US... the day is coming, please
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.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/25/nblair125.xml
Tony Blair: Mention God and you're a 'nutter'By Jonathan Wynne-Jones and Patrick Hennessy
Last Updated: 1:44am GMT 26/11/2007
Tony Blair has sparked controversy by claiming that people who speak about their religious faith can be viewed by society as "nutters".
Blair was reluctant to discuss his faith during his time in office
Mr Blair complained that he had been unable to follow the example of US politicians, such as President George W. Bush, in being open about his faith because people in Britain regarded religion with suspicion.
"It's difficult if you talk about religious faith in our political system," Mr Blair said. "If you are in the American political system or others then you can talk about religious faith and people say 'yes, that's fair enough' and it is something they respond to quite naturally.
"You talk about it in our system and, frankly, people do think you're a nutter. I mean … you may go off and sit in the corner and … commune with the man upstairs and then come back and say 'right, I've been told the answer and that's it'."
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.
ok, just want to make sure i have this right. are you saying that someone who believes in a god and practices a faith is unfit to serve their country?
that smells of discrimination and bigotry.
Rk, how about if you started a thread called, "Religion Sucks: by Rkzenrage," and put all this stuff there?
stop stalking him blue. he might unleash his wrath and start posting clever little jpegs or you might really piss him off and he'll bring the hammer down... a youtube tongue lashing! the horror, the horror...
But how will I know to be frightened? He doesn't convey emotions in his posts, remember.
dammit! thanks for pointing out the flaw in my broken illogical brain.
[SIZE="7"]AD HOMINEM[/SIZE]*clever jpeg*
I thought RKZ was saying people who 'don't believe in evolution' shouldn't hold office.
While i agree that the separation of church and state is an ideal situation, if you're going to criticize people for believing in God and saying so through the course of their duties, you can't then support those who say they don't believe in God either.
Edit: that is, whether a politician states that they either believe or don't believe in God (or any other religion/faith/way of living), as a citizen you may agree or disagree on a personal basis, but I don't think it should be the reason you either vote or don't vote for that person.
You can't have it both ways.
no offense, RK, but isn't there an actual Net community, forum, or blog dedicated to this subject, so you can talk to the people there about it? People who are as passionate about it as you are? I agree it's an important topic, but I submit there's really no need to pass on every.single.darn news article about it here. Those of us who are interested can subscribe to daily RSS fees just as well as you can.
I mean, we get it, really--you're for the separation of church and state and against religion in government. And I agree with you, really. But perhaps you could only pass on the really important or newsworthy items?
Rk, how about if you started a thread called, "Religion Sucks: by Rkzenrage," and put all this stuff there?
I just don't feel that if one knows they base their decisions on something other than the law, Constitution and Bill of Rights first they should not be voted for.
Like a certain idiot who says things like "just a piece of paper" and "don't bother me with it". After that he deserves NO RESPECT of ANY KIND.
Well you get the choice not to vote for them based on their religious beliefs and the fact that you disagree with them for making decisions based on their beliefs.
I suppose the flip side of that is that some people like voting for someone who comes from the same church.
Isn't that what liberty is supposed to be all about? The freedom to choose?
no offense, RK, but isn't there an actual Net community, forum, or blog dedicated to this subject, so you can talk to the people there about it? People who are as passionate about it as you are? I agree it's an important topic, but I submit there's really no need to pass on every.single.darn news article about it here. Those of us who are interested can subscribe to daily RSS fees just as well as you can.
I mean, we get it, really--you're for the separation of church and state and against religion in government. And I agree with you, really. But perhaps you could only pass on the really important or newsworthy items?
No offense taken... don't like it, don't post.
You of all people should not be calling the pot black when it comes to whining about people's threads.
I post a lot of other topics, if you, LJ and others want to focus on this and erroneously say it is all post, have at it, look like an illiterate if you like.
if you're going to criticize people for believing in God
Where did I do that?
Well you get the choice not to vote for them based on their religious beliefs and the fact that you disagree with them for making decisions based on their beliefs.
I suppose the flip side of that is that some people like voting for someone who comes from the same church.
Isn't that what liberty is supposed to be all about? The freedom to choose?
Never argued with any of these points and don't.
NO! Liberty is about electing the candidate I like!
Edit: damn iPod... Types too slow, always post too late...
Moron. ;)
Eloquent and well thought out as ever. Do I see the light now?
Dance clown dance.
like the moron in office and those who do not believe in evolution who should not hold office.
This to me says that if you don't believe in evolution you shouldn't hold office.
Many people who believe in God don't believe in evolution.
This then means that you are critical of anyone who believes in God and not evolution, holding office.
I just don't feel that if one knows they base their decisions on something other than the law, Constitution and Bill of Rights first they should not be voted for.
Like a certain idiot who says things like "just a piece of paper" and "don't bother me with it". After that he deserves NO RESPECT of ANY KIND.
Well okay, that certainly is worth crying about.
Never argued with any of these points and don't.
Well if you agree with these points, what is the argument? What are you trying to do mate? Are you just making sure that everyone realizes they have the same right to choose not to vote for people who make choices based on religious beliefs?
my post was meant to be a respectful suggestion, not whining.
This to me says that if you don't believe in evolution you shouldn't hold office.
Many people who believe in God don't believe in evolution.
This then means that you are critical of anyone who believes in God and not evolution, holding office.
I do feel that way, that does not mean I think everyone else has to.
I do think if someone is that superstitious and disregards facts to that extent they are going to do the same thing with data presented to them in office. It is simple logic and should be applied.
I realize that's how you feel RKZ. So does pretty much everyone else here. That's why I'm wondering if there's any other point you're trying to make or if that's just it.
I would really like to understand, and I think maybe others would also.
my post was meant to be a respectful suggestion, not whining.
Respectful?
