpunk]

So if I use an argument based on atheism to hunt down and kill the Jesuits (or others who practice religion as was done in China) by your argument atheism would be evil?

I have arrived at a beleif in religion through the use of logic and reason - as did Channing in the late 1800s. I do not see it as evil.

atheism is merely the belief that there is no god, there is no other dogma, ritual, or agreed upon way to live, like there is with religion. how does one get from there is no god, to hunting people down and killing them?

those middle steps ... those would be the real problem, not the disbelief in a deity. whereas religion is not just the belief in a god, it comes with a whole list of dos, don't and who to kills.

[MANN]

a strict adherence to logic, data, and empiricism as a foundation to solve humanities problems. making up **** and believing in things for which you have no good reason to, doesn't help humanity solve its problems, and certainly does not help in engineering. that is the very definition of a poor engineer.


You are 110% right about all of that.



subjective experience is not proof of anything, as an engineer you should know that best of all.


I couldn't agree more. I dare to say that I can explain any unnatural occurrence/miracle/etc with physics, logic, and math.



why would having a child change my opinion? it won't but im curious why you'd think that.


It changes your prospective on some aspects of "life". I can't explain it. I have been fortunate enough to stand on the edge of the grand canyon. I cant explain how beautiful it is either. It is just something you have to experience to understand. I know that's a piss poor explanation, but it is what it is.

"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible."

[cockerpunk]

You are 110% right about all of that.



I couldn't agree more. I dare to say that I can explain any unnatural occurrence/miracle/etc with physics, logic, and math.

yet you claim i should experience a miracle and become convinced?

It changes your prospective on some aspects of "life". I can't explain it. I have been fortunate enough to stand on the edge of the grand canyon. I cant explain how beautiful it is either. It is just something you have to experience to understand.

this happens when i stare up into the night sky. but it isn't a spiritual moment, its a moment when you realize what is out there, not what you wish was out there. you are looking up, into the vastness of the universe, something 14.5 billion years old. that light you are seeing? the light from another sun, hundred of millions of miles away. in your minds eye you can see and feel the microwave background radiation, you can see Andromeda as it approaches the milky way on its collision course. its a moment when you feel as human as you can, and in that moment, all you can do is try to remember to breath. and then you remember that the atoms in your body, were forged in these stars, what your seeing is lighter elements being forged into heavier elements, and you are observing this, millions of miles away. and those atoms they are forging will be spewed into the universe when the star dies, and from that ... you were born.

but thats not god, or religion, that is knowledge of the universe. calling it a religious experience is to cheapen it. its a reality experience, when the universe hits you so hard you can only stop and stare.

"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible."

there are plenty of ways god could prove himself to me. i can list half a dozen if you really want.

[Lohman446]

atheism is merely the belief that there is no god, there is no other dogma, ritual, or agreed upon way to live, like there is with religion. how does one get from there is no god, to hunting people down and killing them?

those middle steps ... those would be the real problem, not the disbelief in a deity. whereas religion is not just the belief in a god, it comes with a whole list of dos, don't and who to kills.

The middle steps from atheism (or religion) to hunting down and killing people are the problems.

It is not atheism or religion. Its those pesky middle steps. Christiantiy, in its current practice in the western world, does not come with that list of people to "kills". Your argument is all religion - current Christianity as practiced in the western world falls into that category right?

[cockerpunk]

The middle steps from atheism (or religion) to hunting down and killing people are the problems.

It is not atheism or religion. Its those pesky middle steps. Christiantiy, in its current practice in the western world, does not come with that list of people to "kills". Your argument is all religion - current Christianity as practiced in the western world falls into that category right?

you don't get it. if religion was merely the belief in a god, then, as much as i disagree with it, it wouldn't be that bad of a deal. the problem is that BY NECESSITY, the belief in a god, comes with everything else. Christianity does very much have a list of kills, look at Africa, Christianity is single handedly ****ing an entire continent of people, and why? so the pope can claim, he is keeping there spirits clean. because there spirits being clean, is more important then them being alive. and why? because the pope says he is protecting life. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

meanwhile, the simple disbelief in a god, does not come with any dogma.

[Lohman446]

you don't get it. if religion was merely the belief in a god, then, as much as i disagree with it, it wouldn't be that bad of a deal. the problem is that BY NECESSITY, the belief in a god, comes with everything else. Christianity does very much have a list of kills, look at Africa, Christianity is single handedly ****ing an entire continent of people, and why? so the pope can claim, he is keeping there spirits clean. because there spirits being clean, is more important then them being alive. and why? because the pope says he is protecting life. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

meanwhile, the simple disbelief in a god, does not come with any dogma.

Except I can't believe in God and I must accept that religion is "evil".

No. The beleif in God does not necessarily come with everything else. You cannot for a moment begin to tell me what my belief in God, derived through reason and logic, comes with. You may not tell others who have reached a beleif in God that their beleif is invalid and must be evil.

[Flatliner333]

I was commenting just the other day on the story about the NYPD cop who gave the boots to the homeless guy. People were posting saying the homeless guy sold the boots and that the cop was a fool. My point was that it doesnt matter what the guy did with the boots because the cop did a nice thing for him and God saw that. I was reminded of something that had happened to me.

A while back I was about to fill my truck up with gas and a man on the other side of the pump asked if I could give him some money. He needed just enough gas to get home and could I help him. Instead of giving him money I put the nozzle in his truck and started pumping him some gas. After $5.00 worth he said thank you but I kept on pumping until it got to $30.00. My truck was below empty and I hadn't pumped myself any yet so I started pumping my gas at $30.00. Now ...my truck has a 22 gallon tank and at the time it took $70.00 to fill it up. I stopped pumping at $70.00 like I normaly do because that is all I could afford. Sooo if I only pumped $40.00 in my truck and it takes $70.00 to fill it up why did my fuel guage show a full tank when I started it up...and no it wasnt broke. Matthew 25:40

Ive got another one for who ever may be interested. Several years back when I was in my twenties my mother was very upset because she had lost a necklace that my father had given her. I was big into church at the time (she was not) so selfishly I said "why dont you pray about it, maybe it will turn up". Two weeks later she called me crying to tell me she had found it. Where did she find it you ask? At the back of her yard with a small fig tree growing up through it...how did that happen?

I only post in this thread because of Matthew 10:33 "but whoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

[Lohman446]

One of the problems with this quest that CP is on to deem all religion evil is summed up by asking a question:

Why is it wrong to kill another man?

You may not cite religion. Further you may not cite any philosophical theory - the reason being is if that religion is "evil" for its lists of do's and don'ts and claim of "natural authority" so are those. That is to say if we cite Mill's work woth the harm thereom and principle of autonomy we are giving those principles authority over our actions.

Edit: When you denounce religion as inherently evil because it provides answers to such questions how do you avoid the replacement receiving the same label? Because you like the replacement better? Seems rather egotistical to me

[cockerpunk]

Except I can't believe in God and I must accept that religion is "evil".

No. The beleif in God does not necessarily come with everything else. You cannot for a moment begin to tell me what my belief in God, derived through reason and logic, comes with. You may not tell others who have reached a beleif in God that their beleif is invalid and must be evil.

please show me a religion that only believes in god. nothing else at all.


I only post in this thread because of Matthew 10:33 "but whoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

And you worship this guy? and look to him for moral guidance? sounds more like a dick to me then a deity.


One of the problems with this quest that CP is on to deem all religion evil is summed up by asking a question:

Why is it wrong to kill another man?

You may not cite religion. Further you may not cite any philosophical theory - the reason being is if that religion is "evil" for its lists of do's and don'ts and claim of "natural authority" so are those. That is to say if we cite Mill's work woth the harm thereom and principle of autonomy we are giving those principles authority over our actions.

pretty easy. and you again misunderstand my authority point. i can reference whomever i want, as long as its there reasoning i am referencing, not saying "because mills said this, you have to believe it"

but no matter, here are some naturalistic reasons to not murder:

1. life is rare. intelligent life is very rare indeed. destroying life without the express purpose of preserving life is wrong
2. i don't want to be killed, so why would i kill?
3. the idea of killing nauseates me. probably because killing unjustly does not serve an evolutionary purpose to the survival of the species
4. a life is potential, a great potential. a great ability to make the world around us better. and the only justification to end that potential, is to not kill unless the person being killed would have caused greater harm

there are more if you need them. and not only have i naturalistically come to the conclusion that murder is wrong, i have also delineated when killing is justified.




so are you going to tell me the only reason you don't go on a killing spree is god? i would hope that isn't the case.

