People who believe in god are broken

[Moontanman]

I think there are degrees to this idea of "broken"

 

If you are religious and believe the bible or any other holy book or teachings is the inerrant word of a god even though it is demonstrably wrong about many things then you have a problem.

 

If you think your religion deserves some sort of respect that no other religion deserves then you have a problem.

 

If you feel like this respect should be the enforced then you have a problem.

 

If you feel like it's your right to proselytize your religion but no one else does then you have a problem.

 

If you feel like anyone who violates any behaviors you think your religion demands should be punished in some way you have a problem.

 

If you think your religion deserves to be taught to everyone's children in public schools you have a problem.

 

If you think your religion should be the law of the land then you have a problem.

 

If you think your religion is true and it gives you special privileges then you have a problem.

 

In other words if you think your religion should be used to suppress the rights and privileges of others and give the members of your religion special rights and privileges then you are broken...

[questionposter]

I think there are degrees to this idea of "broken"

 

If you are religious and believe the bible or any other holy book or teachings is the inerrant word of a god even though it is demonstrably wrong about many things then you have a problem.

 

If you think your religion deserves some sort of respect that no other religion deserves then you have a problem.

 

If you feel like this respect should be the enforced then you have a problem.

 

If you feel like it's your right to proselytize your religion but no one else does then you have a problem.

 

If you feel like anyone who violates any behaviors you think your religion demands should be punished in some way you have a problem.

 

If you think your religion deserves to be taught to everyone's children in public schools you have a problem.

 

If you think your religion should be the law of the land then you have a problem.

 

If you think your religion is true and it gives you special privileges then you have a problem.

 

In other words if you think your religion should be used to suppress the rights and privileges of others and give the members of your religion special rights and privileges then you are broken...

 

But that view obviously isn't universal, that is your personal scale of should happen. Theoretically, logic should be logic no matter what, so why do people find the same thing more or less logical?

Edited May 8, 2012 by questionposter

[Moontanman]

But that view obviously isn't universal, that is your personal scale of should happen. Theoretically, logic should be logic no matter what, so why do people find the same thing more or less logical?

 

 

It doesn't matter, those are my personal beliefs, they do not depend on how many others agree. I base it on respecting the rights of others, I do not believe that I or anyone else has the right to infringe on the rights of others due to how I believe.

 

it doesn't really matter what I or you believe in, none of us has the right to infringe on the rights of others due to how we believe... As long as your belief doesn't infringe on my rights or my belief doesn't infringe on your rights then we can believe in what ever we want.... Logic doesn't have to be a part of it...

[questionposter]

It doesn't matter, those are my personal beliefs, they do not depend on how many others agree. I base it on respecting the rights of others, I do not believe that I or anyone else has the right to infringe on the rights of others due to how I believe.

 

it doesn't really matter what I or you believe in, none of us has the right to infringe on the rights of others due to how we believe... As long as your belief doesn't infringe on my rights or my belief doesn't infringe on your rights then we can believe in what ever we want.... Logic doesn't have to be a part of it...

 

You say everyone has the right, yet it still get's broken anyway, regardless of whatever personal beliefs you have. Besides, I thought one of the main arguments against religion was that it is often illogical, but stating a belief is illogical without a direct contradiction seems illogical without a way to quantify logic and actually measure scales of logicality. So either there is a universal unit of logic which we haven't discovered, or how logical something is, is merely relative.

Edited May 8, 2012 by questionposter

[Moontanman]

You say everyone has the right, yet it still get's broken anyway, regardless of whatever personal beliefs you have. Besides, I thought one of the main arguments against religion was that it is often illogical, but stating a belief is illogical without a direct contradiction seems illogical without a way to quantify logic and actually measure scales of logicality. So either there is a universal unit of logic which we haven't discovered, or how logical something is, is merely relative.

 

 

Who said the main arguments against religion was that it is illogical, Mr. Spock? Humans do lots of things that are illogical and as long as that doesn't harm someone else there is no problem with it.

 

Humans are murdered everyday, if you think it's logical to kill someone does that make it ok? No, the only way to approach this problem is to allow anyone to believe in what ever they want as long as it's impact on others is insignificant.

 

The main argument against religion is that there is no evidence it is true, not that is it illogical...

[questionposter]

Who said the main arguments against religion was that it is illogical, Mr. Spock? Humans do lots of things that are illogical and as long as that doesn't harm someone else there is no problem with it.

This seems completely contrary to your argumentation and the arguments of others as well. Could you have changed your mind? Or took the mod note very seriously?

 

Humans are murdered everyday, if you think it's logical to kill someone does that make it ok? No, the only way to approach this problem is to allow anyone to believe in what ever they want as long as it's impact on others is insignificant.

How "ok" it is is relative. Personally, I don't find it ok, and many others do not as well, however this is not a universal view, as there are even cannibalistic tribes who are actually pretty decent people, but they just eat people if they think they're going to bring doom upon their village. Not only that, but significance also varies. While you may consider it ok to kill a fly, Buddhists don't.

