US... the day is coming, please

[Aliantha]

ok, I'm not stupid enough (close though) to fall for that one!

[monster]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Not because I want people to be made fun of because of their beliefs, because I want them to be out of politics, where they have no place.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../nblair125.xml



Though at the same time one wants to know about those, like the moron in office and those who do not believe in evolution who should not hold office.

Wait a minute..... you do know there is no separation of church and state in the UK? That here is a national religion there?




....What am I thinking, of course you know that -from the days when you used to work in British Government

Originally Posted by monster

Wait a minute..... you do know there is no separation of church and state in the UK? That here is a national religion there?
....What am I thinking, of course you know that -from the days when you used to work in British Government

Was reading the title of the thread too hard for you baby?

[monster]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Was reading the title of the thread too hard for you baby?

Are you coming on to me, rkz?

[piercehawkeye45]

Yes I am talking about faith, but even though you say it can be a good thing, which I won't disagree with, it can be very deadly when someone with as much power as the president uses it.

I know this isn't the reason for the Iraqi invasion but just imagine how many lives would have been saved and how much less fucked up the Middle East would be if George Bush Jr. didn't attack Iraq based on faith but held back because he didn't have any evidence of WMDs? You cannot avoid making assumptions altogether as president but when faith is put ahead of evidence, people will be unnecessarily hurt, which I am trying to avoid.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I just had a thought that hadn't occurred to me before. I wonder if Bush's remarks about divine guidance in attacking Iraq, were to cut off further questioning by the press, into reasons he didn't want to divulge?

[lookout123]

more likely it was a preemptive move to ensure that members of some of the large christian organizations were firmly on his side.

SHEEP: Well, if God told Mr Bush that Iraq is where we have to go, then we must follow even if we don't understand.

sadly enough a lot of the folks that follow some of the well known "christian leaders" don't question anything if the leadership says they heard from god. in that way they are very similar to some of the large unions. the leadership may be giving them the unlubed shaft, but it would be "wrong" to not follow the leader.

i've said it before, i don't think W is stupid. I think he has cultivated that image to endear him to one group and confuse another. you may not like where he has/is taking us, but i think he is fairly shrewd in getting what he wants.

[classicman]

I specifically said CAN, not always is.
piercehawkeye45 - good points
Happy Monkey - Hmmm scary, but true.

[queequeger]

Frankly, I couldn't give a damn WHAT my politicians believe. What I care about is how they vote, and their policies. You can be 7th tier Scientologist for all I care, just don't let your crazy into the law books or policy.

I know this will make a lot of people angry/judgemental at/of me, but I think "faith" is a bad thing. "Faith" means "I will hold this belief in the contradiction to all the evidence against it." It makes no sense, and it doesn't make someone strong. Just like ignoring all contrary evidence in ANY forum, it is a stubbornness.

We all get on the cases of people who won't change their arguments, people who won't listen to astounding evidence. Yet somehow if it's being stubborn for God it makes it something to be admired.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by queequeger

"Faith" means "I will hold this belief in the contradiction to all the evidence against it." It makes no sense, and it doesn't make someone strong. Just like ignoring all contrary evidence in ANY forum, it is a stubbornness.

There are lots of forms of faith that do not contradict any known evidence; rather they focus on the things we can't know.

[queequeger]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

There are lots of forms of faith that do not contradict any known evidence; rather they focus on the things we can't know.

Things we CAN'T know are precisely are what we need to avoid making definite decisions about. Because we can't prove that "God is out there and that he doesn't WANT it to be easy to believe in him" is the reason we should avoid being so sure about it. It's a hypthesis that can't be disproven, and in every logical system that discounts it as a non-argument.

[Cloud]

you cannot apply logical reasoning to the unknowable

[queequeger]

Originally Posted by Cloud

you cannot apply logical reasoning to the unknowable

Yes you can, we do it all the time. That's what philosophy majors DO when they're not acting smarmy.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

As opposed to the things we CAN know... because historically, we've got such a good track record with all the things we thought we knew for sure, right?

I don't get it, are you saying that we shouldn't try to be sure because we've been wrong? If that IS what you're saying it's a pretty ridiculous argument. People used to think the earth was flat, blah blah blah. No one can say they know FOR SURE they're not a figment of a giant space beetle's dream... that doesn't mean they should spend their whole lives pondering the question. Do you know for sure the next time you sleep something won't kill you? No, not 100%, but are you going to try and stay awake until you ARE sure? You find the most likely solution to a question and move on until there is new information.

My main point is, that we've learned a lot of new information and it means that the most likely solution is no longer the magic man in the sky. We're figuring out how things work, and all of our logic tells us that God was a crutch used by our forbears to explain what they couldn't figure out at the time.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Making "definite decisions" should not be the immediate goal for either science or religion (though obviously not everyone agrees with me as many faiths are more obstinate and foolishly dogmatic in the face of evidence.) It's about striving to understand. Humans ultimately don't know shit, through science or faith. We do the best we can. A person who is completely unwilling to consider seemingly unlikely possibilities for the unknown (how's that quantum mechanics thing working out?) is no better than a fundamentalist who puts an ancient book on the same pedestal.

Now we're arguing semantics. My version of a "definite decision" is one that we are sure enough about to work into our world view. Gravity, evolution, magnetism, etc. The reason we assume these things is that up until now (and using the scientific method, not uncontrolled observation) all of our evidence points to the proper formation of these theories. They COULD have been disproven, but they haven't been(As opposed to god, who can't be disproven because of the "he's testing us" argument). And it's not to say they won't be reversed or altered, but for now our best bet is moving forward with these things as a base for reasoning.

Your version of "definite decision" (or perhaps what you assumed my version was) is something we can know 100% for sure. No one above a middle school level of education would argue this exists (except maybe your very enthusiastic religiouso).

So in conclusion, while I don't know for sure that there isn't a magical man in the sky who created everything "just because," and that in order to test our resolve he has placed mountains of evidence contradicting his descriptions, I can assume well enough to bet my "eternal soul."

Also, on a loosely connected note: If you haven't seen the movie "Man From Earth," don't read anything about it, or even the back cover, rent it and watch it. The surprise is what makes it such a great movie. It's basically a look into some possible reactions of intellectuals to information that severely challenges their world views with an unlikely possibilities.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by queequeger

Things we CAN'T know are precisely are what we need to avoid making definite decisions about.

As opposed to the things we CAN know... because historically, we've got such a good track record with all the things we thought we knew for sure, right? Making "definite decisions" should not be the immediate goal for either science or religion (though obviously not everyone agrees with me as many faiths are more obstinate and foolishly dogmatic in the face of evidence.) It's about striving to understand. Humans ultimately don't know shit, through science or faith. We do the best we can. A person who is completely unwilling to consider seemingly unlikely possibilities for the unknown (how's that quantum mechanics thing working out?) is no better than a fundamentalist who puts an ancient book on the same pedestal.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

A person who is completely unwilling to consider seemingly unlikely possibilities for the unknown...

But what is there to consider when the subject is unknowable? What criteria do you use to choose among the countless premade possibilities and the uncountable ones yet to be made up?

Most people pick the one their parents picked, most of whom did the same, and so on. Some pick one that makes them feel good. Some, in response to guilt, pick one that makes them feel bad in the right way. Some pick one based on friends. Some pick one based on a charismatic spokesman. Some make up their own.

Before you can "consider seemingly unlikely possibilities for the unknown", you have to decide what criteria you have available that actually indicates truth. None of the above criteria are considered to be particularly accurate for anything but religion, and I see no need to consider them more accurate in another area, just because in that area they can't be proven wrong.