Every news feed, hardly. Go somewhere else, yeah, I'm feelin' tha' love. News worthy... I'll be sure to run my posts by you in the future from now on. Give me a break.
Nothing in that post was respectful.
You're reading too much into it RK, I read it as a respectful post.
Eloquent and well thought out as ever. Do I see the light now?
Dance clown dance.
Hey Lookout, I think rk has a crush on you. He's calling me a clown, because I called you a moron.
just because they're out to get ya . . .
please stop. no seriously. i only see rage as a friend. i mean sure, his modeling shots were nice and all. and he is well travelled. and edumacated. and sure he has experienced everything a human can possibly experience. and yes, he has reached the pinnacle of all rational thought. but i just don't see him that way.:headshake
I realize that's how you feel RKZ. So does pretty much everyone else here. That's why I'm wondering if there's any other point you're trying to make or if that's just it.
I would really like to understand, and I think maybe others would also.
Discussion forum.
Confused?
Don't like the topic, don't post.
I don't go into the topics that I don't like and whine and bitch about them.
Whaaaaaa you posted another clone, whaaaaaa you posted another poll, whaaaaa you posted another who likes to fuck this way... whaaaaaaaa.... I just ignore them, it's easy, in fact, it is beyond easy it is NOT doing something, it is less than effort it is lack of any action.
Those that post whining in them want to have responses and the attention, that is why they do it or they would do the rational thing, if they really don't like the topic, and just ignore it.
Just don't post in the thread if you don't have something intelligent to add and you really don't care about to the topic, is that so difficult?
Hey Lookout, I think rk has a crush on you. He's calling me a clown, because I called you a moron.
Sorry, I thought you were talking to me.
No, he is a moron and a stalker.
Not used to the back-up.
I am very sorry for the misunderstanding.
Yeah, Ali. You are so beneath the topic of this thread. ;)
You're reading too much into it RK, I read it as a respectful post.
We read it differently.
The wonder of text, there is no inflection and each reads it differently.
I saw nothing respectful in telling me not to post things of interest, go somewhere else with what I wanted to add to the discussion board and that the implication that I posted everything on the topic I found without any evidence or asking me before jumping to that conclusion.
Where in that do you see respect, especially after she was accused of being similar things and getting her feelings hurt so recently by similar statements?
I see a rude and hypocritical post alone.
just ignore them, it's easy, in fact, it is beyond easy it is NOT doing something, it is less than effort it is lack of any action.
yeah, but if it is a worthy effort for someone to bitch and moan about bibles in a hotel drawer then certainly discussing the value of seeing the same fucking thread posted over and over and over again by the same one trick pony is worth talking about, right?
i mean it might be easier to ignore, but dammit - sometimes you've just gotta stand up and say "enough!"
wait, which thread is this again? oh nevermind, you've probably already started a new one.
Discussion forum.
Confused?
Don't like the topic, don't post.
I don't go into the topics that I don't like and whine and bitch about them.
Whaaaaaa you posted another clone, whaaaaaa you posted another poll, whaaaaa you posted another who likes to fuck this way... whaaaaaaaa.... I just ignore them, it's easy, in fact, it is beyond easy it is NOT doing something, it is less than effort it is lack of any action.
Those that post whining in them want to have responses and the attention, that is why they do it or they would do the rational thing, if they really don't like the topic, and just ignore it.
Just don't post in the thread if you don't have something intelligent to add and you really don't care about to the topic, is that so difficult?
I am asking you the question reasonably rkz. I want to know if there's something I'm supposed to get from your posts that I'm not. I, and I'm guessing a few others want to know if there's something we don't understand which causes you to tell us the same things over and over again.
It's a pretty simple question. Do we get it, or do we not? If not, please explain. If we do, then why keep telling us?
yeah, but if it is a worthy effort for someone to bitch and moan about bibles in a hotel drawer then certainly discussing the value of seeing the same fucking thread posted over and over and over again by the same one trick pony is worth talking about, right?
i mean it might be easier to ignore, but dammit - sometimes you've just gotta stand up and say "enough!"
wait, which thread is this again? oh nevermind, you've probably already started a new one.
Incorrect, each thread has a different point and is a different discussion.
Religion is only one aspect of the thread.
Some cannot see that, some with diminished cognitive abilities or reading comprehension perhaps or just don't read them, the result is the same.
Respectful?
Go somewhere else, yeah, I'm feelin' tha' love.
You get what you give Rage Guy. What comes around, goes around...
You get what you give Rage Guy. What comes around, goes around...
I was disrespectful to Cloud at what point, I told her to stop posting threads when, told her to leave at what time?
Sorry, I thought you were talking to me.
No, he is a moron and a stalker.
Not used to the back-up.
I am very sorry for the misunderstanding.
Apology accepted. But if you'd learn how to read, we wouldn't have had this problem in the first place.
I am asking you the question reasonably rkz. I want to know if there's something I'm supposed to get from your posts that I'm not. I, and I'm guessing a few others want to know if there's something we don't understand which causes you to tell us the same things over and over again.
It's a pretty simple question. Do we get it, or do we not? If not, please explain. If we do, then why keep telling us?
And I clearly stated that every thread is different, which is what you are supposed to get from them.
I am on no soap-box.
That "most get it" is incorrect in all ways.
I simply post things I like to discuss and could care less if you agree with me or like what I post.
I only want an intelligent discussion with those who want to discuss the topic... now that you bring it up, these days, looks like I'm looking in the wrong place, huh?
Discussion forum.
Confused?
Don't like the topic, don't post.
I don't go into the topics that I don't like and whine and bitch about them.
Whaaaaaa you posted another clone, whaaaaaa you posted another poll, whaaaaa you posted another who likes to fuck this way... whaaaaaaaa.... I just ignore them, it's easy, in fact, it is beyond easy it is NOT doing something, it is less than effort it is lack of any action.