[Lohman446]

pretty easy. and you again misunderstand my authority point. i can reference whomever i want, as long as its there reasoning i am referencing, not saying "because mills said this, you have to believe it"

but no matter, here are some naturalistic reasons to not murder:

1. life is rare. intelligent life is very rare indeed. destroying life without the express purpose of preserving life is wrong
2. i don't want to be killed, so why would i kill?
3. the idea of killing nauseates me. probably because killing unjustly does not serve an evolutionary purpose to the survival of the species
4. a life is potential, a great potential. a great ability to make the world around us better. and the only justification to end that potential, is to not kill unless

there are more if you need them. and not only have i naturalistically come to the conclusion that murder is wrong, i have also delineated when killing is justified.




so are you going to tell me the only reason you don't go on a killing spree is god? i would hope that isn't the case.

If it is human reasoning then that gives you the conclusion of what is right and wrong what keeps the evil label from being applied to it? We surely are not going to argue that human reasoning is infallible are we?

I'm not arguing that all religion is right. Nor would I argue that those lists of do's and don'ts are right. However there is a major difference in being inaccurate and being evil.

[cockerpunk]

If it is human reasoning then that gives you the conclusion of what is right and wrong what keeps the evil label from being applied to it? We surely are not going to argue that human reasoning is infallible are we?

I'm not arguing that all religion is right. Nor would I argue that those lists of do's and don'ts are right. However there is a major difference in being inaccurate and being evil.

i didn't claim human reasoning is infallible. but i believe that given accurate information, human reasoning is the best we have.

and what a bunch of bronze age men though was right and wrong might have been the best they could come up with then, but we can do better. a lot better. and to repress this ability to reason, by adhering to bronze age morals? ridiculous.

so again, i'd like to ask, is the only reason you don't kill people god?

[Lohman446]

i didn't claim human reasoning is infallible. but i believe that given accurate information, human reasoning is the best we have.

and what a bunch of bronze age men though was right and wrong might have been the best they could come up with then, but we can do better. a lot better. and to repress this ability to reason, by adhering to bronze age morals? ridiculous.

so again, i'd like to ask, is the only reason you don't kill people god?

No. I don't kill people because I have an inherent belief doing so is wrong. I can attempt to explain that beleif and point to various philosophical theories or religions but in the end there is part of my being that accepts it as wrong. Oddly enough emprical testing designed to find this and label it as something more the neurological impulses have failed.

Empircal testing designed to prove the existence of a soul has largely failed (those that have yelled "Eureka" in the past had methological errors). Those that have attempted to prove the negative have found the same problem that proving a negative brings to the table every time - it is nearly impossible.

Religion does not deny the right of conscious and reason to man. The institutions that attempt to stay in power may attempt to do so but that is not the fault of religion that is the fault of those who would use it for power - those pesky middle steps again.

[cockerpunk]

No. I don't kill people because I have an inherent belief doing so is wrong. I can attempt to explain that beleif and point to various philosophical theories or religions but in the end there is part of my being that accepts it as wrong. Oddly enough emprical testing designed to find this and label it as something more the neurological impulses have failed.

Empircal testing designed to prove the existence of a soul has largely failed (those that have yelled "Eureka" in the past had methological errors). Those that have attempted to prove the negative have found the same problem that proving a negative brings to the table every time - it is nearly impossible.

Religion does not deny the right of conscious and reason to man. The institutions that attempt to stay in power may attempt to do so but that is not the fault of religion that is the fault of those who would use it for power - those pesky middle steps again.

and yet it does deny reason to man. religion is by its very definition irrational, as in, not rational.

[dahoeb]

in fact, most of them on that list do have a religion - state or leader worship. Exactly, I was going to lead into that until you rudely beat me to it.......

no where have i advocated or supported the idea of religious controls, or mandated atheism. in fact, the exactly opposite, a faith in humanity, that we can trust ourselves to make good decisions, and have the freedom to make those decisions. Yeup, no major disagreements.



Everyone has a God and religion, whether it be a deity, the government or science. Everyone has something that is looked at to outline why things are the way they are and how they should be.

Arguing with an atheist is not much different than a Christian arguing with a Muslim, two people arguing about which belief system is better or more right. Christians and some other major religions believe that science can be the tool of God, while atheists seem more apt to replace God with science.

I think it's ironic how the more aggressive atheists sound no different (in tone) than equally aggressive (insert major religion here) when advocating their "religion".

Just some musings.....

[dahoeb]

and yet it does deny reason to man. religion is by its very definition irrational, as in, not rational.


So scientists who also may be religious aren't reasonable?

There's countless instances where perfectly well reasoned people who were worked in the sciences also happened to be religious.

I don't know where this "mutually exclusive attitude" comes from, though I'm sure you've tried to explain it over the past 329 pages of this thread...

As far as the rationality of it religion, that's an opinion. Just because you can't prove it, doesn't mean it's disproven.

I recently read an interesting article about a group of scientists trying to conduct experiments to see if we live in a simulated universe, the Matrix style. They were able to find evidence that we don't, but admitted that it's impossible disprove because the simulation may be too perfect. We just need a little faith that we don't live in a giant computer I guess. I think this has a lot of parallels to the arguments between atheists and religion today.

[cockerpunk]

Everyone has a God and religion, whether it be a deity, the government or science. Everyone has something that is looked at to outline why things are the way they are and how they should be.

Arguing with an atheist is not much different than a Christian arguing with a Muslim, two people arguing about which belief system is better or more right. Christians and some other major religions believe that science can be the tool of God, while atheists seem more apt to replace God with science.

I think it's ironic how the more aggressive atheists sound no different (in tone) than equally aggressive (insert major religion here) when advocating their "religion".

Just some musings.....

everyone has a philosophy, yes, but a religion? no. religion is a matter of faith, there are many philosophies that do not include, or outright object to faith.


So scientists who also may be religious aren't reasonable?

There's countless instances where perfectly well reasoned people who were worked in the sciences also happened to be religious.

I don't know where this "mutually exclusive attitude" comes from, though I'm sure you've tried to explain it over the past 329 pages of this thread...

yeah, there are. and yes, on the topic of religion they are just as unreasonable as anyone else who believes things without reason.

yes, living a life where you accept reason and evidence to form your worldview, and living a life believing things which you can have no reason to believe, yes, those are mutually exclusive.

but, people are hypocrites, it happens.

[Lohman446]

and yet it does deny reason to man. religion is by its very definition irrational, as in, not rational.

Really. What about religion demands it to be irrational? I consider myself rational and believe in religion. Isaac Newton considered himself rational and believed in God.

[cockerpunk]

Really. What about religion demands it to be irrational? I consider myself rational and believe in religion. Isaac Newton considered himself rational and believed in God.

ir·ra·tion·al (-rsh-nl)
adj.
1.
a. Not endowed with reason.
b. Affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent, as from shock.
c. Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment: an irrational dislike.
2.
a. Being a syllable in Greek and Latin prosody whose length does not fit the metric pattern.
b. Being a metric foot containing such a syllable.
3. Mathematics Of or relating to an irrational number.

ra·tion·al (rsh-nl)
adj.
1. Having or exercising the ability to reason.
2. Of sound mind; sane.
3. Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior. See Synonyms at logical.
4. Mathematics Capable of being expressed as a quotient of integers.

faith, is irrational. religion is irrational.

if it were rational, then you would not need faith to believe.

[dahoeb]

everyone has a philosophy, yes, but a religion? no. religion is a matter of faith, there are many philosophies that do not include, or outright object to faith.



yeah, there are. and yes, on the topic of religion they are just as unreasonable as anyone else who believes things without reason.

yes, living a life where you accept reason and evidence to form your worldview, and living a life believing things which you can have no reason to believe, yes, those are mutually exclusive. Meh, for some people the physical, corporeal world is separate from their spiritual life. Like I said before, science and nature are the tools, doesn't mean you can't study and have an in-depth understanding of the tools. Just out of curiosity, if they had a life experience which they were absolutely unable to scientifically explain, some sort of spiritual moment, would it then continue to be unreasonable of them?

but, people are hypocrites, it happens.

That depends entirely on what definition you choose to look at. Some definitions define that they are exactly the same, while others state they are different due to the existence of "rituals" in religion and a few others say that "faith" is the dividing line. I don't really think there is any significant difference, they both establish rules and morals for how one should live life, behave and treat others.

I edited my previous post to supplement my position.

[dahoeb]

faith, is irrational. religion is irrational. You said in post #100 that you had faith in mankind, so that's irrational?



:confused:

[cockerpunk]

:confused:

not really, as humans have a pretty good track record of thinking and doing good things when they have the right information.

[cockerpunk]

That depends entirely on what definition you choose to look at. Some definitions define that they are exactly the same, while others state they are different due to the existence of "rituals" in religion and a few others say that "faith" is the dividing line. I don't really think there is any significant difference, they both establish rules and morals for how one should live life, behave and treat others.

