You know they say that a good rationalization a day is better than sex.
Nice dodge. 
Nice drive by.
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
You're welcome. ( wink if I could )
Anytime the conservatives don't like the way a topic is going they distract. Then no one can talk about the issue. It happens here all of the time unfortunately.
Ahhh. Anti-Mormon bigotry. Shocker.
Are we supposed to say, "good on you for holding those incredibly insane beliefs about the universe"?
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
Rational people have STFU long enough. These crazy supernatural fairy tales need to be publicly rejected and ridiculed.
You're free to speak your mind under the same amendment that guarantees believers the right to worship as they choose. You are free to think their beliefs are "supernatural fairy tales." What you are not free to do is suppress others' rights. And that is exactly what you and your ilk advocate.
Are we supposed to say, "good on you for holding those incredibly insane beliefs about the universe"?
No, you're supposed to STFU and not push your beliefs on others
I don't see him pushing his belief on others. And he's exercising his right to say those are incredibly insane beliefs about the universe. He has the right to point that out just as as any mormon has the right to believe it and publically talk about it. Where it becomes wrong is when either side tries to force that belief ( or the idea that you can't believe that idea ) on the other party." STFU " for example. People don't need to be forced to believe or not believe anything. They will make up their own minds.
Rational people have STFU long enough. These crazy supernatural fairy tales need to be publicly rejected and ridiculed.
You're free to speak your mind under the same amendment that guarantees believers the right to worship as they choose. You are free to think their beliefs are "supernatural fairy tales." What you are not free to do is suppress others' rights. And that is exactly what you and your ilk advocate.
Perhaps you'd like to provide proof of your last statement here. Where is someone advocating suppression? When he says they need to be publicly rejected and ridiculed that's his belief. Until he organizes a para military group to physically enforce that idea or he becomes a politician and helps to pass a law saying believing that is illegal he has a right to express his beliefs just as the Mormon does.
No, you're supposed to STFU and not push your beliefs on others.
Rational people have STFU long enough. These crazy supernatural fairy tales need to be publicly rejected and ridiculed.
The rational people with their scientific socialism also called communism have killed millions all in the name of utopia. They think that killing a few million humans who don't happen to agree with them is no different than killing chickens that might infect the entire flock.
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
No, you're supposed to STFU and not push your beliefs on others.
Rational people have STFU long enough. These crazy supernatural fairy tales need to be publicly rejected and ridiculed.
The rational people with their scientific socialism also called communism have killed millions all in the name of utopia. They think that killing a few million humans who don't happen to agree with them is no different than killing chickens that might infect the entire flock.
I'm sorry trumptman but that sounds nuts. Aren't you jumping to conclusions ( pretty wild ones at that ) about his comment? And what the hell does that have to do with someone expressing a viewpoint here? Unless of course you're advocating supression.
Oh, is the Vuvuzela once again spreading those insidious falsehoods that it was somehow atheism or social justice that inspired Stalin's atrocities? Typical.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
I'm sorry trumptman but that sounds nuts. Aren't you jumping to conclusions ( pretty wild ones at that ) about his comment? And what the hell does that have to do with someone expressing a viewpoint here? Unless of course you're advocating supression.
Sorry but you've fallen below the minimum bar of participation. Skeptical questions and smilies aren't worth my time.
Oh, is the Vuvuzela once again spreading those insidious falsehoods that it was somehow atheism or social justice that inspired Stalin's atrocities? Typical.
Inspired? Scientific socialism needs no inspiration. It has objective truth and that truth states that man is above no animal and that the herd is more important than the individual. If those ubermench who care for the herd need to break a few eggs or put down a few sick animals, be it sick physically or sick mentally as expressed by their beliefs, then you should think nothing more of it than you would putting down a dog or a cat.
Plus it is sort of pathetic when you try to lowball us all using Stalin when Communist China alone was responsible for 65 million deaths.
That is the reasoning of science which is an amoral agent, when not balanced against anything else.
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
I'm assuming that the Vuvuzela continued to play the only note he knows: insane paranoid delusional ranting against science and rational thought. Let me guess, he doubled down on pinning millions of deaths on atheism? Killing in the name of politics and in the pursuit of power absolutely aren't inspired by a lack of belief in a deity.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
He's touchy about his faith. He's smart enough enough to know it doesn't hold up under any logical scrutiny, so he uses any number of tactics to change the subject and not shine any light on his secret intellectual embarrassment. This is the classic tactic of falsely accusing the messenger of something he does himself.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
I'm assuming that the Vuvuzela continued to play the only note he knows: insane paranoid delusional ranting against science and rational thought. Let me guess, he doubled down on pinning millions of deaths on atheism? Killing in the name of politics and in the pursuit of power absolutely aren't inspired by a lack of belief in a deity.