Those that post whining in them want to have responses and the attention, that is why they do it or they would do the rational thing, if they really don't like the topic, and just ignore it.
Just don't post in the thread if you don't have something intelligent to add and you really don't care about to the topic, is that so difficult?
but...the topic in this thread has shifted. it's now about rk bashing.
Apology accepted. But if you'd learn how to read, we wouldn't have had this problem in the first place.
Yeah... I really should have read it all more carefully.:D
but...the topic in this thread has shifted. it's now about rk bashing.
Imagine that.:3_eyes:
sometimes you've just gotta stand up and say "enough!"
When you do this with others I will buy it.
Well if that's how you feel about it, maybe you are mate. Almost every thread you post has a religious theme somewhere. That was why I asked the question I asked. I don't see how the issue can be discussed any further among the current residents here. You've posted 'separation of church and state' in just about every thread.
We are not the ones that return to that point every time. You are. It's your issue, but you keep blaming us for it.
ok, that's fair. could you point me in the direction of another dwellar who starts dozens of threads revolving around the same central premise. "religion is bad and sheep who believe are stoopid, mmmkay?" we understand your view. did you have another point?
look back at your threads. a very high percentage of them are about the same damn thing. even the ones that aren't about religion are bitching and moaning about something. it would seem that there is absolutely nothing in the known universe that doesn't get your panties in a wad.
Really Ali? I guess you don't read the news threads I post or the thread I posed about an artist's death today.
I blame you for not being able to stay on-topic because you are the one who is unable to stay on-topic or just not post in the thread... which is the plain fact.
Don't like the thread, don't post in it.
How would you like it if I just went from one of your threads to the next just griping about them and insulting you without discussing the topic?
You would not know, because it is beneath me and I would not do that, so you never considered it... you just do it withouth thinking about how you would respond.
ok, that's fair. could you point me in the direction of another dwellar who starts dozens of threads revolving around the same central premise. "religion is bad and sheep who believe are stoopid, mmmkay?" we understand your view. did you have another point?
look back at your threads. a very high percentage of them are about the same damn thing. even the ones that aren't about religion are bitching and moaning about something. it would seem that there is absolutely nothing in the known universe that doesn't get your panties in a wad.
And you give a shit because?
You crack me up so much!
I do not insult you rkz. nor do I hop from one thread to the next. I don't participate in many of your threads because many of them revolve around the same central theme. It's probably because of this that I don't always read your threads.
I guess it goes both ways.
I do not insult you rkz. nor do I hop from one thread to the next. I don't participate in many of your threads because many of them revolve around the same central theme. It's probably because of this that I don't always read your threads.
I guess it goes both ways.
I did not only state insulting. I also mentioned derailing the threads to whine about the threads I post, my verbiage and anything else you can think of, and if you don't think much of what you said in LJ's thread was not insulting... ok.
ok, that's fair. could you point me in the direction of another dwellar who starts dozens of threads revolving around the same central premise. "religion is bad and sheep who believe are stoopid, mmmkay?" we understand your view. did you have another point?
look back at your threads. a very high percentage of them are about the same damn thing. even the ones that aren't about religion are bitching and moaning about something. it would seem that there is absolutely nothing in the known universe that doesn't get your panties in a wad.
Many dwellers stay on topics about music, political ideologies, and other issues.
If you dislike me so much and my threads are so bad why do you stalk me from thread to thread doing nothing but insulting me like a pathetic stuck puppet?
Why do you give a shit?
It is not going to change my behavior in the least, other than to mock you and give me some mirth in my day. Truly, it will never have another effect.
ok, have it your way then. If that's what you think then why am I even bothering to discuss anything with you? I don't remember what I posted in Jimbo's thread, and quite frankly, I think you're forgetting all the times I'm sided with you against people who attack you because of the subjects you choose to post on continuously.
You're on your own now though. Enjoy!
ok, have it your way then. If that's what you think then why am I even bothering to discuss anything with you? I don't remember what I posted in Jimbo's thread, and quite frankly, I think you're forgetting all the times I'm sided with you against people who attack you because of the subjects you choose to post on continuously.
You're on your own now though. Enjoy!
I have forgotten nothing, nor should one make me forget another.
What makes you think I have forgotten anything? I have indicated nothing of the kind.
do the words "preaching to the choir" mean anything to you? Most of us agree with your premise, I think, so I don't understand why you persist in being so confrontational . . . over a subject with little controversy here.
here it is!
Too funny, thanks man.
yeah I just re-read the whole thing. There's nothing i said in that thread that I would think anyone could consider to be insulting to rkz at all. Quite the contrary. I suppose maybe it must have been insulting to rkz in some way though. How that could be I simply can not fathom.
do the words "preaching to the choir" mean anything to you? Most of us agree with your premise, I think, so I don't understand why you persist in being so confrontational . . . over a subject with little controversy here.
I don't think I am.
I don't say religious people are stupid, people should not be religious on their own time or anything of that kind at all.
I post different stories about different aspects, not only separation of church and state, but abuse of religious authority and other types of stories... not one at all and not one aspect of each.
Again, if that is what one sees it is not my fault and I will not pander to an inability to take each thread for what it is.
No one bitches about the news stories, "all you do is post news"!
Too funny, thanks man.
Ali was defending you and your behavior in that thread. Is that what you think is funny?
No one bitches about the news stories, "all you do is post news"!
Yes they do. We all know how to get news if we want it - so people do bitch when someone posts a news story and doesn't at least hint at the discussion they're trying to start.
But most people here have learned to not bother trying to discuss anything with you as you're not capable in that regard.
Every time you post a new article you might just as well be bumping one you've posted before. The "discussions" all go the same way.
I posted two different opinions that I have on this subject in the title post jinx, you are completely incorrect.
I see those that bitch about my not posting an opinion on articles as someone who can't form their own opinion for themselves.