I edited my previous post to supplement my position.

no, science does not have established rules and morals for how one should live life. philosophies that draw from science, like humanism, naturalism etc etc do.

[Lohman446]

ir·ra·tion·al (-rsh-nl)
adj.
1.
a. Not endowed with reason.
b. Affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent, as from shock.
c. Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment: an irrational dislike.
2.
a. Being a syllable in Greek and Latin prosody whose length does not fit the metric pattern.
b. Being a metric foot containing such a syllable.
3. Mathematics Of or relating to an irrational number.

ra·tion·al (rsh-nl)
adj.
1. Having or exercising the ability to reason.
2. Of sound mind; sane.
3. Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior. See Synonyms at logical.
4. Mathematics Capable of being expressed as a quotient of integers.

faith, is irrational. religion is irrational.

if it were rational, then you would not need faith to believe.

So who gets to decide if something is consisten with or based on reason? I am telling you that religion can be arrived at through reason and logic. You are arguing it cannot. Without supporting premises you are attempting to claim an authority of what you consider rational over what I do. By your own argument that would be evil.

[cockerpunk]

So who gets to decide if something is consisten with or based on reason? I am telling you that religion can be arrived at through reason and logic. You are arguing it cannot. Without supporting premises you are attempting to claim an authority of what you consider rational over what I do. By your own argument that would be evil.

how do you reason you way to

1. a god
2. that god is the christian god
3. that god had a son
4. the bible is an accurate representation of that sons life/death

i'd like logic, mathematics, data and repeatable experiment on all 4 points.

if you can do that, i will grant you that you can reason your way to religion.

[dahoeb]

no, science does not have established rules and morals for how one should live life. philosophies that draw from science, like humanism, naturalism etc etc do.

That's really splitting hairs. See the book of Genesis. See the Big Bang theory.

Science is the god that your philosophy (humanism, naturalism, etc) draws from.

In religion, the God and the subsequent bible is what we draw our philosophy from.

The way you treat science and your 'ism's is not really any different than a Christian treats God and the bible. They're essentially used in the same way.

I've got the feeling that you're just looking at the glass half empty, while I'm looking at it half full.

[cockerpunk]

That's really splitting hairs. See the book of Genesis. See the Big Bang theory.

Science is the god that your philosophy (humanism, naturalism, etc) draws from.

In religion, the God and the subsequent bible is what we draw our philosophy from.

The way you treat science and your 'ism's is not really any different than a Christian treats God and the bible. They're essentially used in the same way.

I've got the feeling that you're just looking at the glass half empty, while I'm looking at it half full.

no, the rejection of faith as a method to determine accuracy is not the same as using faith as a method to determine accuracy.

sorry, you cannot say faith and science are equivalent in any way shape or form. one requires faith, the other rejects faith.

[Lohman446]

how do you reason you way to

1. a god
2. that god is the christian god
3. that god had a son
4. the bible is an accurate representation of that sons life/death

i'd like logic, mathematics, data and repeatable experiment on all 4 points.

if you can do that, i will grant you that you can reason your way to religion.

A). You said all religions.
B) I never said religion had to be the biblical Christian God
C) I never argued the bible was infallible.

How do you prove that a God, gods, or other supernatural power does not exist through empirical testing?

The point is you can no more disprove it than I can prove it. You want your conclusion to be more valid than my conclusion with no more proof. You want your argument to simply be more authoratative then the other because you argue it is. However without that proof you are demanding the same authority you are calling evil.

You can be wrong. I would not label it as evil :)

[cockerpunk]

A). You said all religions.
B) I never said religion had to be the biblical Christian God
C) I never argued the bible was infallible.

How do you prove that a God, gods, or other supernatural power does not exist through empirical testing?

The point is you can no more disprove it than I can prove it. You want your conclusion to be more valid than my conclusion with no more proof. You want your argument to simply be more authoratative then the other because you argue it is. However without that proof you are demanding the same authority you are calling evil.

You can be wrong. I would not label it as evil :)

all religions start with step 1. just reason you way to a god, and i'll be happy. from there steps 2-4 can be for any particular religion you wish. just reason your way to a religion. you claimed you could do it, please try.

i don't have to disprove it. just like i don't have to disprove unicorns existing.

[dahoeb]

no, the rejection of faith as a method to determine accuracy is not the same as using faith as a method to determine accuracy.

sorry, you cannot say faithand science are equivalent in any way shape or form. one requires faith, the other rejects faith.

When did I say that faith could be used as a method to determine accuracy?

I said that religion and science can be used in similar ways to guide ones life, which I think most could agree with.

I don't agree with your definition of religion (in which FAITH is a requirement). There are differing definitions of religion (which I already discussed) depending on what text and interpretation you decide to pull from. Even with that one word of distinction, the similarities and parallels still remain.

[Lohman446]

The more I look around the world the more I am certain that it did not arise by chance. The more I learn the more I realize this is true. Consider the pictures of molecular biology, how the particles within our cells function with one another. Scale it up and look at the pictures and the similiarites to how universes interact. There is a pervasive sense of order in the world around us. The laws of physics that can predict particiles through formulas and only prove that existence at the development of better equipment shows this order. The formulas used to arrive at the location of planetary bodies such as Pluto (whatever its refernced as now) show that we are uniquely suited to understand the world around us through reason and logic. That our ability to reason is so in tune with how the world actually works tells me that there is a connection that ties us, those abilities, and the world as we know it around us, even the world that we do not know yet, together.

This is why I have faith in God. Not that God has paused the rules of nature around me and given me some great sign but that the rules of nature exist and we have even the slightest ability to understand those rules.

Science does not disprove to me the existence of a God. The more we understand the more it strengthens in to me the belief that God exists. I don't know exactly what God is. Perhaps its that little spark within all of us. Perhaps its the reason that so many accept that killing another human is just wrong before we know the complex theories. Perhaps its that spark of empathy that we can share with others. I believe that somehow God exists though I do not know how exactly to define God

Can I prove it? No. Does it use logic and reason to get there? The above statements are not irrational. It is as defensible as any argument that God does not exist.

[dahoeb]

The more I look around the world the more I am certain that it did not arise by chance. The more I learn the more I realize this is true. Consider the pictures of molecular biology, how the particles within our cells function with one another. Scale it up and look at the pictures and the similiarites to how universes interact. There is a pervasive sense of order in the world around us. The laws of physics that can predict particiles through formulas and only prove that existence at the development of better equipment shows this order. The formulas used to arrive at the location of planetary bodies such as Pluto (whatever its refernced as now) show that we are uniquely suited to understand the world around us through reason and logic. That our ability to reason is so in tune with how the world actually works tells me that there is a connection that ties us, those abilities, and the world as we know it around us, even the world that we do not know yet, together.

This is why I have faith in God. Not that God has paused the rules of nature around me and given me some great sign but that the rules of nature exist and we have even the slightest ability to understand those rules.

Science does not disprove to me the existence of a God. The more we understand the more it strengthens in to me the belief that God exists. I don't know exactly what God is. Perhaps its that little spark within all of us. Perhaps its the reason that so many accept that killing another human is just wrong before we know the complex theories. Perhaps its that spark of empathy that we can share with others. I believe that somehow God exists though I do not know how exactly to define God

Can I prove it? No. Does it use logic and reason to get there? The above statements are not irrational. It is as defensible as any argument that God does not exist.

Well said.

[cockerpunk]

When did I say that faith could be used as a method to determine accuracy?

I said that religion and science can be used in similar ways to guide ones life, which I think most could agree with.

I don't agree with your definition of religion (in which FAITH is a requirement). There are differing definitions of religion (which I already discussed) depending on what text and interpretation you decide to pull from. Even with that one word of distinction, the similarities and parallels still remain.

all religion requires faith, they can be used interchangeably.

so if you disagree with religion requiring faith, please tell me about a religion that does not require faith.

and loh still has to explain to me how he has reasoned his way to a god.

you guys got a lot of explaining to do!


The more I look around the world the more I am certain that it did not arise by chance. The more I learn the more I realize this is true. Consider the pictures of molecular biology, how the particles within our cells function with one another. Scale it up and look at the pictures and the similiarites to how universes interact. There is a pervasive sense of order in the world around us. The laws of physics that can predict particiles through formulas and only prove that existence at the development of better equipment shows this order. The formulas used to arrive at the location of planetary bodies such as Pluto (whatever its refernced as now) show that we are uniquely suited to understand the world around us through reason and logic. That our ability to reason is so in tune with how the world actually works tells me that there is a connection that ties us, those abilities, and the world as we know it around us, even the world that we do not know yet, together.

This is why I have faith in God. Not that God has paused the rules of nature around me and given me some great sign but that the rules of nature exist and we have even the slightest ability to understand those rules.