 

The main argument against religion is that there is no evidence it is true, not that is it illogical...

 

Are you sure? Because my arguments were not that there is much evidence for god, yet you opposed me repeatedly despite that most of my posts were actually that god can be logical and that many modern religious people are not completely by the book and that there are views that have changed over time as well as circumstances people had to follow or they would be killed, as well as that there are in fact some good things that can come from religion.

Edited May 9, 2012 by questionposter

[tar]

Inow,

 

Though the descriptions of evidence by Mooey and others are plain and clear, and I understand and agree with them...there remains the fact, that billions of humans believe in God. Not just have "the concept of God", but equate directly that which is obviously "other than" man, to something real and awesome and powerful and intelligent.

 

I would at this point say that the argument that random quarks cannot accidently "know" anything is patently false. Because here I sit typing and you reading. Proof, absolutely evident, that there is intelligence in the world. And thus it is evident that the entire universe is not devoid of consciousness.

 

This being the case, it is no lie, for someone to claim empirical evidence of a creator, because we were created, or created ourselves, and there is no way we could have come from any place else, but reality.

 

And since I personally do not know how to metabolize, or bloom, or shine, or orbit, or release photons, I would say the evidence is clear, that the universe, as a whole, knows how to do these things, on its own, without any requirement for a good logical argument, or a preplanned execution of a well written formula.

 

The evidence, of this "other" intelligence, that trumps human intelligence, 1000 fold, a billion fold, a zillion fold, is clear.

 

Scientists are being a bit illogical, to claim that people who believe in God are doing so, without any evidence.

 

Ascribing particular impossible characteristics to said intelligence, or claiming special ownership of the same...well that's another story, and perhaps a bit broken. As Moontanman listed.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited May 9, 2012 by tar

[questionposter]

Inow,

 

Though the discriptions of evidence by Mooey and others are plain and clear, and I understand and agree with them...there remains the fact, that billions of humans believe in God. Not just have "the concept of God", but equate directly that which is obviously "other than" man, to something real and awesome and powerful and intelligent.

 

I would at this point say that the argument that random quarks cannot accidently "know" anything is patently false. Because here I sit typing and you reading. Proof, absolutely evident, that there is intelligence in the world. And thus it is evident that the entire universe is not devoid of consciousness.

 

This being the case, it is no lie, for someone to claim empirical evidence of a creator, because we were created, or created ourselves, and there is no way we could have come from any place else, but reality.

 

And since I personally do not know how to metabolize, or bloom, or shine, or orbit, or release photons, I would say the evidence is clear, that the universe, as a whole, knows how to do these things, on its own, without any requirement for a good logical argument, or a preplanned excecution of a well written formula.

 

The evidence, of this "other" intelligence, that trumps human intelligence, 1000 fold, a billion fold, a zillion fold, is clear.

 

Scientists are being a bit illogical, to claim that people who believe in God are doing so, without any evidence.

 

Ascribing particular impossible characteristics to said intelligence, or claiming special ownership of the same...well that's another story, and perhaps a bit broken. As Moontanman listed.

 

Regards, TAR2

Most scientists don't say people believing in god is illogical. Science is meant to be inherently separate from religion and not interact with religion at all. I also do not see the evidence for a universal consciousness, but it is true that the universe contains beings of consciousness.

Edited May 9, 2012 by questionposter

[DrDNA]

The signal in the clouds was intercepted, and the moo was dispatched!

~mooey

Thanks for the clarification Mooeyoo!

[Moontanman]

This seems completely contrary to your argumentation and the arguments of others as well. Could you have changed your mind? Or took the mod note very seriously?

 

I personally do not see any logic in the idea of god or gods but lots of things that are true seem illogical to me. The idea that you can assume that god is real as an axiom and then use that to prove god is broken to me. I can proclaim the idea of dragons being real as an axiom but dragons will still not be real. I take all mod notes seriously, you should as well if you want to continue on this forum...

 

How "ok" it is is relative. Personally, I don't find it ok, and many others do not as well, however this is not a universal view, as there are even cannibalistic tribes who are actually pretty decent people, but they just eat people if they think they're going to bring doom upon their village. Not only that, but significance also varies. While you may consider it ok to kill a fly, Buddhists don't.

 

You do not understand what I am saying, if you want to believe that killing flies is wrong, by all means don't kill flies, if you think your beliefs should dictate whether or not i should kill flies then you are broken. But killing other humans to eat them is harming others, my assertion is that as long as your beliefs do not harm others then you have a right to believe them. Killing humans for food seems a bit outside that idea. If you think creationism should be taught as science then you have a problem, if you insist on it then you are broken.

 

Are you sure? Because my arguments were not that there is much evidence for god, yet you opposed me repeatedly despite that most of my posts were actually that god can be logical and that many modern religious people are not completely by the book and that there are views that have changed over time as well as circumstances people had to follow or they would be killed, as well as that there are in fact some good things that can come from religion.