Again and again, "Discussion Forum", if they can't discuss it from their own perspective they have not business griping about the thread.
Just don't post.
Edit:
So funny, when I post my opinion I get all this whining like this thread and when I don't I get different whining "why didn't you post your opinion" LOL!
People just like to whine. It's beneath me.
If you like the topic and have an opinion on it, regardless of your stance on my opinion, post it and discuss it with others... don't like the thread or have an opinion, don't post... it is very simple.
Unless you are just looking for an opportunity to whine and bitch about something that has nothing to do with you... then you will make it something else, right?
So you copy a link right from CNN's home page and its up to everyone else to discuss it?
What do you get out of that?
Depends on the discussion.
Generally they are things that I see more than one way of looking at and want to see what others think about them, hence "Discussion Forum". Same as any discussion.
My opinion can change about anything if presented with a compelling enough argument.
This used to be a place for logical discussion instead of people freaking out like eight-year-olds the min you post something they don't like, much less disagree with them.
'Discussion Forum' is what you keep calling it.
It is my opinion that the old hats think of it more as an 'internet community'
this is an important distinction that you should take some time to reflect upon.
.... *reflected*... don't care.
I no longer talk about my personal life, people like you just use it to hurt others because that is who you are.
Depends on the discussion.
Generally they are things that I see more than one way of looking at and want to see what others think about them, hence "Discussion Forum". Same as any discussion.
My opinion can change about anything if presented with a compelling enough argument.
This used to be a place for logical discussion instead of people freaking out like eight-year-olds the min you post something they don't like, much less disagree with them.
This line of shit might fly with the newbs, but I've actually read your posts, and know exactly how you respond when people try to discuss things with you. Flint nailed it
here.
Coming from you that is hilarious!
hmmm...somehow that has a very familiar ring to it.
I really don't know what to say to you. It seems like you take everything the wrong way, then lash out defensively. I mean, what's the point of putting things out there for discussion if you just piss everyone off? If you are trying to educate and enlighten us on this important topic . . . it's not working.
I'm going to make another (I'm sure, futile) suggestion, with all due respect: Since you have posted threads on this general topic (religion, separation of church and state) in several different "discussion forums," i.e, Politics, Current Events, and Philosophy, would you consider a single thread in which you could post all your related news stories? Voila! Efficient, topical, and continuously updated.
he wouldnt even consider his very own forum. got all twisted up when i suggested that too.
I'm going to make another (I'm sure, futile) suggestion, with all due respect: Since you have posted threads on this general topic (religion, separation of church and state) in several different "discussion forums," i.e, Politics, Current Events, and Philosophy, would you consider a single thread in which you could post all your related news stories? Voila! Efficient, topical, and continuously updated.
I'd made that suggestion on page one, but it made him cry.
oh well. just a suggestion, anyway.
I'd made that suggestion on page one, but it made him cry.
That was my opinion of your post, another whine, since you could not tell.
I really don't know what to say to you. It seems like you take everything the wrong way, then lash out defensively. I mean, what's the point of putting things out there for discussion if you just piss everyone off? If you are trying to educate and enlighten us on this important topic . . . it's not working.
I'm going to make another (I'm sure, futile) suggestion, with all due respect: Since you have posted threads on this general topic (religion, separation of church and state) in several different "discussion forums," i.e, Politics, Current Events, and Philosophy, would you consider a single thread in which you could post all your related news stories? Voila! Efficient, topical, and continuously updated.
If I post a topic and someone gets pissed off about it, it is their own doing, not mine.
Once a topic is posted it belongs to the entire community, not one person, orig poster or not.... as seen by the inability for most here to stay on-topic in any way at all, ever.
I stated earlier why each thread is it's own, you may want to go back and read it instead of tail-posting.
I'll tail post (whatever that is) When I clicked on "New Posts" this am The last post in virtually every thread was yours, rkzenrage. How is it possible to have the same opinion on every single thread or issue? Then you go and accuse others as stalking you when you have posted in almost every thread on the board? I can't get away from you in any thread.
Talk about litter? You are posting the same crap everywhere! Hateful and negative everywhere and about everything. Whats the last positive uplifting thing you've posted about? Seriously, Think about it.
And your blah, blah, "its not my fault what you think or read into my posts" cop-out is a lame rebuttal to several very good suggestions. Just create your own thread, post all your stuff there and we'll come visit you from time to time - promise. mmmkay? We'll all do our part to clean up the basement - err Cellar.
CLASSIC YOU STALKER WHY DO YOU FOLLOW ME ITS SO IMMATURE. YOU ARE AN IDIOT AND THIS IS BENEATH ME.
nanny nanny boo boo - I'm still here stalkinz youz
Hi Classic!
You've arrived with such a blitz of posts, I wonder if you got formally welcomed. Just in case:
:welcome:
Welcome Classic.
And I quite liked your post #75. Said it all pretty clearly I thought.
i could be completely offbase, but i classic feels like a very high quality sock puppet. posts just seem very familiar. but if not - Wlcome to the cellar. don't feed the wolf, she bites sometimes. Who is going to administer the test now that Lumberjim is gone?
i could be completely offbase, but [COLOR="SandyBrown"]i classic[/COLOR] feels like a very high quality sock puppet. posts just seem very familiar. but if not - Wlcome to the cellar. don't feed the wolf, she bites sometimes. Who is going to administer the test now that Lumberjim is gone?
A-HA! "i, classic..."? Freudian slip, much? :p
A-HA! "i, classic..."? Freudian slip, much? :p
is that a freudian slip? i thought a freudian slit was when you said what was really on your mind instead of what you meant to sex.
Eh, maybe wrong phrase. You know what they say "a freudian slip is meaning one thing but slaying your mother."