Science does not disprove to me the existence of a God. The more we understand the more it strengthens in to me the belief that God exists. I don't know exactly what God is. Perhaps its that little spark within all of us. Perhaps its the reason that so many accept that killing another human is just wrong before we know the complex theories. Perhaps its that spark of empathy that we can share with others. I believe that somehow God exists though I do not know how exactly to define God

Can I prove it? No. Does it use logic and reason to get there? The above statements are not irrational. It is as defensible as any argument that God does not exist.

there is just so much wrong in this post i don't even know where to start, so im going to take a bullet point approach to this non-sense.

no one has said the world arose by chance.

you are imposing your view of "organization" on the universe. by any measure, the universe IS CHAOS. pure, unadulterated chaos. even earth itself is a bad place to be. less then a half a percent of earths volume is livable for humans. this is organization? we have observed and scanned very thoroughly of life, what ... 150 light years out? of that sphere, even if you say there was life on mars ..... thats something like 10^-15 percent of what we know about the universe could contain life. this is organization to you? god sure sucks at ordering things.

how does universal laws prove a god? if the universe can exist without a god, and "order" itself, how is this a proof of god?

and then you still end with faith. so you have not reasoned your way to a god. you have faith there is a god because of an incorrect worldview.

and i already dealt with why we innately know killing is wrong - evolution. it does not serve the population to have us killing each other for unjustified reasons. do you wonder why **** smells? evolution. the lifeforms that sat around in there own **** died, the ones thought it was gross, lived. we are there ancestors. we think **** smells because we are the decedents of those who thought **** smelled.

so i ask again, reason you way to a god. show me data, evidence, and logic to prove a god. not to mention, since you have failed at #1 .... what does that say about the rest of your beliefs and how irrational they are?

[Lohman446]

all religion requires faith, they can be used interchangeably.

so if you disagree with religion requiring faith, please tell me about a religion that does not require faith.

and loh still has to explain to me how he has reasoned his way to a god.

you guys got a lot of explaining to do!



there is just so much wrong in this post i don't even know where to start, so im going to take a bullet point approach to this non-sense.

no one has said the world arose by chance.

you are imposing your view of "organization" on the universe. by any measure, the universe IS CHAOS. pure, unadulterated chaos. even earth itself is a bad place to be. less then a half a percent of earths volume is livable for humans. this is organization? we have observed and scanned very thoroughly of life, what ... 150 light years out? of that sphere, even if you say there was life on mars ..... thats something like 10^-15 percent of what we know about the universe could contain life. this is organization to you? god sure sucks at ordering things.

how does universal laws prove a god? if the universe can exist without a god, and "order" itself, how is this a proof of god?

and then you still end with faith. so you have not reasoned your way to a god. you have faith there is a god because of an incorrect worldview.

and i already dealt with why we innately know killing is wrong - evolution. it does not serve the population to have us killing each other for unjustified reasons. do you wonder why **** smells? evolution. the lifeforms that sat around in there own **** died, the ones thought it was gross, lived. we are there ancestors. we think **** smells because we are the decedents of those who thought **** smelled.

so i ask again, reason you way to a god. show me data, evidence, and logic to prove a god. not to mention, since you have failed at #1 .... what does that say about the rest of your beliefs and how irrational they are?

Irrational and wrong on what authority?

[Flatliner333]

CP soooo you dont believe in the human spirit or "ghosts" or supernatural forces ? Have you been able to explain everything you have ever seen ? If God and the devil do not exhist then there is no good or evil only choices made by man ?
Not to nitpick but if the devil doesnt exhist you cant really say "The devil is in the details" because he doesnt exhist. I apologize if you didnt say that I may be mistaken.

[Spider-TW]

no one has said the world arose by chance.

Would you say that? If not by chance, then what?

History has shown many times that our best equations are merely accurate representations of our local conditions. How do you prove something that you can only model?

[cockerpunk]

Irrational and wrong on what authority?

factually incorrect and not rational, both are objective and do not require an authority to determine.

and you still didn't reason your way to even gods existence, much less Easter bunnies and ho ho ho.


CP soooo you dont believe in the human spirit or "ghosts" or supernatural forces ? Have you been able to explain everything you have ever seen ? If God and the devil do not exhist then there is no good or evil only choices made by man ?
Not to nitpick but if the devil doesnt exhist you cant really say "The devil is in the details" because he doesnt exhist. I apologize if you didnt say that I may be mistaken.

no i do not believe in anything supernatural. and no i cannot explain everything i have seen, what would we need science for if not to try to figure out what we don't currently have an explanation for? thats what i do for a living, try to figure out things i cannot explain, that's what makes my job so much fun and that is why i love what i do.

just because we do not have an explanation for something, doesn't mean you get to make one up. this is why i before alluded to the intellectually lazy theist. because saying god did it, or ghosts or spirits or whatever the **** you want to make up did it, frees you from needing an actual explanation.


Would you say that? If not by chance, then what?

History has shown many times that our best equations are merely accurate representations of our local conditions. How do you prove something that you can only model?

we know quite a lot about how the universe and human existence came to be, where would you like to start? and no point in the story will i be required to say "and we just got lucky" to explain from the big bang to today.

"we just got here by chance" is a classic creationist strawman. we know quite a lot about the processes and reasons why the universe is the way it is today.

this statement does not make sense "how can you prove something that you can only model" a varifiably accurate model is what the goal of science and mathematics is. a model to explain and predict phenomenon so that we can manipulate that phenomena to our advantage.

[Flatliner333]

[QUOTE=cockerpunk]what would we need science for if not to try to figure out what we don't currently have an explanation for? thats what i do for a living, try to figure out things i cannot explain, that's what makes my job so much fun and that is why i love what i do.

Finally something we can agree on. I do believe that science has done alot of good (and bad)for mankind but I am also a christian. And it is great to hear that you love what you do for a living as do I :cheers:

[Lohman446]

CP wants his authority and reason to be valid and those that do not conform to his to be wrong.

In the process he labels religion as "evil". I don't believe he is as stupid as he comes off in these conversations I believe he is simply that arrogant and lacking of any degree of intellectual honesty.

As his assertion was that all religion was evil and he has not been able to back it with anything that resembles a premise (that he does not immediatly deny is evil) I find his ability to apply propositional logic poor at best. If the premises do not support the conclusion (IE its evil because of X but X is not evil) it is the logical fallacy of begging the question.

Can religion be good? Yes.

Rothbaum, Weisz, and Snyder in explaining the two-process model held that religion was one possible replacement when locus of control was threatened (1982). This was built off of early writings that control helped to psychologically buffer people from feelings of randomness and chaos that were in fact detrimental to them (Antonovsky, 1979). Further studies have strengthened the value of religion to psychological health and shown, throw empirical psychological testing, that God (or gods, or another nonhuman entity) does provide an alternative locus of control when personal control is threatened (Kay, Gaucher, Callan, Napier, and Laurin 2008).

Now CP can sit there and whine about it and tell us all about his knowledge of the empirical sciences. The above information was readily found from the project I did for my capstone course in Psychology. He can whine about the lack of logic all he wants - I figure I should mail him my coursework from my study of propositional logic. He can demand the empirical testing that shows the positive value of religion - which I have provided. I would simply request that he provide similiar evidence that religion is inherently evil, as was his initial assertion. He can demand that we simply grant him authority to decide what is rational and logical. His title of "engineer" does not make him an expert. At best he simply is not good at expressing an opinion. In reality he is likely either trolling or is actually that full of himself that he thinks we should treat him as some subject matter expert in all things. The end, reasonable decision, would be to activate the ignore feature.

The studies and discussion if you care to hunt them down.

Antonovsky, A. (1979). Health, stress, and coping. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Kay, A., Gaucher, D., Callan, M., Napier, J., & Laurin, K. (2008). God and the government: Testing a compensatory control mechanism for the support of external systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 18-35.

Hafer, C. L., & Begue, L. (2005). Experimental research on just-world theory: Problems, developments, and future challenges. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 128-167

[dahoeb]

all religion requires faith, they can be used interchangeably.

so if you disagree with religion requiring faith, please tell me about a religion that does not require faith.



You can't have it both ways, CP.

You say faith is irrational when it concerns our religion, but when you espouse having faith in humanity, it's suddenly not irrational. But since your whole disagreement on my point seems to hinge on your definition of each of the words, lets look them over.

re·li·gion [ri-lij-uh n]
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices

I don't see anything in this definition that disqualifies any of what I said.


Faith
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

Well look at that, definition #3 fits you just right. Yes, it may say "especially a system of religious beliefs" but that's not a disqualifier, it's just an example.

So yes, I'll stick with my argument: that one's belief in the laws of science and the derived philosophies, such as humanism can be a form of religion.