 

None the less, religion is ok as long as you don't harm others with it. it can be as illogical or logical as possible but most religions do indeed infringe on the rights of others. As i pointed out you or me do not have the right to infringe on the rights of others because we believe something.

 

You have not shown religion to be logical in anyway so far and you have yet to show any evidence of your assertions other than your assertions. You have claimed many things about the bible and religion in general that you cannot back up with anything but assertions, evidence is required to show the idea of god as real. But you do not have the right to dictate what others can or cannot do because of what you believe...

 

Inow,

 

Though the descriptions of evidence by Mooey and others are plain and clear, and I understand and agree with them...there remains the fact, that billions of humans believe in God. Not just have "the concept of God", but equate directly that which is obviously "other than" man, to something real and awesome and powerful and intelligent.

 

The number of people who believe in something is irrelevant to the truth of that belief...

 

I would at this point say that the argument that random quarks cannot accidently "know" anything is patently false. Because here I sit typing and you reading. Proof, absolutely evident, that there is intelligence in the world. And thus it is evident that the entire universe is not devoid of consciousness.

 

Yes, i would agree that there is intelligence in the universe, i have no idea what you mean about quarks...

 

This being the case, it is no lie, for someone to claim empirical evidence of a creator, because we were created, or created ourselves, and there is no way we could have come from any place else, but reality.

 

This makes no sense, evidence shows we evolved, there is no evidence of a creator. I came from my parents, if you were created in some other way i think you should tell us so you will be famous.

 

And since I personally do not know how to metabolize, or bloom, or shine, or orbit, or release photons, I would say the evidence is clear, that the universe, as a whole, knows how to do these things, on its own, without any requirement for a good logical argument, or a preplanned execution of a well written formula.

 

This is nonsensical, the laws of the universe allow these things but to say the universe knows these things makes no sense.

 

The evidence, of this "other" intelligence, that trumps human intelligence, 1000 fold, a billion fold, a zillion fold, is clear.

 

I ask you with no deception what so ever, please show us this evidence.

 

Scientists are being a bit illogical, to claim that people who believe in God are doing so, without any evidence.

 

No, they are simply asserting the truth. There is no evidence of any god or pantheon of gods or goddesses.

 

Ascribing particular impossible characteristics to said intelligence, or claiming special ownership of the same...well that's another story, and perhaps a bit broken. As Moontanman listed.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

 

I don't remember impossible characteristics being on my list...

[DrDNA]

 

Your religious right?

Religious right? I don't even know what that means any more.

 

Just the thought of the use/misuse of this term makes me cringe as if someone scrapped their fingernails on a chalk board.

 

Can you please define this term for me in your intended context?

 

PS: I voted for Obama and about 90% sure I will again.

 

You believe god exists, but do you obviously do not advocate violence.

I absolutely do advocate violence strongly, but only as a last resort.

Feet, if a viable alternative to the situation at hand, are much more efficient and safer for all parties.

 

Do you study science as well?

Do you think science is the language of the devil?

Science is a beautiful language of God.

Lies and closed mindedness are languages of the the devil.

 

 

Colossians 1 New International Version (NIV)16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

 

Do you believe you cannot sit on furniture which women have menstruated on?

 

No, but the furniture should be tagged as "unclean" and put into storage for 7 days, after which time the tag can be removed, the furniture cleaned with detergent and used again as normal.

 

Seriously, what the....??

 

Do you believe people who have cheated on other people deserve to be stoned to death?

 

No more so than any other sinner. Including me.

Edited May 9, 2012 by DrDNA

[questionposter]

I personally do not see any logic in the idea of god or gods but lots of things that are true seem illogical to me. The idea that you can assume that god is real as an axiom and then use that to prove god is broken to me. I can proclaim the idea of dragons being real as an axiom but dragons will still not be real. I take all mod notes seriously, you should as well if you want to continue on this forum...

I thought you merely didn't see evidence in the existence of god...

It is still a logical conclusion that if god can do anything then he can make things happen which we do not have the knowledge to reproduce. Also, there is still a .000000000000000000000000000000001 chance those dragons are actually there, but there is a greater chance of them being there without placing specific restrictions on their existence.

 

 

 

You do not understand what I am saying, if you want to believe that killing flies is wrong, by all means don't kill flies, if you think your beliefs should dictate whether or not i should kill flies then you are broken.

But if god exists and wants you to do things, why is it broken to do what he says? Because that is the way an orthodox looks at it.

 

my assertion is that as long as your beliefs do not harm others then you have a right to believe them.

Just out of curiosity, what if an animal believes it needs to kill a human in order to survive?

 

If you think creationism should be taught as science then you have a problem, if you insist on it then you are broken.

No one is saying religion should be taught as a science.

 

 

 

None the less, religion is ok as long as you don't harm others with it. it can be as illogical or logical as possible but most religions do indeed infringe on the rights of others. As i pointed out you or me do not have the right to infringe on the rights of others because we believe something.