What is the phrase I want, meaning he didn't mean to slip in the "i" thereby exposing his puppetness in all its socky glory?
well like Isaid in another thread, I have been a lurker for a long time. So I am reeally not a newbie - thanks for the welcome though. Sock puppet? No I am certainly not one, butI have long wondered about tw and rk.... just throwin it out there
butI have long wondered about tw and rk.... just throwin it out there
keep posting crap like that and
I'll start wondering if you are one of my sock puppets.
I'll tail post (whatever that is) When I clicked on "New Posts" this am The last post in virtually every thread was yours, rkzenrage. How is it possible to have the same opinion on every single thread or issue? Then you go and accuse others as stalking you when you have posted in almost every thread on the board? I can't get away from you in any thread.
Talk about litter? You are posting the same crap everywhere! Hateful and negative everywhere and about everything. Whats the last positive uplifting thing you've posted about? Seriously, Think about it.
And your blah, blah, "its not my fault what you think or read into my posts" cop-out is a lame rebuttal to several very good suggestions. Just create your own thread, post all your stuff there and we'll come visit you from time to time - promise. mmmkay? We'll all do our part to clean up the basement - err Cellar.
Here you go, you worthless whiny little cunt.
LOL!
eta:
**@ lookout123, because apparently there was another post made between the time I read his and I posted mine.
Here you go, you worthless whiny little cunt.
This kind of posting is absolutely inexcusable imo, and pathetic to boot. What happened to the reasoned, emotionless discussion you so often espouse?
Just an observation.
The sock set the tone when it posted to me like that the first time.
Since it did that it stated clearly that that is how it wants to communicate, I simply complied.
The sock set the tone when it posted to me like that the first time.
That's the price of your integrity then? If someone else('s sock puppet) does it first, anything goes?
:headshake
Sorry rkzenrage - I didn't realize you had feelings that could be hurt. From my observations, both the tone set by your multitude of negative posts and simplistic "religion bad" one trick pony posting, I figured thats how one should respond to you. You set the tone not I.
That's the price of your integrity then? If someone else('s sock puppet) does it first, anything goes?
:headshake
Integrity? Using the tone one wants to use does nothing to my integrity. It is, in fact, doing what they want and a favor for them.
When someone chooses to change the tone of a conversation they are clearly stating "this is how I want you to communicate to me" as shown by psychologists many times. Abusive people want to be abused... so you should abuse them, it is doing them a favor.
If one is polite to me, I am the same to them.
It is just a sock anyway, not a real person.
Oh and if anything I'd be a "big dick" not a "little cunt".
Just saying, I'm sure you want to be accurate. Ya know, facts and all...
Sorry rkzenrage - I didn't realize you had feelings that could be hurt. From my observations, both the tone set by your multitude of negative posts and simplistic "religion bad" one trick pony posting, I figured thats how one should respond to you. You set the tone not I.
There is nothing you could do to cause me to have an emotion other than mirth sock.
There is nothing you could do to cause me to have an emotion other than mirth sock.
See there is something we can agree on - you are devoid of emotion. Its a start at least.
Integrity? Using the tone one wants to use does nothing to my integrity.
The way I see it... if you eschew certain behaviors, claim over and over again that those behaviors are "beneath you" etc., then "he started it!!!" is a bullshit excuse that does in fact speak to your integrity.
Either you believe those behaviors to be wrong (and therefore do not engage in them), or you do not. It's as simple as that and anyone who disagrees is a moron...
Well said jinx... I don't think it is wrong, but it is beneath me.
Well said jinx... I don't think it is wrong, but it is beneath me.
So what you are saying is that you have pretty low standards and/or morals? I'm not sure I understand.
I'm not sure I understand.
Not surprising.
Communicating like (& with really) you is beneath me.
but what is the opposite of 'above me'?
LOL... you have been on lately.
That was my opinion of your post, another whine, since you could not tell.
I could tell. I made a suggestion, and you were upset by it. Since you do not convey emotions in your posts, you helped me to see how sad you were by displaying a photo of a crying baby. I thank you for that.
If I can help you to see, by showing a photo, that my suggestion was terrific, please let me know and maybe I will oblige you.
Hi Classic!
You've arrived with such a blitz of posts, I wonder if you got formally welcomed. Just in case:
:welcome:
Welcome Classic.
And I quite liked your post #75. Said it all pretty clearly I thought.
I welcomed him when he made his initial post in the Landmark Thread.
Actually, knowing someone has been watching all this time and knows all about us but we know nothing about him is a little bit freaky. Kind of like a 'stalker'. ;)
Sorry about going back to this but it seems like this went off-topic a while ago....
This to me says that if you don't believe in evolution you shouldn't hold office.
Many people who believe in God don't believe in evolution.
This then means that you are critical of anyone who believes in God and not evolution, holding office.
Just focusing on this one comment, I don't see how saying "people who believe in creationism shouldn't hold office" is an attack on theists.
If everyone who believed in God didn't believe in evolution, your point would stand but many people that do believe in God also believe in evolution so there does not necessarily have to be a link between the two.
I, for one, would never vote for someone who does not believe in evolution into office. This is not because I don't like religious people or do not trust them, just that I see creationism as a logical flaw (not the exact word I'm looking for but eh) because it requires a belief that is not supported by any evidence.
All evidence about how humans came into existence goes to evolution and none of it supports creationism. As I said before, this not only means that these people believe in something that has zero empirical evidence backing it but it also means that they put God in front of science. That would most likely mean that they will put God and their personal religious beliefs in front of politics, which is something I would personally like to avoid being secular. If there is tremendous support of something that goes against someone's religious belief, I would like a politician that would side with the evidence and support instead of something with zero proof.
This is more of a stretch but it also deals with flaws in logic. I would not like a president who, in lack of evidence, firmly believes that a country has WMDs and supports Al Qeada and will be willing to risk the lives and security of millions to act out on that belief. I am not saying that the decision to attack that country has anything to do with religion or creationism, but that someone who has previously put faith in front of evidence will probably be more likely to do it in the future.