Don't buy my argument, Ok. Here's some summaries from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (Kaufman vs McCaughtry) to reinforce my position:

A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being (or beings, for polytheistic faiths), see Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 & n. 11, 81 S.Ct. 1680, 6 L.Ed.2d 982 (1961);  Malnak v. Yogi, 592 F.2d 197, 200-15 (3d Cir.1979) (Adams, J., concurring);  Theriault v. Silber, 547 F.2d 1279, 1281 (5th Cir.1977) (per curiam), nor must it be a mainstream faith, see Thomas v. Review Bd., 450 U.S. 707, 714, 101 S.Ct. 1425, 67 L.Ed.2d 624 (1981);  Lindell v. McCallum, 352 F.3d 1107, 1110 (7th Cir.2003).

Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of “ultimate concern” that for her occupy a “place parallel to that filled by God in traditionally religious persons,” those beliefs represent her religion.


Link (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1467028.html) Sections I and II deal with his atheism.



or the legal dictionary.....


The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being ......

As the case of United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 64 S. Ct. 882, 88 L. Ed. 1148 (1944), demonstrates, the Supreme Court must look to the sincerity of a person's beliefs to help decide if those beliefs constitute a religion that deserves constitutional protection..

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Religion


If you go into any dictionary, the core nutshell definition of "religion" is essentially, "a set of beliefs that one believes in and adheres to". The fact that some dictionaries include the word "faith" and some don't just goes to show that it's obviously not a "make or break" word, even though you may try to twist it into one.

The bottom line, until a FIRM definition of religion is established by a recognized authority (not you), you're only voicing your opinion, which I (and the 7th CC of Appeals) will probably continue to disagree with.

[Spider-TW]

we know quite a lot about how the universe and human existence came to be, where would you like to start? and no point in the story will i be required to say "and we just got lucky" to explain from the big bang to today.

pre-big bang. something exists (or not)

[going_home]

1) Why dont you prove you have a brain ?

Have you seen your brain ?

If you cant show it to us we refuse to believe you have one.

You have absolutely zero proof that you have a brain, zero son.

Because that would take faith for us to believe you have a brain.

2) When you start your car in the morning you realize it takes faith to do that ?

The faith you have that your car will start,
thats how much faith it takes to know there is a true and living God.

Can you tell me how this apple tastes that I'm eating now ?

Neither can you tell me about my God.

You've never known Him.

PSALMS 34:8
O taste and see that the LORD [is] good: blessed [is] the man [that] trusteth in him.

[Freedy500]

and this is what I like to call a "head-ache thread" :tard:

[Interceptor]

Only when yiu try to understand CPs logic. And as usual, he just got served... lol

[cockerpunk]

CP wants his authority and reason to be valid and those that do not conform to his to be wrong.

never have i said anything like that, in fact the exact opposite

In the process he labels religion as "evil". I don't believe he is as stupid as he comes off in these conversations I believe he is simply that arrogant and lacking of any degree of intellectual honesty.

false

As his assertion was that all religion was evil and he has not been able to back it with anything that resembles a premise (that he does not immediatly deny is evil) I find his ability to apply propositional logic poor at best. If the premises do not support the conclusion (IE its evil because of X but X is not evil) it is the logical fallacy of begging the question.

false, i have listed more then a half dozen reasons, and defended them against your counter points successfully every time.

Can religion be good? Yes.

Rothbaum, Weisz, and Snyder in explaining the two-process model held that religion was one possible replacement when locus of control was threatened (1982). This was built off of early writings that control helped to psychologically buffer people from feelings of randomness and chaos that were in fact detrimental to them (Antonovsky, 1979). Further studies have strengthened the value of religion to psychological health and shown, throw empirical psychological testing, that God (or gods, or another nonhuman entity) does provide an alternative locus of control when personal control is threatened (Kay, Gaucher, Callan, Napier, and Laurin 2008).

i never said religion couldn't be used to justify good. but it can be used to justify evil, and good is self justifying, so why do you need religion at all?

Now CP can sit there and whine about it and tell us all about his knowledge of the empirical sciences. The above information was readily found from the project I did for my capstone course in Psychology. He can whine about the lack of logic all he wants - I figure I should mail him my coursework from my study of propositional logic. He can demand the empirical testing that shows the positive value of religion - which I have provided. I would simply request that he provide similiar evidence that religion is inherently evil, as was his initial assertion. He can demand that we simply grant him authority to decide what is rational and logical. His title of "engineer" does not make him an expert. At best he simply is not good at expressing an opinion. In reality he is likely either trolling or is actually that full of himself that he thinks we should treat him as some subject matter expert in all things. The end, reasonable decision, would be to activate the ignore feature.

amazingly, i have used nothing more then a high schools education in biology and cosmology to demonstrate your world view as false

what does that say about your world view?

The studies and discussion if you care to hunt them down.

Antonovsky, A. (1979). Health, stress, and coping. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Kay, A., Gaucher, D., Callan, M., Napier, J., & Laurin, K. (2008). God and the government: Testing a compensatory control mechanism for the support of external systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 18-35.

Hafer, C. L., & Begue, L. (2005). Experimental research on just-world theory: Problems, developments, and future challenges. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 128-167

so what does that say about your world view, if it takes only a high school level understanding of biology, the big bang, and chemistry to prove yours false? i am by no means an expert on any of these topics, and yet you grant me that status, only to mock it.

what that really is doing is mocking your own understanding and world view.

kinda scary.


pre-big bang. something exists (or not)

thats a good question. the big bang was the source of existence itself (time, matter, energy, space ...). what ... if anything .... existed before existence? what does this mean about laws we understand in our universe such as logic, cause and effect, and reason?


You can't have it both ways, CP.

You say faith is irrational when it concerns our religion, but when you espouse having faith in humanity, it's suddenly not irrational. But since your whole disagreement on my point seems to hinge on your definition of each of the words, lets look them over.

re·li·gion [ri-lij-uh n]
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices

I don't see anything in this definition that disqualifies any of what I said.


Faith
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

Well look at that, definition #3 fits you just right. Yes, it may say "especially a system of religious beliefs" but that's not a disqualifier, it's just an example.

So yes, I'll stick with my argument: that one's belief in the laws of science and the derived philosophies, such as humanism can be a form of religion.

Don't buy my argument, Ok. Here's some summaries from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (Kaufman vs McCaughtry) to reinforce my position:

A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being (or beings, for polytheistic faiths), see Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 & n. 11, 81 S.Ct. 1680, 6 L.Ed.2d 982 (1961);  Malnak v. Yogi, 592 F.2d 197, 200-15 (3d Cir.1979) (Adams, J., concurring);  Theriault v. Silber, 547 F.2d 1279, 1281 (5th Cir.1977) (per curiam), nor must it be a mainstream faith, see Thomas v. Review Bd., 450 U.S. 707, 714, 101 S.Ct. 1425, 67 L.Ed.2d 624 (1981);  Lindell v. McCallum, 352 F.3d 1107, 1110 (7th Cir.2003).

Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of “ultimate concern” that for her occupy a “place parallel to that filled by God in traditionally religious persons,” those beliefs represent her religion.


Link (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1467028.html) Sections I and II deal with his atheism.



or the legal dictionary.....


The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being ......

As the case of United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 64 S. Ct. 882, 88 L. Ed. 1148 (1944), demonstrates, the Supreme Court must look to the sincerity of a person's beliefs to help decide if those beliefs constitute a religion that deserves constitutional protection..

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Religion


If you go into any dictionary, the core nutshell definition of "religion" is essentially, "a set of beliefs that one believes in and adheres to". The fact that some dictionaries include the word "faith" and some don't just goes to show that it's obviously not a "make or break" word, even though you may try to twist it into one.

The bottom line, until a FIRM definition of religion is established by a recognized authority (not you), you're only voicing your opinion, which I (and the 7th CC of Appeals) will probably continue to disagree with.

i was using faith in a colloquial term. one might say they have faith that when they sit in a chair it wont break, but that is a different kind of faith then a faith in god. the reason is of course that we have experience with chairs, and most of the time they don't break. we can see and inspect the chair, and if it looks like it wont hold us and we sit on it, we may not be surprised when it breaks.

this is the colloquial version of faith. i have this faith in people, because in my experience and in my studies of humanity, when given good information, rational people will make the best decisions they can.

this is a different kind of faith then one of an unknowable, unseeable, unprovable concept such as god.

and thanks for the definitions of religion, i already told you mine, and clarified exactly where they might disagree with yours.


1) Why dont you prove you have a brain ?

i have seen and touched human brains before

Have you seen your brain ?

yes

If you cant show it to us we refuse to believe you have one.

pretty easy to show it, via operation, implication, scans, biopsy etc etc. heck, i might even have my old MRIs from a few years ago.