You said that those rights should exist, but can you provide logical evidence for "why"?

 

You have not shown religion to be logical in anyway

I already said:

axiom: god can do anything

conclusion,

god can do anything --> therefore god can fit every species on a boat

 

so far and you have yet to show any evidence of your assertions other than your assertions.

My evidence is religious people themselves. If you talked to many religious people as I have, you would see that they in fact have their own views of god, and there is also plenty of evidence to support that Newton believed god was logical, and I even posted a link, and it's even taught in schools that the Middle-Easter religious cultures did not hate science as Christianity in the same time period did and therefore many religious scholars in the Middle-East advanced science and mathematics which I also posted a link too. Do you really think Martin Luther King, or Winston Churchill, or Truman, Newton, etc. were that bad of people? They believed in mono-theism, but as I have already stated, there are more views about god than just some ancient scripture.

 

You have claimed many things about the bible and religion in general that you cannot back up with anything but assertions, evidence is required to show the idea of god as real. But you do not have the right to dictate what others can or cannot do because of what you believe...

First off, go ask a history major about how religious cultures have advanced science, because that's how I know. Secondly, go ask a psych major how people's environments shape them, that's how I know. Third, look at what many religions have in common and you will see how they are inspired from real human experience. Forth, go ask a psych major again how people can relate ideas to important events in their life, as well as wanting to think their loved-ones are still alive in some way, I didn't need to ask a psych major about that, but I had discussed it with one.

The issue between atheists and religious people seems to be communication. Atheists seem to in general think that many religious people blindly follow illogical conclusions, while many religious people think that many atheists do not have as high of a regard for morals and that atheists hate religious people. Even when people did blindly follow it, we did not have the scientific understanding of the universe we have now, and most could not read, I can't say I blame them for beveling in an explanation for everything.

Edited May 9, 2012 by questionposter

[Moontanman]

I thought you merely didn't see evidence in the existence of god...

It is still a logical conclusion that if god can do anything then he can make things happen which we do not have the knowledge to reproduce. Also, there is still a .000000000000000000000000000000001 chance those dragons are actually there, but there is a greater chance of them being there without placing specific restrictions on their existence.

 

Questionposter, i know you think you are being intelligent by saying there is a .0000000000000000000000000001 chance that dragons exist but that is stupid to say that. Dragons do not exist, many reasons why not, not the least of which is that they do not fit in with life on earth. there are no vertebrates with six limbs on planet earth. No creature that large could possibly fly, they spew fire out of their mouths, they are a myth or misinterpretation of other animals but no dragons exist.

 

But if god exists and wants you to do things, why is it broken to do what he says? Because that is the way an orthodox looks at it.

 

If is a huge word questionposter, i will not assume god exists so you can postulate impossible things as real.

 

Just out of curiosity, what if an animal believes it needs to kill a human in order to survive?

 

It's an animal, human rules do not apply.

 

No one is saying religion should be taught as a science.

 

Actually a great many creationists are saying just that...

 

You said that those rights should exist, but can you provide logical evidence for "why"?

 

Why not?

 

 

I already said:

axiom: god can do anything

conclusion,

god can do anything --> therefore god can fit every species on a boat

 

And i say why if god can do anything did he have to kill all the animals on the earth? why not just make the wicked vanish? But it goes far beyond that, the bible only mentions land animals, it says nothing about fish and invertebrates all of which would have been killed by said flood. in fact the bible, by saying the animals had to be saved, shows that that concept of god was limited in power.

 

 

My evidence is religious people themselves. If you talked to many religious people as I have,

 

please, now you say you have talked to more religious people than i have as evidence I am wrong, seriously?

 

you would see that they in fact have their own views of god, and there is also plenty of evidence to support that Newton believed god was logical, and I even posted a link, and it's even taught in schools that the Middle-Easter religious cultures did not hate science as Christianity in the same time period did and therefore many religious scholars in the Middle-East advanced science and mathematics which I also posted a link too. Do you really think Martin Luther King, or Winston Churchill, or Truman, Newton, etc. were that bad of people? They believed in mono-theism, but as I have already stated, there are more views about god than just some ancient scripture.

 

You keep saying that Christianity hates science and that i am saying that theists are bad people, i doubt you can make good on either of those claims.

 

 

First off, go ask a history major about how religious cultures have advanced science, because that's how I know. Secondly, go ask a psych major how people's environments shape them, that's how I know. Third, look at what many religions have in common and you will see how they are inspired from real human experience. Forth, go ask a psych major again how people can relate ideas to important events in their life, as well as wanting to think their loved-ones are still alive in some way, I didn't need to ask a psych major about that, but I had discussed it with one.

The issue between atheists and religious people seems to be communication. Atheists seem to in general think that many religious people blindly follow illogical conclusions, while many religious people think that many atheists do not have as high of a regard for morals and that atheists hate religious people. Even when people did blindly follow it, we did not have the scientific understanding of the universe we have now, and most could not read, I can't say I blame them for beveling in an explanation for everything.