For the record, I do not believe that most politicians have politics that favor the greater good as their first priority anyways but it is my personal preference to not throw religion in the mix.
Well, as I mentioned in a later post, it's your choice to vote for whoever you choose regardless of what anyone else thinks about what someone who holds office is allowed to (or should) believe.
That's what democracy is all about.
Well, as I mentioned in a later post, it's your choice to vote for whoever you choose regardless of what anyone else thinks about what someone who holds office is allowed to (or should) believe.
That's what democracy is all about.
Nope. You can
only choose based on what I think. Me. Dammit. Me. :p
Listen mate, in case you haven't got the picture yet, it's all about me.
*hides knife behind back, outreaches hand with big grin*
Ok, we can share the title.
ok, I'm not stupid enough (close though) to fall for that one! ;)
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.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/25/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
If everyone who believed in God didn't believe in evolution, your point would stand but many people that do believe in God also believe in evolution so there does not necessarily have to be a link between the two.
I, for one, would never vote for someone who does not believe in evolution into office. This is not because I don't like religious people or do not trust them, just that I see creationism as a logical flaw (not the exact word I'm looking for but eh) because it requires a belief that is not supported by any evidence.
I think what you are defining here is faith, and I think having faith can be a good thing.
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.
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?
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.
... and I think having faith can be a good thing.
I think that's an article of faith.
Making not requiring justification from those in authority (or a book purporting to be an authority) into a virtue strikes me as pretty manipulative. It's not limited to religious leaders, of course. Unquestioning obedience is a common "virtue" of those surrounding... strong, shall we say... leaders.
I specifically said CAN, not always is.
piercehawkeye45 - good points
Happy Monkey - Hmmm scary, but true.
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.
"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.
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?
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.
you cannot apply logical reasoning to the unknowable
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.
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.
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.
But why are you trying to apply them to another area? The whole point is that the areas don't have to interfere with one another. One can have philosophical thoughts about philosophical matters, and scientific thoughts about empirical matters.
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?
I am personally very much of the "sure, but does it put food on the table?" school of thought. I find all forms of philosophy to be incredibly boring, at best. But I don't begrudge other people their desire to think about things, and to imagine things that seem likely or interesting to them. Everyone's criteria is going to be different, as you said, but I don't have a problem with that. That's why people can talk about things as well as think about them. But Queequeger's original statement was
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.
His definition of "faith" is completely inaccurate for many people. Faith can be applied to plenty of philosophical matters without ever contradicting empirical evidence.
But why are you trying to apply them to another area? The whole point is that the areas don't have to interfere with one another. One can have philosophical thoughts about philosophical matters, and scientific thoughts about empirical matters.
The "another area" I was referring to
was religion. I was saying that they are no more applicable to religious thought than any other type of thought.
Faith is more than
desire to think about things, and to imagine things that seem likely or interesting to them.
Imagining and thinking about stuff is fine. Faith is deciding that they are true, based on criteria that one would not consider trustworthy in any other context.
Ignoring the reliability of your selection criteria isn't much better than ignoring more direct evidence.
HM - you seem to have such a negative opinion of the word. It surprises me.
Here, from wiki:
"Believing a certain variable will act or has the potential to act a specific way despite the potential influence and probability of known or unknown change.
* To have faith that one's spouse will keep a promise or commitment.
* To have faith that the world will someday be peaceful.
* To have faith that a person will pay you back.
* To have faith that you will be okay despite adversity.
* To have faith in one's full dependence on the will of supernatural forces or deities."
Within certain contexts faith is a great thing - applied or used inappropriately it can be potentially very bad.
It's not the word 'faith', but the concept of certainty without regard for evidence that is most problematic. The less certainty and the more subject to evidence, the better.
Usually faith in one's spouse means that you don't get unduly jealous. That is a good thing. But if you have complete faith that your spouse is faithful, they could cheat on you without worry. You would feel great, but it wouldn't be true.
Usually faith that the world will find peace is more of a hope than faith. If you have absolute faith that it will happen, what is the impetus to make it happen?
If you have absolute faith that someone will pay you back, it will never be the time to collect.
So I'd agree with:
Within certain contexts faith is a great thing - applied or used inappropriately it can be potentially very bad.
But I'd add that the context is that the faithier the faith, the more inappropriate it is. The stronger the "Believing" and the more drastic the "despite" as per the wiki definition, the more dangerous the faith.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Absolutely, and there are faiths that are capable of doing that.
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... 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."
Let me say it as clearly as I can: Faith DOES NOT EQUAL a magic man in the sky. It certainly can and does for some people, but for many others, it doesn't. You have taken a single, oversimplified, particularly dogmatic and particularly rare interpretation of Christianity, and defined it as all "faith." It is not.
Imagining and thinking about stuff is fine. Faith is deciding that they are true, based on criteria that one would not consider trustworthy in any other context.
Ignoring the reliability of your selection criteria isn't much better than ignoring more direct evidence.
What happens when you die? We don't know, and can't know. I choose to have an opinion on the subject, based on my experience of the world and science and my moral sensibilities of how the universe ought to work. Those criteria don't have to be reliable for you; they are reliable enough for me. I often make guesses about everyday occurrences that are nothing more than my best guess given the information I have to work with. I could certainly be wrong, but I have to have a certain amount of faith that my opinion is true, or everything would be at a standstill. Whenever evidence comes along to refute it, I revise my opinion. Just because I have faith in the conclusions I have drawn does not mean I am unwilling to reconsider.
A faith that refuses to acknowledge evidence is foolish. But refusing to make any choices because of a lack of certain evidence can just as easily be taken to unhealthy extremes as well. The husband who has complete and unwavering faith that his wife will not cheat is foolish, but so is the husband who refuses to have
any amount of faith that she will not.