You have absolutely zero proof that you have a brain, zero son.

i have every bit of proof i need

Because that would take faith for us to believe you have a brain.

false premise #1

2) When you start your car in the morning you realize it takes faith to do that ?

no, it just takes a turn of the key

The faith you have that your car will start,
thats how much faith it takes to know there is a true and living God.

so i have 10 years of my life, every day walking out, sitting in god, turning gods key, and god doing what i tell it to do?

thats interesting.

that makes my 5 years of study on race car dynamics and high performance driving rather interesting. you know all those testable predictions and there subsequent rejection or acceptance of hypothesis ....

i can do that with god?

i will give you a challenge. i know, that the higher damping rates you put on the front suspension of the car, the longer the time constant to steady state. i know this from the math, from experiment, and from person experience.

name one such testable idea in regards to god?

Can you tell me how this apple tastes that I'm eating now ?

i can, as i have eaten many apples. was it a sweet or sour apple?

Neither can you tell me about my God.

thats because i have no experience with god, and you don't either

You've never known Him.

since he will not submit to examination and his followers cannot give any testable predictions, sorry, i can;t know about god, and neither can you

PSALMS 34:8
O taste and see that the LORD [is] good: blessed [is] the man [that] trusteth in him.




i am also still waiting on loh reasoning his way to a god. if it is a rational concept, faith, please, reason your way to a god.

[Lohman446]

My response is simple CP:

If you feel that everyone around you is irrational perhaps the problem is not everyone else. You have failed to compile any reasonable argument to support your initial conclusion that you were called on that religion was inherently evil. Its only morbid curiousity at this point that has prevented me from simply activating the ignore feature. Your own arguments, both this one and previous, have indicated that you do not have the knowledge or expertise required to question my rationale or logic or for that matter anyone elses.

[cockerpunk]

My response is simple CP:

If you feel that everyone around you is irrational perhaps the problem is not everyone else. You have failed to compile any reasonable argument to support your initial conclusion that you were called on that religion was inherently evil. Its only morbid curiousity at this point that has prevented me from simply activating the ignore feature. Your own arguments, both this one and previous, have indicated that you do not have the knowledge or expertise required to question my rationale or logic or for that matter anyone elses.

irrational isn't an insult. irrational is merely a category. there are rational things and irrational things. religion is an irrational one. most people are irrational on some level, even i am. i love, old, junky, kluged together things, despite pursuing technical perfection every day of my life. this is irrational, and thats just fine with me. i wouldn't have it any other way. i drive 80s turbo cars, because i love turbo lag, i shoot autocockers, because i love to turn knobs. not to mention, majority by no means establishes truth. there was an age when everyone knew the world was flat after all.

i listed more then half a dozen reasons religion is inherently evil, and instead of trying to argue with them, you just keep saying "You have failed to compile any reasonable argument to support your initial conclusion that you were called on that religion was inherently evil." well thats great if you think that, but you also have not provided a single valid counter argument to the reasons i have listed! instead keep just repeating that i haven't shown anything, and then refusing to respond to my many examples. its like arguing with a fox news host, wrong on every detail, but still claims the initial claim.

you also claimed that you could reason your way to a god, you have not done this. i look forward to you doing this. i think the entire intellectual and philosophical community would be interested in your proof of a god, as it has so far eluded humanity since the dawn of time.

[Lohman446]

i think the entire intellectual and philosophical community would be interested in your proof of a god, as it has so far eluded humanity since the dawn of time

Actually not. Either you totally ignore those things that are convenient to you or your knowledge is really that shallow. I'm beginning to think your knowledge is that shallow and you simply are not capable of forming your own arguments - hence your failure to form cogent arguments when called on. As addressed before all your supposed "reasoning" to defend your statement that all religion was evil all had the logical fallacy of begging the question

Your statment that it has not been done ignores Aristotles prime mover argument.

It ignores all five of Thomas Aquinas's logical proofs.

It ignores countless others as well

This is why noone takes you seriously. You make these broad sweeping statements and claim to know all of human philosophy and intellect and the entirety of the intellectual and philosophical communities. Truth be told you build card stacking arguments to advance your conclusion without ever giving any hint that there are strong arguments against it. You lack intellectual honesty. You can take that however you want - its a statement of fact. You come across as arrogant by trying to claim some intellectual superiority where you seem to lack it to such a degreee to render your judgements of others in these conversations moot

Morbid curiousity is giving way. Serious discussion will have to continue without you as you simply hinder it.

[cockerpunk]

Actually not. Either you totally ignore those things that are convenient to you or your knowledge is really that shallow. I'm beginning to think your knowledge is that shallow and you simply are not capable of forming your own arguments - hence your failure to form cogent arguments when called on. As addressed before all your supposed "reasoning" to defend your statement that all religion was evil all had the logical fallacy of begging the question

Your statment that it has not been done ignores Aristotles prime mover argument.

It ignores all five of Thomas Aquinas's logical proofs.

It ignores countless others as well

This is why noone takes you seriously. You make these broad sweeping statements and claim to know all of human philosophy and intellect and the entirety of the intellectual and philosophical communities. Truth be told you build card stacking arguments to advance your conclusion without ever giving any hint that there are strong arguments against it. You lack intellectual honesty. You can take that however you want - its a statement of fact. You come across as arrogant by trying to claim some intellectual superiority where you seem to lack it to such a degreee to render your judgements of others in these conversations moot

Morbid curiousity is giving way. Serious discussion will have to continue without you as you simply hinder it.

prime mover has been debunked in a myriad different ways. not only is there the cause and effect problem, there is the fundamental assumption problem. and Aquinas is just another apologist, and his arguments all stem from that position. again, his arguments have had there logical fallacies shown for more then 200 years in published works. and really, the first 3 of his 5, are just the first mover argument re-worked.

way to keep current on philosophy and logic!

so go ahead, reason your way to a god. humanity is waiting.

[Lohman446]

You determine what arguments you like by their conclusion. Those that agree with you are logical and rational. Those that do not are "the evil rage machine" and irrational. As I said you lack any shred of intellectual honesty. I'm done. You may continue an argument of verbosity all you want.

[cockerpunk]

You determine what arguments you like by their conclusion. Those that agree with you are logical and rational. Those that do not are "the evil rage machine" and irrational. As I said you lack any shred of intellectual honesty. I'm done. You may continue an argument of verbosity all you want.

no, i use logic and reasoning, you googled "proofs of god" without knowing anything about them when i called you on your bluff that you could reason your way to a god.

i mean really, you tried to cite the first mover argument ... like really? most children can figure out where that one gets into trouble, you cannot violate your first assumption in your conclusion of a logical proof.

[Lohman446]

Right. Because you know exaclty how it works. I was actually familiar with the first mover argument and the argument of scale. I stumbled across the rest of Aquinas arguments trying to come up with the name of the first mover argument (original motion is what I recalled it as)

Your supposed intellectual superiority exists only in your mind. The rest of us know better.

[cockerpunk]

Right. Because you know exaclty how it works. I was actually familiar with the first mover argument and the argument of scale. I stumbled across the rest of Aquinas arguments trying to come up with the name of the first mover argument (original motion is what I recalled it as)

Your supposed intellectual superiority exists only in your mind. The rest of us know better.

so then why don't you try to patch the holes up in your proofs if you are so intellectually superior?

[Lohman446]

Others: if CP says anything useful let me know. I won't see it at this point as I have found I lack the will power to simply end this conversation.

In the end atheism is a faith. It is due the respect of other faiths. It can be arrived at through a series of considerations and a logical choice. However doing so requires thought and consideration not simply the repeating of others words.

The proofs I referenced are old proofs and are generally negatively received in atheistic circles. They are attacked and are generally argued to have flaws in make-up though you have to want to beleive the logic behind those flaws to believe them. Like it or not logical thought alone does not prove the existence of God.

However it has not now, nor will it as far as I can see, ever disprove the existence of God. The thing is it is virtually impossible to prove a negative. For instance prove we are not all just brains tied up to a complex machine that feeds us elecrical impulse as depicted in movies like the matrix. Prove we are not some ants in some great alien ant farm. The point is these proofs do not exist. We take it on faith that the world as we know it exists. There is no logical proof that God does not exist.

Atheism, in the end and rather ironically, must be taken with an amount of faith. So must the belief in God, gods, or some other entity. I have great respect for those who have come to the conclusion themselves and understand that it still requires faith. For those who would simply tear down without understanding the limits of their own knowledge I have very little respect. As conversations on sensitive subjects cannot exist without some medium of respect I have chosen to ignore CP.

I regret how badly this conversation has gone and the argument of verbosity that has ensued. Perhaps we are not ale to have discussions of this nature on the board. Maybe those who made rules accordingly before now do know better than I do

[going_home]

PSALMS 14:1
The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, [there is] none that doeth good.

[Ando]

You really want to start quoting stuff out of the bible?