It's funny to watch you address this while pretending to ignore it. What a sad puppy you happen to be!
Atheistic regimes have been responsible for more mass murder and genocide than any church, religious individual or anyone else. That is the truth. If religion is the opium of the people, then those without that opium sure seem to love to point a gun and murder their fellow humans.
As I stated at the beginning of the thread, if someone's belief amounts to Santa and they leave me alone, no harm. If someone wants to create utopia on earth and they need all my money, efforts, to control my media consumption, diet and whatever else to achieve it, they are harmful and need to be dealt with.
Take your religious bigotry and intolerance out of here before we read about you harming your fellow man in a fit of outrage and hate.
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
I'd argue almost all of them were atheistic. They were only religious in the sense that the church helped give rise to the nation-state and many of those nation-states would use religion as part of the national call to go to war. In other words saying you are going to war because you are Catholic and they are Protestant is no different than saying you are going to war because you are Italian and they are French. Religion was part of their ethnicity and they were ethnic wars, not religious wars.
When various Arabic countries want to wipe Israel off the map, are they doing it because they disagree about the name for God or what food he allows on a certain day, or is it an ethnic conflict?
You posted about racism that you encountered within your home country. I don't recall if you even named the country but from the reading, I assumed you were talking about Indonesia and that you are Chinese Indonesian. You characterized it as a RACE matter and declared they wouldn't serve you because you didn't look "Muslim". Muslim is considered a religion but obviously you consider it a part of an ethnic identity. You didn't say you had encountered religious prejudice. It was racial prejudice and that has been the nature of most deaths in war that are attributed to religion. They weren't fighting over god(s). They were fighting over race and nation and a small aspect of that identity can also be religion.
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
Perhaps you'd like to provide proof of your last statement here. Where is someone advocating suppression? When he says they need to be publicly rejected and ridiculed that's his belief. Until he organizes a para military group to physically enforce that idea or he becomes a politician and helps to pass a law saying believing that is illegal he has a right to express his beliefs just as the Mormon does.
An example? Sure. The Freedom From Religion Foundation. Groups like this oppose any public expression of religion. They tell towns that are 99% Christian they can't hang a banner that says "Merry Christmas." They oppose national figures calling for prayer for a tragedy. They suppress the rights of others. One does not have a right to avoid any mention of religion.
You should be. While all religions are based upon myths and legends, Mormonism is extremely more silly than most. These nutcases need to be exposed and ridiculed. There is no place in the modern world for such destructive beliefs. The Age of Enlightenment should have solved this supernatural friend-in-the-sky problem once and for all, but there are still vestiges of superstition in the world. Do you realize how many people actually believe that "Prayer works"?
An example? Sure. The Freedom From Religion Foundation. Groups like this oppose any public expression of religion. They tell towns that are 99% Christian they can't hang a banner that says "Merry Christmas." They oppose national figures calling for prayer for a tragedy. They suppress the rights of others. One does not have a right to avoid any mention of religion.
When it comes to the government, then one has that right. Towns have no business spending tax money to endorse one particular brand of nutcase-ism, even if 99% of the town believes in that particular brand of fantasy,
National figures, if and to the extent that they are representing the government, have no business invoking irrational beliefs and using ancient supernatural methods of problem solving by "calling for prayers for a tragedy". If one of them were to cut the head off of a chicken and wave it around in a circle, splashing blood all over the bystanders in order to remedy the tragedy, then such actions would be equally silly and out of bounds - but just because their particular silly "prayer" ritual is believed in by lots of equally deluded folks, there is still no good reason for allowing it by the government.
What's next? Government land crowded with bloody alters to the Gods? Is that OK? How about upside down crosses adorned with rotting flesh put next to the Merry Christmas banner by the town in order to celebrate Saturnalia?
Look - you may think that your bizarre beliefs are OK due to their being ancient beliefs. But rational people equate them with ripping the beating heart out of a virgin in order to prevent a volcano from erupting. Government should have no part of this crazy bullshit. None.
government should not equally support all crazy irrational supernatural belief systems, nor should it supposrt some just because they are currently popular.
You should be. While all religions are based upon myths and legends, Mormonism is extremely more silly than most. These nutcases need to be exposed and ridiculed. There is no place in the modern world for such destructive beliefs. The Age of Enlightenment should have solved this supernatural friend-in-the-sky problem once and for all, but there are still vestiges of superstition in the world. Do you realize how many people actually believe that "Prayer works"?
How is the mere belief that prayer works harmful to you or anyone else?
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Towns have no business spending tax money to endorse one particular brand of nutcase-ism, even if 99% of the town believes in that particular brand of fantasy,
National figures, if and to the extent that they are representing the government, have no business invoking irrational beliefs...
