Science and Religion - Page 4

Let me be more specific.

It is illegal to be an atheist in the Kentucky Homeland Security Department who doesn't support the public display of statements against their belief.

Happy now?

And the wordingnof the plaque does require the belief that there is a god. You cannot claim otherwise.

 

That's not true either.  As an employee, one has the right not to support the display of the plaque.  As far as I can tell, the law doesn't stop one from expressing his opinion.  It does, however, require that the plaque be displayed.  

 

 

 

I certainly understand the argument, but how does it "require" it?  The issue, tonton, is whether the government has a right to engage in a religious expression such as this.  All I am saying is that I honestly don't know if it does, or if it doesn't...and that it's not the slam dunk you seem to think.  

 

 

You clearly do not understand the definition of the word "assertion."  This is interesting, as I even provided you with said definition.  What's amusing to me is that you're portraying me as some kind of crazy, deluded and stupid wackjob..all because, like 96% of the American people, I say "I believe in God."  

 

You'll no doubt next link to the definition for argumentum ad populum,.  Of course, that won't change the absurdity and stunning arrogance you show in calling almost everyone (other than you and other random internet atheists) stupid.  

 

The arrogance is really extraordinary.  

 

 

 

I don't know the exact number, but it's not "way off."  This 2008 article shows that 92% do.  Pretty close, I'd say.  

 

 

 

 

I'm simply saying that I find your claim that an overwhelming majority of Americans are stupid based on the fact they believe in God to be arrogant in the extreme...almost laughably so.  How can one honestly think he's more far more intelligent than that many people?  How can one be so closed-minded that he simply cannot accept that people come to different conclusions about the nature and existence of God?  

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, it's not identical.  One is a statement of personal belief.  The other is an assertion.  I believe lots of things (both religious and otherwise) that you or another person might agree or disagree with.  That doesn't mean I'm going to assert them.  Typically, when I assert something you'll know it, because I'll label it as a fact.  Given that we're dealing with a forum where people express their opinions, we don't always post "I believe" in front of belief statements, but that doesn't make beliefs and assertions the same.  

 

Let's use another example.

 

 

 This is an assertion.  It also happens to be a fact, though as with many assertions, proof is not readily provided.  

 

 

 

 

This is a statement of opinion, of belief.  It's a conclusion I've reached.  

 

 

What you're doing is running around screaming that I'm an idiot for thinking my Macbook is better (as are all others who think similarly).  The only reason is that you don't think there is sufficient "evidence" for my belief, as if you have any right to judge others.  

Fox's Bill O recently said that Christianity isn't a religion, that it's a philosophy.  

 

If so, we could help the economy greatly by renouncing the tax-exempt status of churches.

 

No it wouldn't. 

 

 

It could be said that, a couple thousand years ago, 96% (or more) of people on the earth believed the earth was a flat plane... possibly infinite, possibly with edges way off yonder.

 

Just because so many people "believed" it didn't make it true... And those who still believe it are rightly viewed as crazy, deluded, stupid wackjobs... no matter how many other people believe it along with them.

 

 

If you believe in "God", then I will consider those beliefs to be crazy, deluded and stupid... that doesn't mean i think ALL of your opinions and thoughts fall into that category... but if you wish to make public policy or decisions that affect others based on that belief in a god, then I will fight that... because decisions that affect others should be based on fact, or at least backed with evidence.

 

This would be a fine analogy if God had/has been disproven to exist (as the earth was disproven to be flat.) Until that happens, this analogy is a poor one.

 

Now, you are absolutely correct that the number (or percentage) of people that believe a thing to be true doesn't make it true.

Don't worry people, you won't loose anything when you decide to give it a shot, read the new testament and see if it makes sense to you.

 

You are missing the point.  I am not claiming God exists because 90+% of people believe in God.  Rather, I find the fact that BR calls all of these people idiotic 

to be stunningly arrogant and even laughable.  It might actually be the most arrogant thing I've ever seen.  Really.  

 

 

 

I honestly don't even know what that means.  What kind of law and/or policy do you mean...the Kentucky law?  And why do you oppose any policy predicated on the existence of God?   

 

 

1.  I explained it the same way.  It was ignored.  

 

2.  Funny how that only applies to those who disagree with the liberal cabal here.  BR is over in the Romney thread arguing that tax increases are good policy because people supported them on election day.  

Yes, do that.

What you shouldn't do is to let some pastor/priest/denomination with an anti-gay, misogynist (or even libertarian) agenda tell you how to make "sense" of it. There are a lot of wise words in the NT. there are a lot of idiotic interpretations of it.

And by the way, ignore the obsolete laws of the OT, as Jesus himself points out that that's not the point.

 

He shouldn't have trouble finding a pastor that isn't anti-gay and mysogynistic.

 

 

 

Indeed, don't let anyone who advocates liberty influence your thinking. Nothing good can come from that. 

 

Now just an interesting side note if you look at the arbitrary values of intelligence (IQ) we assign people, that makes a lot of sense. With the median intelligence being 100, only 2% of the general population is eligible to join high IQ societies like Mensa, whose entry requirement stand at 130. If you're speaking as someone of that intelligence you can very well claim that 98% of the population are idiots just because. No it doesn't make him arrogant, it might hurt your feelings to be consigned with the lower intellect but that does not make it any less true.

 

  What a completely ridiculous post.  Let's try again:  BR is not claiming or implying that he, statistically speaking, is smarter than a high percentage of the people in this nation and/or on this planet.  That claim might have some truth to it.  In fact, given your writing above, one could surmise you fit the same category.  No, what BR is saying is that the 96% of people that believe in God in this country are idiotic or at least significantly less intelligent solely because they believe in God.  

 

And here's the best irony I've seen in a while:  BR has accused me of making an assertion (I've not) for which he demands scientific evidence.  He then turns around and makes a clear assertion himself, that being "anyone who believes in God is less intelligent."  And what does he base this assertion on?  IQ test comparison?  SAT scores? Multiple Intelligence Assessments?  Any measurable data whatsoever?  No!  He bases it on his own personal opinion alone, with no evidence whatsoever.  He doesn't even provide evidence of a correlation between low intelligence and believing in a supreme being.  

 

LOVE it.  

Edited by SDW2001 - 12/6/12 at 7:38am

 

And try to get BR to scientifically prove his beloved "social contract." 

 

Indeed.  I thought that was tonton, though.  Maybe both.  

 

It is both.