The bible also states tattoos are a sin.
Leviticus 19:28

Women should cover their heads.
Corinthians 11:6

And cutting your hair is also bad
Leviticus 19:27

I guess we're all going to hell :rolleyes:

[Lohman446]

You really want to start quoting stuff out of the bible?

The bible also states tattoos are a sin.
Leviticus 19:28

Women should cover their heads.
Corinthians 11:6

And cutting your hair is also bad
Leviticus 19:27

I guess we're all going to hell :rolleyes:

There is an argument that Christ's command replaced the entirety of the Mosaic law. Its an interesting discussion.

[cockerpunk]

Others: if CP says anything useful let me know. I won't see it at this point as I have found I lack the will power to simply end this conversation.

In the end atheism is a faith. It is due the respect of other faiths. It can be arrived at through a series of considerations and a logical choice. However doing so requires thought and consideration not simply the repeating of others words.

The proofs I referenced are old proofs and are generally negatively received in atheistic circles. They are attacked and are generally argued to have flaws in make-up though you have to want to beleive the logic behind those flaws to believe them. Like it or not logical thought alone does not prove the existence of God.

However it has not now, nor will it as far as I can see, ever disprove the existence of God. The thing is it is virtually impossible to prove a negative. For instance prove we are not all just brains tied up to a complex machine that feeds us elecrical impulse as depicted in movies like the matrix. Prove we are not some ants in some great alien ant farm. The point is these proofs do not exist. We take it on faith that the world as we know it exists. There is no logical proof that God does not exist.

Atheism, in the end and rather ironically, must be taken with an amount of faith. So must the belief in God, gods, or some other entity. I have great respect for those who have come to the conclusion themselves and understand that it still requires faith. For those who would simply tear down without understanding the limits of their own knowledge I have very little respect. As conversations on sensitive subjects cannot exist without some medium of respect I have chosen to ignore CP.

I regret how badly this conversation has gone and the argument of verbosity that has ensued. Perhaps we are not ale to have discussions of this nature on the board. Maybe those who made rules accordingly before now do know better than I do


i am happy to see you now openly admitting that you cannot reason your way to a god, like you falsely claimed before.

atheism requires no faith. does not believing in unicorns require faith on your part? does not believing in all those other gods that other people believe in require faith on your part? atheism equally does not claim to disprove god. nothing can ever be disproven, without an associated positive claim proven true, so god will never and can never be disproven. i never have claimed to disprove god. the person with the burden of proof is the one making the positive claim, the claim that god or unicorns or whatever, exists.

there has been no disrespect from me on this topic at any point.


PSALMS 14:1
The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, [there is] none that doeth good.

indeed, quoting a book i do not consider authoritative will really change my mind :rolleyes:

[Ando]

There is an argument that Christ's command replaced the entirety of the Mosaic law. Its an interesting discussion.
So the 10 commandments are out the window? What of the commands to Noah and Abraham?

If I remember my bible studies in church. I'm pretty sure (100%) Christ followed Mosaic Law? Was his fathers teachings too old school for him?

I sat through a sermon about a month ago when I went to church in my wives home town. The preacher actually talked about this very same thing and went on to quote...


God gives law to humans living in every age. He gave commands to the first humans living in the sinless environment of the Garden of Eden (Gen. 1:26-30; 2:15-17). He gave commands to Noah (Gen. 6-9). He gave commands to Abraham (Gen. 12:1; 17:10-14). He gave commands to the Israelites—known as the Mosaic Law—after delivering them from their bondage in Egypt (Ex. 20 - Deut. 34). He has given commands to Christians (Rom. 1-Rev. 3). These biblical distinctions are important, for though all Scripture is written for the benefit of the Christian, only some portions of it speak specifically to him and command his walk with the Lord. Just as the Christian would not try to obey the commands God gave to Adam in Genesis 1-2, or the commands God gave to Noah in Genesis 6-9, so he should not try to obey the commands God gave to Israel in Exodus through Deuteronomy. Romans chapter 1 through Revelation chapter 3 marks the specific body of Scripture that directs the Christian life both regarding specific commands and divine principles.
...so, depending on the times, the church in a nutshell rewrites and teaches on to it's flock what it now wants people to believe.

I think a new chapter is well over due for our time you think :rolleyes:

[cockerpunk]

if gods laws changed in the bible, then how are they a solid basis for morality now? how do we know they haven't changed again?

[going_home]

You really want to start quoting stuff out of the bible?

The bible also states tattoos are a sin.
Leviticus 19:28

Women should cover their heads.
Corinthians 11:6

And cutting your hair is also bad
Leviticus 19:27

I guess we're all going to hell :rolleyes:

There is a group of people that live the Word today.
The women never cut their hair, they dont wear mens garments (pants).
The men look like men, they keep groomed with short hair, and dont wear shorts.
You probably see some of these Believers once in a while in the grocery store.
They follow the Word, and they know that in itself brings ridicule.



if gods laws changed in the bible, then how are they a solid basis for morality now? how do we know they haven't changed again?

The laws were magnified by Jesus, not nullified.
The law said , dont commit adultery.
Jesus said, if you look on a woman with lust, you will be judged for committing adultery.

But your questions were dishonest, in that you really dont care what the answers are, only that you can ridicule more.
People believe what they have faith to believe in.
Ridiculers will ridicule no matter what.


MATTHEW 7:6
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

[Lohman446]

If I remember my bible studies in church. I'm pretty sure (100%) Christ followed Mosaic Law? Was his fathers teachings too old school for him?:

Christ was a faith healer - actually a pretty common profession of the time. He healed on the Sabbath and his followers picked grain from the fields to eat, also on the Sabbath and against the law as they were held by the scribes and the pharisees of the time as Mosaic law.

Which of the commandments of God are you able to break while following Christ's command to love your neighbor as yourself? Maybe ones regarding God but remember Christ was talking to the Jewish people at the time.

Christ illustrated through his life that following of the law alone was not the path to joining God. His main issue with religion seemed to be, to me at least, that the teachers had complicated it and made it about things other than a relationship with God - be it tithing, number of steps on the Sabbath, whatever.

[debruynda]

our argument is not with the ten commandments or or crosses. you can display those on your private property all you want. the issue is when government supports and endorses religion. this is unconstitutional. for claiming to want liberals and atheists to read the constitution, you should try reading amendment number 1. the state cannot endorse religion. that means no ten commandments in front of courthouses, no public schools leading prayers, etc etc etc

when Muslims are trying to put there religious laws and symbols on our books, we will protest them just as hard as when you do it. i am for example, very very much against anti-anti-muslim laws, i have personally been a participant in both draw Muhammad days for example.

all religion is about control, all religion is evil at its core. the only way to be free, is to be free from religion.


This thread is dead but I read something that irks me to no end and I thought I should share it for those who care (and those who don't might learn something):

Pick up the constitution, the 1st Amendment in clear, unambiguous language states that "Congress" (the legislative body that sits in the big domed building and does nothing but screw things up for our country) shall make no law respecting religion. The Supreme Court, in extending the the phrase to cover all branches of government (both federal and state) shows once again how it is right only because it is final. Why don't you tread the constitution before urging others to do so? You're "reading" of the constitution is grossly inaccurate: you're simply parroting the Supreme Court's faulty interpretation of a plainly worded statute. Furthermore, the first amendment says nothing of the states advancing or inhibiting religion, it applies to the federal government. The Supreme Court, through the application of the 14th Amendment, which was written so as to apply to the states, through what they call the incorporation doctrine has applied the 1st Amendment to the states.

There is a big difference between what the Constitution says and what the Supreme Court says it means.

Oh the irony, you can't display anything religious anymore on public property (which isn't a legislative act in any ordinary sense or meaning of the phrase) but you can certainly pass laws or render judgment against said displays.

The excessive government entanglement or advance/inhibit Lemon test nonsense is exactly that: if people are bright, then why do they need the law to protect them from religion? I guess we need to protect the stupid people from their own ignorance.

[Ando]

Someone stone him. :p

[cockerpunk]

This thread is dead but I read something that irks me to no end and I thought I should share it for those who care (and those who don't might learn something):

Pick up the constitution, the 1st Amendment in clear, unambiguous language states that "Congress" (the legislative body that sits in the big domed building and does nothing but screw things up for our country) shall make no law respecting religion. The Supreme Court, in extending the the phrase to cover all branches of government (both federal and state) shows once again how it is right only because it is final. Why don't you tread the constitution before urging others to do so? You're "reading" of the constitution is grossly inaccurate: you're simply parroting the Supreme Court's faulty interpretation of a plainly worded statute. Furthermore, the first amendment says nothing of the states advancing or inhibiting religion, it applies to the federal government. The Supreme Court, through the application of the 14th Amendment, which was written so as to apply to the states, through what they call the incorporation doctrine has applied the 1st Amendment to the states.