 

You need to come down off that arrogant high horse and realize that just because someone don't agree with you doesn't mean that they haven't looked into religion. you also need to stop putting words in my mouth. reread the list i posted, realize that I do not condemn people who believe in god, only those that would force those beliefs on others. You can believe in anything you want as long as you don't use those beliefs to infringe on my rights as a human being. Sadly most religions require that you infringe on the rights of those who do not agree. this is true to the point that different groups, within for instance Christianity, have gone as far as killing members of other groups of Christians. other religions do the same, where does it end?

[questionposter]

Religious right? I don't even know what that means any more.

 

Just the thought of the use/misuse of this term makes me cringe as if someone scrapped their fingernails on a chalk board.

 

Can you please define this term for me in your intended context?

 

PS: I voted for Obama and about 90% sure I will again.

If you are religious you are either a member of a religious order or you choose to share a large amount of the same beliefs as a certain doctrine or are simply devout to certain moral principals.

 

 

I absolutely do advocate violence strongly, but only as a last resort.

I should rephrase to say you don't advocate a society that revolves around violence or that you don't think we actually should go on witch-hunts.

 

 

 

Science is a beautiful language of God.

Lies and closed mindedness are languages of the the devil.

An interesting interpretation, but even good people have to lie sometimes in order to protect something. Would you say it's the devil talking if I lied to a hitman who wanted to kill the Dahli-Llama for political reasons and told him the wrong location? Or even if I just lied to protect any innocent person, not necessarily a peaceful person like him?

 

 

No, but the furniture should be tagged as "unclean" and put into storage for 7 days, after which time the tag can be removed, the furniture cleaned with detergent and used again as normal.

 

Seriously, what the....??

I can't remember his name, but there was a person who did a documentary about trying to go a year with living every part of his life under the bible and orthodox Christianity, and that was a weird rule he had to follow.

I don't know how credible this is, but there's these rules too

http://biblebabble.c...aw.com/laws.htm

Though I don't think Jesus actually said all gay people should die.

Edited May 9, 2012 by questionposter

[iNow]

Though I don't think Jesus actually said all gay people should die.

Unfortunately, a lot of people morph their unreasonable beliefs in a manner to suggest that they should, and even worse many feel that they have gods direct sanction to execute on that thought.

 

There's no limit to the atrocities people will visit upon one another when they feel that they are doing the work of their imaginary friend called god.

[questionposter]

Questionposter, i know you think you are being intelligent by saying there is a .0000000000000000000000000001 chance that dragons exist but that is stupid to say that.

It's not about being intelligent, there literally is a very small chance if their existence in your basement.

 

Dragons do not exist, many reasons why not, not the least of which is that they do not fit in with life on earth. there are no vertebrates with six limbs on planet earth. No creature that large could possibly fly, they spew fire out of their mouths, they are a myth or misinterpretation of other animals but no dragons exist.

Well not on Earth, but recently the pope said that not even he cannot place limits on the creativity of god, and considering all mutations on this planet were completely random, all we can really say for certain is we have not observed one on Earth.

 

 

 

If is a huge word questionposter, i will not assume god exists so you can postulate impossible things as real.

But this whole "should" thing is just your point of view, it's just a point of view, and that's why it isn't scientific law and why others have other views.

 

 

It's an animal, human rules do not apply.

Humans are a member of the animal kingdom. They have cell membranes, vertebra, 4 limbs, etc.

 

 

 

Actually a great many creationists are saying just that...

Perhaps they are saying it should be taught in schools, but I haven't heard anyone saying it should be taught as a science.

 

 

 

Why not?

Why have it the first place?

 

 

 

 

And i say why if god can do anything did he have to kill all the animals on the earth? why not just make the wicked vanish? But it goes far beyond that, the bible only mentions land animals, it says nothing about fish and invertebrates all of which would have been killed by said flood. in fact the bible, by saying the animals had to be saved, shows that that concept of god was limited in power.

Aside from there being different views on why god does what it does, technically all these things are what living things bring upon themselves, and since it seems in many religions that the main deity does not want to control free-will, these things could happen because free-will prevails.

 

 

 

 

please, now you say you have talked to more religious people than i have as evidence I am wrong, seriously?

I don't see how some survey can be more evidence than the religious people themselves, since religious people are the ones that follow religions. Or are you going to call random religious people you've never met liars? Just go talk to religious people yourself, there's many many many many different views, and many many many many different shapes between anti-religious and orthodox.

And again, Martin Luther King Jr., Newton, Lincoln, Churchill, Truman, Obama, Caesar Chavez, the list goes on. They are all mono-theists who many people consider to be good, but they all obviously don't believe in a hateful Christian god.

 

 

 

You keep saying that Christianity hates science and that i am saying that theists are bad people, i doubt you can make good on either of those claims.