What happens when you die? We don't know, and can't know.
Agreed...
I choose to have an opinion on the subject, based on my experience of the world and science
We don't know, and can't know. World experience and science say nothing about the subject.
and my moral sensibilities of how the universe ought to work.
And this criteria would not be considered reliable for anything else. Anything on which the reliablility could be checked.
I often make guesses about everyday occurrences that are nothing more than my best guess given the information I have to work with. I could certainly be wrong, but I have to have a certain amount of faith that my opinion is true, or everything would be at a standstill. Whenever evidence comes along to refute it, I revise my opinion. Just because I have faith in the conclusions I have drawn does not mean I am unwilling to reconsider.
What you're describing is an educated guess. An educated guess is based on past experience. There is no past experience on which to base a belief about what happens when we die.
HM - you seem to have such a negative opinion of the word. It surprises me.
Here, from wiki:
"Believing a certain variable will act or has the potential to act a specific way despite the potential influence and probability of known or unknown change.
* To have faith that one's spouse will keep a promise or commitment.
* To have faith that the world will someday be peaceful.
* To have faith that a person will pay you back.
* To have faith that you will be okay despite adversity.
* To have faith in one's full dependence on the will of supernatural forces or deities."
Within certain contexts faith is a great thing - applied or used inappropriately it can be potentially very bad.
If your wife has been true in the past, just like a ball falls to the ground gives you president for "faith" that gravity will be there when you need it, is evidence that your belief that she may continue that behavior is not unfounded. Not faith in the true sense. Also, if you ask most rational people they will tell you it is not a pure, knowable, issue. They know their spouse could cheat, but is more likely not to if they both work toward the best marriage... not faith.
I don't know anyone that thinks the world will be completely peaceful. Nor do I know two people that can agree on the same definition on peaceful. Yeah, faith and illogical to buy.
If they have paid you back in the past, not faith, if you have any evidence of their character, not faith.
Ok despite adversity... I don't even know what this means.
The last one is faith and there is no rational reason to buy anything supernatural, to date. Having faith in them is neither good or bad, it does nothing because there is nothing there to answer your faith that we know of and no evidence that it does anything at all. No one has been healed or helped in any way. Waste of energy.
We don't know, and can't know. World experience and science say nothing about the subject.
Quote:
and my moral sensibilities of how the universe ought to work.
And this criteria would not be considered reliable for anything else. Anything on which the reliablility could be checked.
I know. It's unreliable. And yet I'm egotistical enough to believe it anyway. That's why it gets its own word, "faith," instead of being just like everything else. Feel free to substitute "ego" for "faith" in this whole conversation, it won't bother me--I think ego can be a good thing too. And I maintain that in the forms I have been describing, faith does not hurt anyone else, would not affect my policy decisions if I were an elected official, and is not, as queequeger initially asserted, a "bad thing."
the difference between faith and science is one of understanding.
if you drop a ball a thousand times and, every time you drop it, it falls to the floor, as a result of gravity...
then faith would be the assumption that the ball always falls
wheras science says, the ball will always move towards the most massive object whose field of gravity reaches the ball.
this example doesn't work in every case, but in the real world, faith can often be explained just a lack of understanding.
However, theists have an entirely different kind of faith. Faith in a deity is a different kind of faith, to this, entirely. It is baseless and illogical - and still can't be absolutely said to be wrong by anyone who isn't a dick.
The last one is faith and there is no rational reason to buy anything supernatural, to date. Having faith in them is neither good or bad, it does nothing because there is nothing there to answer your faith that we know of and no evidence that it does anything at all. No one has been healed or helped in any way. Waste of energy.
You are being very closed minded rk - all these examples came from wiki just to refute one very limiting definition of faith. Thats all nothing more.
And I maintain that in the forms I have been describing, faith does not hurt anyone else, would not affect my policy decisions if I were an elected official, and is not, as queequeger initially asserted, a "bad thing."
Would it not affect your policy decisions because you realize that the way you picked a framework is too arbitrary to apply to anything outside your own opinion, or because the framework you picked is in itself too limited to apply to any policy decision you might need to make?
If it is the former, then the form of faith you describe would score low on my "faithiness" scale at the end of #129.
If it is the latter, then someone else could have exacly the same level and style of faith, but pick a more harmful framework, which requires that policy decisions be made in its model. The decision process leaves you opens to harm.
Faith is a decision process. It is only not a "bad thing" when certainty is more important than correctness. Unfortunately, when certainty is important, it is usually equally important to be correct, as the alternative is just another way to say "lying to yourself". While there are situations where that could be justified, a better solution is usually to remove the need for certainty. Some questions just don't need an answer.
Ibram's answer is very interesting. It leads me to ponder what is the definition of faith. Does it include assumptions based on previous factual evidence or would that fall under a different word?
Edit- This is rabbit trail post (is that what you call it when you just trail off to nowhere) so bare with me.
Since we assume physics is deterministic and the universal laws do not change, we can say that if I drop a ball of a third story we window, it will not only land, but land in one specific spot. We would say we have faith in universal laws but we have faith in them because every past experience says we have universal laws.
When it comes to faith in a god, we are saying that a god exists without that previous evidence. I won't go into much further.
I think the biggest difference is the first one is basically stereotyping and the other is true faith. If I walk down the street, why do I assume I will not be robbed? I don't because I have walked down that exact street, passed the same people, and have never been robbed so I can stereotype the area as a place I won't get robbed and the people as people I won't get robbed by. This goes with new experiences as well. If I see a person I have never seen before, why do I have faith that they will not rob me even though I have no previous information on that person. I have faith hat he will not rob me because I have walked passed people that resemble him in culture, race, hair color, species, etc, that have not robbed me so I stereotype that he will not rob me. It works the opposite way too. If I have previous experience of being robbed by people that wear red jumpsuits, I will be much more cautious around people with red jumpsuits in the future.