There is a big difference between what the Constitution says and what the Supreme Court says it means.

Oh the irony, you can't display anything religious anymore on public property (which isn't a legislative act in any ordinary sense or meaning of the phrase) but you can certainly pass laws or render judgment against said displays.

The excessive government entanglement or advance/inhibit Lemon test nonsense is exactly that: if people are bright, then why do they need the law to protect them from religion? I guess we need to protect the stupid people from their own ignorance.

since congress also is the only body that can make laws ....

so you also believe that that executive branch can do whatever they want in regards to religion? so you would be perfectly fine if for example, a muslim was president, and he/she decided that zero dollars would go to christian charities, just to muslim ones? you would defend that equally as constitutional under your bizarre interpretation? on the same foot, would you like to go to your courthouse, and see nothing about muslim religious symbols? would you feel that justice would be served properly to non-mulsims in a place like this?

[debruynda]

Congress isn't the only body that can make laws; state legislatures can too as can administrative agencies (both federal and state) when such power is delegated. So, since the constitution was written as a document that was intended to define the powers of the federal government, and not the states, it stands to reason why the 1st amendment would be narrowly tailored to apply only to Congress, since they are the only federal branch with legislative authority (notwithstanding the aforementioned exceptions). You said states in your original post, which is patently wrong.

Since when is it bizarre to read something and interpret it by it's plain language?

Your arguments about Islam seem to be well intended but not relevant to a reading of the constitution. But I see what you are getting at: you are making the assumption that there is some religion that if it saturated the culture I live in and would thereby be forced to deal with daily that I would be offended by and then raise the same objection you have. Personally I don't care for religion. But I don't shroud that belief through a faulty reading of the constitution, nor do I get offended by someone elses religious beliefs, however wrong I might feel them to be.

[cockerpunk]

Congress isn't the only body that can make laws; state legislatures can too as can administrative agencies (both federal and state) when such power is delegated. So, since the constitution was written as a document that was intended to define the powers of the federal government, and not the states, it stands to reason why the 1st amendment would be narrowly tailored to apply only to Congress, since they are the only federal branch with legislative authority (notwithstanding the aforementioned exceptions). You said states in your original post, which is patently wrong.

Since when is it bizarre to read something and interpret it by it's plain language?

Your arguments about Islam seem to be well intended but not relevant to a reading of the constitution. But I see what you are getting at: you are making the assumption that there is some religion that if it saturated the culture I live in and would thereby be forced to deal with daily that I would be offended by and then raise the same objection you have. Personally I don't care for religion. But I don't shroud that belief through a faulty reading of the constitution, nor do I get offended by someone elses religious beliefs, however wrong I might feel them to be.

that would be the state congresses and legislative bodies ... the ones that also have to follow the Constitution, cause you know, they have to follow it too ...

so let me get that clear from you: you would be perfectly fine, in every possible way, if our justice system was covered in islamic symbols, if you had to swear on the koran, if the pillars of islam were in front of every courthouse, if the crescent was over every government building, and if discretionary executive spending, and enforcement of the law was in favor of islam? you would be fine with public schools pledging and praying to allah?

you would be fine with that, and believe that is constitutionally correct in our country?

[cockerpunk]

even better yet ... toss out islam .... what about Scientology? or ANY other evidence-less religion?

you would defend to constitutionality of the judicial and executive branches doing all of the above things, in support of Scientology? after all, congress didn't make a law about it .....

[debruynda]

Every argument you make does not need to be absurd, but it sure appears that way. What do religions lacking evidence have to do with any of what I have just outlined?

Again, you're not addressing my point, you're simply injecting absurd hypotheticals to try and undercut it. For the last time, I'm not talking about quasi legislative actions by the judicial and executive branches...the functions of these branches do not include the promulgation of laws respecting religion (remember, the province and application of the 1st Amendment is the textual argument you tried and failed to make, and that I called you out on).

Recall during Obama's coronation when Rick Warren delivered the invocation and mentioned God? That was an executive function, in front of Congress, presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Was that an endorsement of religion? Was that a "law" that advanced religion? It most certainly was a religiously symbolic gesture...similar but not identical to the religious displays you mention in your previous post you find to be violative of the First Amendment (but more relevant since it is clearly federal action and not state action). See, it's easy to conflate neutral actions by other branches of government with official legislative acts as violative of the 1st Amendment. But that fails to address my point.

There is a distinct difference between what the Constitution says and what you are saying it means. You are definitely entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

[cockerpunk]

Every argument you make does not need to be absurd, but it sure appears that way. What do religions lacking evidence have to do with any of what I have just outlined?

Again, you're not addressing my point, you're simply injecting absurd hypotheticals to try and undercut it. For the last time, I'm not talking about quasi legislative actions by the judicial and executive branches...the functions of these branches do not include the promulgation of laws respecting religion (remember, the province and application of the 1st Amendment is the textual argument you tried and failed to make, and that I called you out on).

Recall during Obama's coronation when Rick Warren delivered the invocation and mentioned God? That was an executive function, in front of Congress, presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Was that an endorsement of religion? Was that a "law" that advanced religion? It most certainly was a religiously symbolic gesture...similar but not identical to the religious displays you mention in your previous post you find to be violative of the First Amendment (but more relevant since it is clearly federal action and not state action). See, it's easy to conflate neutral actions by other branches of government with official legislative acts as violative of the 1st Amendment. But that fails to address my point.

There is a distinct difference between what the Constitution says and what you are saying it means. You are definitely entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

the argument isn't absurd at all. are there not people of different faiths here in the USA? could they not be elected in future?

without evidence, one cannot determine the correct religion, ergo you are totally fine with massive amount of public resources being dedicated based only on the whim of those in our executive branch. there is just as much evidence for thor, as allah, as yahweh. just because you think some of these are more rational then others, doesn't make that true. they are all based on the same lack of evidence. and you are fine with that lack of evidence to justify all sorts of societal government expenditures and enforcements. i am not.

the issue is so called "quasi legislative actions" are real, whether you are agree with them or not .... so we have to deal with them. and according to your own interpretation of the issue, since its not congress making a law, then its a-ok by you.

obama was not coronated. he was inaugurated. the fact that you even used that word, reveals quite a lot about your position in this thread.

and yes, the invocation of god in that is an endorsement of religion, and yes, it is unconstitutional. as is in god we trust on our money, under god in the pledge etc etc etc. most of those were added in the 1950s in an attempt to separate us from those ungodly communists!

the only one confused about facts is you dear sir.

[debruynda]

You still don't get it.

Congress makes laws, laws that appropriate money. The executive and the judicial branch don't make laws that distribute money. The president, through the office of money and banking, submits his budget to congress. Congress through the allocation process determines where and how much it goes so any monies earmarked or resources earmarked for the advancement of religion would have to be approved by congress. That is the strongest argument for you to make for the application of the 1st Amendment. Congress also has the sole power to print and coin money too, it's one of their enumerated powers. So you are justified in you claim that the logos on the money may constitute excessive entanglement by Congress.

See how this all applies to Congress, and not the other branches?

What does the term coronation have to do with anything?

[debruynda]

And to you point about what functions are okay with me: that is irrelevant to the context of the discussion of what is constitutional.

[cockerpunk]

You still don't get it.

Congress makes laws, laws that appropriate money. The executive and the judicial branch don't make laws that distribute money. The president, through the office of money and banking, submits his budget to congress. Congress through the allocation process determines where and how much it goes so any monies earmarked or resources earmarked for the advancement of religion would have to be approved by congress. That is the strongest argument for you to make for the application of the 1st Amendment. Congress also has the sole power to print and coin money too, it's one of their enumerated powers. So you are justified in you claim that the logos on the money may constitute excessive entanglement by Congress.

See how this all applies to Congress, and not the other branches?

What does the term coronation have to do with anything?

actually, every budget passed does have executive discretionary spending in it. also, spending on architecture, art, etc etc etc is discretionary, ergo, the other branches of government are always going to be involved. not only that, but again, like say pentagon spending, such and such money is designated to the pentagon as discretionary, because obviously congress doesn't want to get bogged down in the minutia of voting on every single weapons program budget ... but that money could be spent on say "upgrading" every tank to have a cross on it or something, idk, it could be anything. this kind of crap happens all the time ... who do you think decides on the architecture of a renovation of a small town courthouse in rural iowa? not the US congress ... doesn't mean that the building gets to break the first amendment.

FFRF sued the bush administration over his insistence to fund christian charities with such money.

so we can argue that maybe that shouldn't be the case, that congress should have to explicitly state which and what charities get funded, but that doesn't do anything but shift the argument.

the simple fact is, all branches need to follow the first amendment.