Christian church did in fact at one point proclaim science as the language of the devil, but because your seeming prejudices about religious people are more often wrong, that view has changed and many religious people do not actually believe it.

 

 

 

 

You need to come down off that arrogant high horse and realize that just because someone don't agree with you doesn't mean that they haven't looked into religion.

Obviously you looked into the religion as you have read the bible and I think quoted some things from it, but it seems you lack effort to understand the different views and how religious people actually view god.

 

 

you also need to stop putting words in my mouth. reread the list i posted, realize that I do not condemn people who believe in god, only those that would force those beliefs on others.

Put to their point of reference, just as you think it is the "right" thing to do to not kill people, they think it is the "right" thing to do to force their religion upon others. I have had actual people advocate religion to me. And do you know what they said? They didn't said "Join us or you will go to hell", the most recent one was an African American couple in Wisconsin who said "hello sir, I'm with the Christian church and I just wanted to invite you to an Easter dinner we are having...".

 

You can believe in anything you want as long as you don't use those beliefs to infringe on my rights as a human being.

Well that's still a personal belief.

 

Sadly most religions require that you infringe on the rights of those who do not agree. this is true to the point that different groups, within for instance Christianity, have gone as far as killing members of other groups of Christians. other religions do the same, where does it end?

Why not make a religion where your not allowed to kill people under any circumstance?

Edited May 9, 2012 by questionposter

[iNow]

Perhaps they are saying it should be taught in schools, but I haven't heard anyone saying ti should be taught as a science.

Listen harder.

 

http://ncse.com/

[questionposter]

Listen harder.

 

http://ncse.com/

 

Is there a specific place on there you want me to look? Even in the event that there are people who say that, those people are likely religious extremists and I would say they do not represent the over 3/4 of the population of Earth that is religious.

Edited May 9, 2012 by questionposter

[Moontanman]

It's not about being intelligent, there literally is a very small chance if their existence in your basement.

 

if you believe that i have a bridge i would like to sell you.

 

 

Well not on Earth, but recently the pope said that not even he cannot place limits on the creativity of god, and considering all mutations on this planet were completely random, all we can really say for certain is we have not observed one on Earth.

 

so now we are into alien dragons?

 

 

 

 

But this whole "should" thing is just your point of view, it's just a point of view, and that's why it isn't scientific law and why others have other views.

 

Well it's not just my point of view, the idea of human rights is held by more than a few people.

 

 

Humans are a member of the animal kingdom. They have cell membranes, vertebra, 4 limbs, etc.

 

What does that have to do with applying human moral values to animals?

 

 

 

 

Perhaps they are saying it should be taught in schools, but I haven't heard anyone saying ti should be taught as a science.

 

You should investigate this further, this idea has been brought before the law makers of several states in the US, In Kentucky (i think) it has been passed that teachers can teach creationism if it's what they believe. Creationists are quite adamant that creationism should be taught along side evolution.

 

 

Why have it the first place?

 

To protect the rights of others?

 

Aside from there being different views on why god does what it does, technically all these things are what living things bring upon themselves, and since it seems in many religions that the main deity does not want to control free-will, these things could happen because free-will prevails.

 

I don't see how this has anything to do with freewill.

 

 

 

I don't see how some survey can be more evidence than the religious people themselves, since religious people are the ones that follow religions. Or are you going to call random religious people you've never met liars? Just go talk to religious people yourself, there's many many many many different views, and many many many many different shapes between anti-religious and orthodox.

And again, Martin Luther King Jr., Newton, Lincoln, Churchill, Truman, Obama, Caesar Chavez, the list goes on. They are all mono-theists who many people consider to be good, but they all obviously don't believe in a hateful Christian god.

 

The god described in the bible is a psychopathic monster, if you can ignore the parts you don't agree with then you can go for it i guess. All i am saying is that if what you believe infringes on the rights of others then it cannot be tolerated.

 

 

Christian church did in fact at one point proclaim science as the language of the devil, but because your seeming prejudices about religious people are more often wrong, that view has changed and many religious people do not actually believe it.

 

good for them

 

 

 

Obviously you looked into the religion as you have read the bible and I think quoted some things from it, but it seems you lack effort to understand the different views and how religious people actually view god.

 

All i have to go on is what people do, as i have said before if your religious views do not infringe on the rights of others than there is no problem.

 

Put to their point of reference, just as you think it is the "right" thing to do to not kill people, they think it is the "right" thing to do to force their religion upon others.

 

No one has the right to infringe on the rights of others, if you believe you do have the right to infringe on the rights of others then you are broken.

 

Well that's still a personal belief.

 

yes it's a civilized belief based on harm to others not on belief in a god.

 

Why not make a religion where your not allowed to kill people under any circumstance?

 

Go for it, make up another religion, make another god, but the god will still be made up, why not just follow the rule of respecting the rights of others?

 

let me ask you a question, where would you rather live, a place where you can believe as you want as long as your beliefs do not infringe on the rights of others or a place where some one's personal beliefs were enforced as law?