Now, if something I have no previous information about or nothing to relate it too, then we would get into real faith. If a misty 3-dimensional blob randomly appeared in my bedroom, having no previous information to relate it to, any prediction or assumption I make would be based on true faith.
I know that isn't the actual definition, but that is the way I see it. If we deal with that, true faith would inheritly irrational because we have nothing rational to compare it too. Basically a shot in the dark, but I don't know how bad I would consider true faith.
But saying that, I don't know if I would consider believing in a supernatural power true faith since we come to the conclusion of a supernatural being from evidence on Earth. So I guess believing in a supernatural power wouldn't necessarily be irrational since we are basing that off "evidence", but that is only if one accepts the equal possibility of every other scenarios that has the same amount of evidence.
Then we have irrationality of stereotyping. This one is really hard to say, probably depends on how far you stray from the stereotype and how much the new event matches the stereotype. It is of course rational to assume that if you jump up, gravity will pull you back down. But I would call it irrational if you once got robbed by a man that wore a hat and now you assume every man that wears a hat is going to rob you so avoid everyone that wears hats.
blah, this probably makes no sense.
Interesting post Pierce. I don't have anything to add, but I think you've done well...and just wanted to tell you.
Thank you Aliantha, I thought about this some more so here we go again, same warnings apply.
Now the rationality or irrationality of believing in a god. Well, the belief of a god is just a conclusion. We have certain amount of evidence and therefore we say a god must or may exist. Basically, we say that the supernatural takes over when we cannot explain the natural world, universal laws, creation of energy, etc.
Now, how to relate this to fate. After thinking about this, I would say that belief in a god is just stereotyping the unknown, but in a different form than in my previous post. Lets say we have an infinite amount of possibilities for the answers of the universe, the evidence we have about the world limits down the possibilities, then we are dealing with scenarios, creation of energy for example, that we have no evidence to support and therefore, have to assume that every possibility has the same probability of happening. I wouldn't call this true faith though since we can still stereotype.
Now since we have come to edge of previous evidence, we have a number of possibilities that have equal probability. As I said earlier, saying one is more likely than the other should be considered irrational. So technically saying there must be a god or that god is more likely than a scientific explanation is irrational.
But, even though we have come to the edge of knowledge we can still stereotype, which the rationality is debatable.
For an easier example to imagine, lets say you are walking down a street by yourself and you feel a sharp pain in the back of your head that feels like a punch. You did not see what caused the pain.
You turn around and see a single person in view, who is walking in punching distance behind you. With our current information, we can not say with certain what happened. Our first assumption is that the person punched you, but there technically equal possibility that I magically teleported behind you, hit you, and teleport back without you seeing me, that a supernatural power hit you, or that your nerves randomly went off. But even though each possibility has the same probability of happening, we assume that the person hit you because we have never experienced teleporting, a supernatural power, or random nerve spasms, but we have experienced physical punching, so we assume the person punched you.
Even though this is different than the stereotyping I mentioned in my previous post, I think these are very similar because they are both stereotyping that is based on previous experiences, just one is a prediction and one is a conclusion.
The belief in a god is the same way and therefore would have the same rationality/irrationality factor as before. But the problem is that we can assign a universal rational or irrational factor because we each have different experiences.
Personally, being a non-hard atheist, I have concluded that I do not have a belief in god because every bit of evidence I have seen in this world points to natural solutions, therefore, the questions we can not answer will most likely have a natural solution as opposed to a supernatural solution. I do not see any irrationality in this.
But other people may have other experiences. Lets say that person 1 told person 2 that a god exists. In person 2's perspective, person 1 has always been right so person 2 will naturally assume that person 1 is right again and will believe in a god. I really do not see much irrationality in this except my negative experiences of having blind trust in someone, but that, once again, is personal.
I do not want to go much farther than this because individual experiences have such different effects on people I know I will be completely wrong by making an assumption.
Heh, coincidentally, a
post on this topic just showed up on Pharyngula.
Let me say it as clearly as I can: Faith DOES NOT EQUAL a magic man in the sky. It certainly can and does for some people, but for many others, it doesn't. You have taken a single, oversimplified, particularly dogmatic and particularly rare interpretation of Christianity, and defined it as all "faith." It is not.
That's such a cop out. You say it's "not that simple," but what is it then? Having "faith" that your wife won't cheat is unrelated to a faith in god, because it's still based on available information. If you mean to imply there are religions without a god, this is true of some religions, but it's still irrationality; these religions still believe in a force or balance that is unexplainable and simply "there." And what's worse is they presume to know what the force wants or does. A faceless form that created everything is just as ridiculous as a magic man. And for the record, cf, what version of Christianity (or Islam or Judaism) DOESN'T say that god created the universe? It's not a "particularly dogmatic version of christianity," it is every mainstream version of religion.
Belief that there is ANYTHING we won't eventually understand (barring destruction of mankind), meaning paranormal or supernatural, is irrational. We've repeatedly explained the unexplainable, and we'll do it again.
So if I missed some description of the word "faith" that does not include "believing in something without enough evidence," let me know. Also, fill me in on my presumptions that people of faith believe that god created the universe.
Was reading the title of the thread too hard for you baby?
Are you coming on to me, rkz? :blush:
Also, fill me in on my presumptions that people of faith believe that god created the universe.
"God created the universe" is a far cry from this:
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,
Vast numbers of Christians and Jews do not take the story of creation literally. And of the ones who do,
very few believe God deliberately placed contradictory evidence for us to find, they instead believe humans have failed to correctly interpret the evidence. Meanwhile, I'm not sure there are
any believers at all who would say the motivation for anything their god does would be "just because."
So if I missed some description of the word "faith" that does not include "believing in something without enough evidence," let me know.
No, now you have the correct definition. It's quite different than the stereotyped, mocking contempt seen in the previous quote.