Government should have no part of this crazy bullshit. None.
government should not equally support all crazy irrational supernatural belief systems, nor should it supposrt some just because they are currently popular.
Agreed. We should end the state's love affair with Keynesian "economics" right now!
Or maybe the people's belief in the state as God and savior.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Agreed. We should end the state's love affair with Keynesian "economics" right now!
The difference is that with scientific theories, we can measure and test whether or not they work.
With theories of supernatural interventions and miracles, we don't experiment. Instead, we read ancient unchangeable texts and posit that they contain truth.
Big difference.
If and when there is enough evidence to show clearly that one or another theory of economics is much more predictive and useful, I would expect that other theories wold fall by the wayside.
But no matter how many experiments prove that prayerful intercession has no effect whatsoever, the bible will still tell us that “If ye shall ask anything in My name, I will do it” (John 14:14) And fools will still believe it.
How is the mere belief that prayer works harmful to you or anyone else?
The mere belief by others is unlikely to have much affect on the normals.
However, I sure don't want my surgeon to believe that crap. Or my nurse. Or my president.
And when the government sanctions certain of those crazy ideas by erecting official shrines or banners or statues or using supernatural invocations before legislative sessions, I object. The supernatural has no place in government practices,
The difference is that with scientific theories, we can measure and test whether or not they work.
What do scientific theories and Keynesianism have to do with each other?
With theories of supernatural interventions and miracles, we don't experiment. Instead, we read ancient unchangeable texts and posit that they contain truth.
It is true the the realm of science and the realm of religion and the supernatural are different realms of knowledge. The thing is, you've declared one to be superior and the other to be completely invalid. That's actually rather un-scientific of you.
If and when there is enough evidence to show clearly that one or another theory of economics is much more predictive and useful, I would expect that other theories wold fall by the wayside.
You'd think so.
But no matter how many experiments prove that prayerful intercession has no effect whatsoever, the bible will still tell us that “If ye shall ask anything in My name, I will do it” (John 14:14) And fools will still believe it.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The mere belief by others is unlikely to have much affect on the normals.
However, I sure don't want my surgeon to believe that crap. Or my nurse. Or my president.
And when the government sanctions certain of those crazy ideas by erecting official shrines or banners or statues or using supernatural invocations before legislative sessions, I object. The supernatural has no place in government practices,
You didn't really answer my question. How is mere belief harmful to you or anyone else?
"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." -- Thomas Jefferson
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
What do scientific theories and Keynesianism have to do with each other?
Economics is considered to be one of the sciences. A social science specifically. If Keynesianism is not valid as science, then it should not be considered to be an economic theory.
It is true the the realm of science and the realm of religion and the supernatural are different realms of knowledge. The thing is, you've declared one to be superior and the other to be completely invalid. That's actually rather un-scientific of you.
Naw. These superstitious beliefs have been put to the test and found lacking. Reason seems to me a better tool than unchangeable faith as a method to find truth.
Maybe belief in things for which there is zero evidence makes as much sense as testing ideas to see if they are valid. But so far, I've seen no evidence for that. There is zero evidence for any faith-based system of belief. By definition.
No, one doesn't. You cannot be forced to practice religion. You seeing a sign that says Merry Christmas does not constitute anything close to that.
Towns have no business spending tax money to endorse one particular brand of nutcase-ism, even if 99% of the town believes in that particular brand of fantasy,
In many case, such displays are privately funded. The FFRF opposes this as well. Such organizations oppose even multi-religious displays. Ironically, the 1st Amendment was intended to protect such expression, not outlaw it.
They don't represent "the government." They represent THE PEOPLE. They have every right and obligation to espouse what the vast, vast majority of people stand for. 96% of Americans believe in a supreme being. Them calling for prayer does nothing to infringe on the rights of 4% of people who do not.
That's an absurd example, because the vast majority of people do not subscribe to such beliefs. It also involves potential physical harm. Calling for prayer is not "equal" to any of your examples. You simply disagree with he majority, which on its own is fine. Do you also call for TV shows you find offensive to be outlawed? After all, the airwaves are public.
More absurd examples. Sad.
I am not here to defend my religious beliefs, nor attack your lack of religious beliefs. I am, however, going to defend my 1st Amendment rights as well as those of others. I am going to make it clear that you don't had a right to prevent the free expression of those beliefs.
I agree. The caveat is that it can also not prevent the free expression of beliefs. If a town wishes to have a nativity scene in the town square, that does not constitute the government "supporting" anything. It merely represents the beliefs of the vast majority of said town. That being said, the town can also not exclude the beliefs of the minority. This includes Jewish symbols of faith (and other faiths) as well as literature/information opining that no God exists. Freedom of expression, not freedom from expression.