[questionposter]

if you believe that i have a bridge i would like to sell you.

Let's see your craig's list account. If I don't see it, I can't buy it.

 

 

 

 

so now we are into alien dragons?

Now that I think about it, dragon-like creatures seem possible. On Earth there's been both large reptiles and organisms that have evolved from large reptiles to fly. There's unimaginable amounts of space and matter, and with all the possibilities really any type of life is possible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well it's not just my point of view, the idea of human rights is held by more than a few people.

Well so is the notion of god.

 

 

 

 

What does that have to do with applying human moral values to animals?

It's another point of view that differs from yours and goes against one of your most held beliefs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You should investigate this further, this idea has been brought before the law makers of several states in the US, In Kentucky (i think) it has been passed that teachers can teach creationism if it's what they believe. Creationists are quite adamant that creationism should be taught along side evolution.

That's not teaching it as science, that's teaching it because they feel their values are not being fairly viewed upon, but they don't objectively view their own values.

 

 

 

 

To protect the rights of others?

No, just specifically your religious one.

 

 

 

I don't see how this has anything to do with freewill.

If god wants free-will, they god could logically want people to live out their life how they choose.

 

 

 

 

 

The god described in the bible is a psychopathic monster, if you can ignore the parts you don't agree with then you can go for it i guess. All i am saying is that if what you believe infringes on the rights of others then it cannot be tolerated.

I think originally the psychopathic god was meant to scare people into being more kind to each other, but regardless time has went on and people still have different views about god.

 

All i have to go on is what people do, as i have said before if your religious views do not infringe on the rights of others than there is no problem.

It just seems like your purposely not trying to see what it is like to be a religious person. Many people find it fulfilling in some way.

 

 

 

No one has the right to infringe on the rights of others, if you believe you do have the right to infringe on the rights of others then you are broken.

Provide a logical correlation that proves that second clause, unless it is merely an opinion.

 

 

Go for it, make up another religion, make another god, but the god will still be made up, why not just follow the rule of respecting the rights of others?

Because without religion, some people don't have a reason to.

 

let me ask you a question, where would you rather live, a place where you can believe as you want as long as your beliefs do not infringe on the rights of others or a place where some one's personal beliefs were enforced as law?

 

I personally would like the first one, but I cannot speak for everyone. There are people who would like religion to be more incorporated into laws.

Edited May 9, 2012 by questionposter

[tar]

Everybody,

 

I would also like to introduce another angle on this "brokeness" concept, that I was waiting for someone else to introduce, and surprisingly, no one has.

 

There seems to be an equating of wisdom, with knowing the difference between good and evil, and this, as well, associated with the "fall of man". The serpent in the Garden and the tree of knowledge and Adam "seeing his own nakedness" and such. The myth or idea is not foriegn to religions and traditions around the world. This "separateness" from God, that consciousness seems to demand. The constant theme of nature being somehow "other than" man. Something that Man can fight or join forces with, depending on his or her thoughts and actions.

 

"Broken" thusly can mean something we are already that we need to fix. Or something we have done to ourselves or others, that we should not have.

 

I know Inow does not hold much value in 100 and 200 year old thoughts that have been so studied and improved upon and refined or debunked enough as to not be currently useful, but I think it appropriate, at least in a figurative way, to bring up the Id, ego and superego again in this context. Our "natural" self, the one that has urge to sex and pleasure, is somewhat at odds with the rules and authority that guide our conscience. These rules are something that seem to have "outside" sources (parents, laws, codes, religions, bosses or kings). But we can listen to our conscience, when there is no one else around, to know or care what we think or do.

 

We can "do the right thing", even when the whole world (or a large portion of it) is apparently against us.

 

Where we summon this strength from, is an interesting question. Delusion and "brokeness"? Or from a real and evident source?

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited May 9, 2012 by tar

[questionposter]

Everybody,

 

I would also like to introduce another angle on this "brokeness" concept, that I was waiting for someone else to introduce, and surprisingly, no one has.

 

There seems to be an equating of wisdom, with knowing the difference between good and evil, and this, as well, associated with the "fall of man". The serpent in the Garden and the tree of knowledge and Adam "seeing his own nakedness" and such. The myth or idea is not foriegn to religions and traditions around the world. This "separateness" from God, that consciouness seems to demand. The constant theme of nature being somehow "other than" man. Something that Man can fight or join forces with, depending on his or her thoughts and actions.

 

"Broken" thusly can mean something we are already that we need to fix. Or something we have done to ourselves or others, that we should not have.

 

I know Inow does not hold much value in 100 and 200 year old thoughts that have been so studied and improved upon and refined or debunked enough as to not be currently useful, but I think it appropriate, at least in a figurative way, to bring up the Id, ego and superego again in this context. Our "natural" self, the one that has urge to sex and pleasure, is somewhat at odds with the rules and authority that guide our conscience. These rules are something that seem to have "outside" sources (parents, laws, codes, religions, bosses or kings). But we can listen to our conscience, when there is no one else around, to know or care what we think or do.

 

We can "do the right thing", even when the whole world (or a large portion of it) is apparently against us.

 

Where we summon this strength from, is an interesting question. Delusion and "brokeness"? Or a from a real and evident source?

 

Regards, TAR2

In truth I think it is more of a relative term.

[mooeypoo]

I have never claimed that the evidence was scientific evidence, the term evidence does not only apply to science, evidence in the context of law can be a statement from a witness, as an example.

 

Evidence is the same context, though. Evidence is always *for* something, it's not "evidence" on its own. Items fall to the floor when you drop them -- that's a fact, an observation. It's only evidence when you use it to explain something -- for instance, the theory of gravity.

 

It is an evidence for gravity.

 

Of course, for a theory (any theory, law included) to be accepted, it usually needs more than one evidence on its favor. The difference between the scientific process and the courtroom process is the process of making the conclusion. In the scientific context, the proposed theory is rigorously tested against reality (peer review) to make sure it follows reality.

 

The courtroom is designed differently, for one, it's not about what actually happened, it's about who's ore convincing in proposing the theory of what actually happened. Part of this is because the courtroom isn't just about "what" hapened but also "why" it happened. Different process.

 

Evidence, however, are the same meaning. Since a witness account isn't factual, it's not evidence. The fact the language is abused doesn't mean it's right.

 

In any caes, we're missing the point here. There are no facts that support God's existence, everything is either philosophical or dependent on specific written accounts that are on their own untrustworthy.

 

I still think these arguments misuse the word "Evidence" but even if they have a right to misuse it, I am not quite sure what the conclusion should be. If evidence is derived from empirical (trustworthy) observation and experimentation, and there are no direct nor indirect evidence for god, then why are we even usig the word to begin with?

 

What is so horrible in admitting that a belief in God (any god) is separate from the need of evidence? Why insisting that there are evidence when there are no realistic ones, and then continue to insist that we actually shouldn't really view this in the context of science...

 

If it's not in the context of science, then why even argue that it has strong evidence...

 

I really don't mean any offense here, I just truly don't quite get that, to be honest.

 

~mooey

 

I don't know if I agree, there isn't really a way to quantify logic, so how can you actually conclude that something is "more" logical without a biased opinion?

 

By producing a method to have checks and balances and make the bias as small and as insignificant as possible.

 

It's called the scientific method, and most of the time - it works.

 

Most scientists don't say people believing in god is illogical. Science is meant to be inherently separate from religion and not interact with religion at all. I also do not see the evidence for a universal consciousness, but it is true that the universe contains beings of consciousness.

 

"Science" is a methodology meant to describe our reality. It's not meant to separate anything other than things outside reality.

 

Now it's just a matter of whether or not you believe "things outside reality" exist or not. Of course, considering that reality is anything around us that affects us, does this even have any significance..?

[questionposter]

By producing a method to have checks and balances and make the bias as small and as insignificant as possible.

 

It's called the scientific method, and most of the time - it works.

That is experimental evidence for reproducible results, which obviously god isn't.

 

 

 

"Science" is a methodology meant to describe our reality. It's not meant to separate anything other than things outside reality.

Science itself is not a description of reality, it is logical sequence of our understanding of our observations based on other observations. For example. a photon becomes emitted from an atom, then it hits your retina at which point it is absorbed and destroyed, then an electrical signal get's sent down your cells to your brain where your consciousness perceives the signal as a point of a location, your not actually observation the photon, your observation the translation of an electrical signal.

Furthermore, science is meant to deal only with speculation like religion. I didn't mean it is meant to separate religion, it just is a separate thing from religion and is not meant to interfere with it.

Edited May 9, 2012 by questionposter

[kraus18]

I would rather say that they are directed by a combination of genetic and cultural influences towards a pattern of behaviour that has often been highly productive in the development and maintenance of civilisation. As with all such behavioural expressions resulting from nature and nurture the results are not always highly productive.

 

I agree with Ophiolite. I don't think belief in God is "broken" from an evolutionary standpoint and hence belief in "belief in God" can still be within the scientific realm. The realm of faith involves the realm of the emotions. Religious, artistic, literary and philosophical proclivities are more potent and emotionally satisfying in expressing appreciation for certain objects. In this regard I can safely say that there has yet been no scientifically satisfying treatise or textbook on the works of Picasso or Monet. I would have to say then that belief in belief in God is safe. However, what should be questioned is the objective reality of God and not the belief in the belief in God. While many theologians have not satisfied scientists with an objective and scientific explanation of God yet, then belief in God is scientifically broken but people who believe in it are not necessarily so. I could say the same thing about science. Science has not yet provided an emotionally satisfying and practical foundation for ethics or aesthetic works. In fact, a lot of people who devote themselves purely to science with little time in anything else are the ones usually labeled as "broken" nowadays in a social sense.