You didn't really answer my question. How is mere belief harmful to you or anyone else?
"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." -- Thomas Jefferson
The mere belief usually has no effect. I think that vanishingly small numbers of people REALLY believe in "the power of prayer".
But if a guy like Pat Robertson (who blamed weather events on "sinful" behavior) were to gain any substantial amount of power, I would change that to say that the belief in the power of prayer is causing wholesale disruption of society. I am worried when I see people who sincerely and strongly believe in stuff for which there is scant or no evidence. I am worried that they may gain power in society beyond what they already have.
As of now, enough people believe in reason that the supernatural is kept in check in society. We have hospitals, for example, rather than Christian Science Reading Rooms. The tide is turning, compared to how things were in the 1600's, when religious folks used to burn witches.
So long as the govenment is immune to nutcase superstition, things can't get too bad. But when there is government endorsement of superstition over fact, then I worry. As an example - they say prayers before legislative sessions. What if a Hospital were to advertise that they held prayer sessions before surgeries? What if they provided, for an extra charge, a football stadium foll of people praying for the operation's success?
Would you choose that hospital over, say, Mass General or Johns Hopkins or whatever? If you needed a heart transplant, would you go to a government hospital that sacrifices chickens as an accepted therapeutic technique?
Probably not. And for similar reasons, I do NOT want the government or ANYBODY with any power to subscribe to the efficacy of techniques that i consider the equivalent of throwing virgins into the volcano to make it rain.
Economics is considered to be one of the sciences. A social science specifically. If Keynesianism is not valid as science, then it should not be considered to be an economic theory.
That's exactly my point.
Naw. These superstitious beliefs have been put to the test and found lacking. Reason seems to me a better tool than unchangeable faith as a method to find truth.
As I said: you've declared one to be superior and the other to be completely invalid.
Maybe belief in things for which there is zero evidence makes as much sense as testing ideas to see if they are valid. But so far, I've seen no evidence for that. There is zero evidence for any faith-based system of belief. By definition.
Except that there's not "zero evidence" and faith is not about believing something for which there is no evidence.
wow...and you claim to be a person of scientific and logical reasoning.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The mere belief usually has no effect. I think that vanishingly small numbers of people REALLY believe in "the power of prayer".
But if a guy like Pat Robertson (who blamed weather events on "sinful" behavior) were to gain any substantial amount of power, I would change that to say that the belief in the power of prayer is causing wholesale disruption of society. I am worried when I see people who sincerely and strongly believe in stuff for which there is scant or no evidence. I am worried that they may gain power in society beyond what they already have.
As of now, enough people believe in reason that the supernatural is kept in check in society. We have hospitals, for example, rather than Christian Science Reading Rooms. The tide is turning, compared to how things were in the 1600's, when religious folks used to burn witches.
So long as the govenment is immune to nutcase superstition, things can't get too bad. But when there is government endorsement of superstition over fact, then I worry. As an example - they say prayers before legislative sessions. What if a Hospital were to advertise that they held prayer sessions before surgeries? What if they provided, for an extra charge, a football stadium foll of people praying for the operation's success?
Would you choose that hospital over, say, Mass General or Johns Hopkins or whatever? If you needed a heart transplant, would you go to a government hospital that sacrifices chickens as an accepted therapeutic technique?
Probably not. And for similar reasons, I do NOT want the government or ANYBODY with any power to subscribe to the efficacy of techniques that i consider the equivalent of throwing virgins into the volcano to make it rain.
The government is prohibited by law from "subscribing" to the "techniques" you describe. Its representatives are not, however, prevented from expressing the beliefs of the people they represent. The government cannot prevent the expression of the people. The fact is that pushing your beliefs on others is EXACTLY what you seek to accomplish. You consider religious beliefs to be supernatural fairytales. But holding and even expression those beliefs is not good enough for you. You must indict all others who disagree as blind sheep. You seek to advance YOUR ideology by preventing their expression. You're the problem, and you don't even know it.
I am not here to defend my religious beliefs, nor attack your lack of religious beliefs. I am, however, going to defend my 1st Amendment rights as well as those of others. I am going to make it clear that you don't had a right to prevent the free expression of those beliefs.
The people have that right. They can advocate any crazy shit they want to. I would defend their right to say and believe that ghosts are real, and that UFOs are real, and that black cats cause bad luck, and that sinful behavior causes hurricanes.
I think that free expression trumps reality. I think that any crazy shit that people want to believe in, whether it is crop circles made by aliens, or a benovelent God, should be allowed.
I don't like to see my government endorsing any of that shit, however.
