or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Does freedom require religion?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Does freedom require religion? - Page 3

post #81 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Good read.

Going by that article, "change" (and painful change) is coming no matter what. You don't need a Ron Paul or a Dennis Kucinich to bring that change, nor could either of them put the brakes on that change.

The article also pointed out that FDR certainly didn't look the part to lead the country out the Great Depression when he ran for President, but that circumstances changed him and made him a leader for more radical change. Considering how long the Depression dragged on, and that it took the war economy of WWII to really, finally bring us back to prosperity, it could be argued how effective FDR was in fixing the economy -- even if was rewarded with four terms in office by the voting populace.

One thing that the article points out as a big part of the threat to our economy is all of the deregulation that has happened over the years since Reagan -- that an important safety net won't be there now if and when the economy comes crashing down. Ron Paul might not love the war in Iraq, nor some aspects of the crony capitalism (such as many current government subsidies), but in general he LOVES deregulation, and rampant deregulation is hardly the solution needed now or in the midst of such a crisis.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #82 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

Going by that article, "change" (and painful change) is coming no matter what. You don't need a Ron Paul or a Dennis Kucinich to bring that change, nor could either of them put the brakes on that change.

The article also pointed out that FDR certainly didn't look the part to lead the country out the Great Depression when he ran for President, but that circumstances changed him and made him a leader for more radical change. Considering how long the Depression dragged on, and that it took the war economy of WWII to really, finally bring us back to prosperity, it could be argued how effective FDR was in fixing the economy -- even if was rewarded with four terms in office by the voting populace.

One thing that the article points out as a big part of the threat to our economy is all of the deregulation that has happened over the years since Reagan -- that an important safety net won't be there now if and when the economy comes crashing down. Ron Paul might not love the war in Iraq, nor some aspects of the crony capitalism (such as many current government subsidies), but in general he LOVES deregulation, and rampant deregulation is hardly the solution needed now or in the midst of such a crisis.

So shetline, who'd you choose for 2008?
post #83 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Paul is the rightest of the right, leaning toward social totalitarianism and fiscal anarchy.

You have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Social totalitarianism? What in the world does that mean?

Have you ever taken the Worlds Smallest Political Quiz?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #84 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

"The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike. Subjectivism about values is eternally incompatible with democracy. We and our rulers are of one kind only so long as we are subject to one law. But if there is no Law of Nature, the ethos of any society is the creation of its rulers, educators and conditioners; and every creator stands above and outside his own creation." (C.S. Lewis)

The problem with this C.S. Lewis quote is the completely unfounded assumption that anyone's religion provides access to some perfect realm of objective values. Religion is just a trick people play on themselves to convince themselves that their own subjective views about values have a grander foundation than their own personal biases -- you haven't got anything else to go on except your own biases when you pick one religion, and its values, out of the myriad choices of religions available.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #85 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

Religion is just a trick people play on themselves to convince themselves that their own subjective views about values have a grander foundation than their own personal biases

Ooh, is that copyrighted, or can I use it as my new signature?
post #86 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Ooh, is that copyrighted, or can I use it as my new signature?

Actually, I think Shetline's just misquoting me.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #87 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

So shetline, who'd you choose for 2008?

I'd be happy with nearly any of the Democrats. I think they're all pretty close to each other, despite how much they're trying to play up the differences between themselves during the primaries. Only Kucinich and Gravel stand apart from the crowd by much. But both of them, Gravel especially, strike me as a bit crazy. I actually like Kucinich's position on many of the issues, but I doubt his capacity to lead effectively and to compromise -- that dirty word that's so important to getting anything done.

I'm leaning towards Biden or Clinton at the moment, a little more towards Clinton for no better reason than I like the idea of the US finally having a female President. Despite all the noise I hear about Clinton being "Republican Lite", she actually has a very good liberal track record in her voting as Senator. Both Biden and Clinton strike me as being very smart and knowledgeable when I listen to them speak. They both put more effort into appealing to intellect, instead of just emotion, than do many other candidates.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #88 of 218
Biden is a good man. He could make a good president too. But he has an image problem (an unfortunate situation in politics today).

Clinton should not be considered only for her gender. I absolutely will not vote for her for many reasons but I will not allow a Bush I/Clinton I/Bush II/Clinton II. It shows exactly what I was saying, a majority of Americans are afraid of change.

Dennis Kucinich is my choice for now and Ron Paul could be another as time moves on. But this country and the political system needs a massive overhaul.

I talked to my older brother about his choices and he thinks Romney is the best for him. Consider this; he was a business man first and a politician second. My brother feels that the direction he took (from his father's advice) is a plus for running the country (see Reagan). I would agree, but I don't agree with Romney's stance on religion, policy or his view of the world.

I don't have much time left to decide and if anything Kucinich will be a choice based on conscience whether he makes it or not. I can't imagine myself voting for most of the scum that is running right now (Obama excluded...maybe 2012...if we have that much time).
post #89 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

I'd be happy with nearly any of the Democrats. I think they're all pretty close to each other, despite how much they're trying to play up the differences between themselves during the primaries. Only Kucinich and Gravel stand apart from the crowd by much. But both of them, Gravel especially, strike me as a bit crazy. I actually like Kucinich's position on many of the issues, but I doubt his capacity to lead effectively and to compromise -- that dirty word that's so important to getting anything done.

I'm leaning towards Biden or Clinton at the moment, a little more towards Clinton for no better reason than I like the idea of the US finally having a female President. Despite all the noise I hear about Clinton being "Republican Lite", she actually has a very good liberal track record in her voting as Senator. Both Biden and Clinton strike me as being very smart and knowledgeable when I listen to them speak. They both put more effort into appealing to intellect, instead of just emotion, than do many other candidates.

Shet, I really cannot understand this. I know it is the push of the Democratic party to get a Democrat, any Democrat into office. This is a failure of their party, and there is also massive failure on the Republican side (let it not be said that I don't bash equally) to face issues and the reality of where we are as a nation right now.

If you are looking for someone many Democrats have turned to, look no further than Ron Paul. Personally, I haven't found a more qualified, right on the money candidate than Paul. The first president I was excited enough to vote for was Reagan. Well, he turned out to not exactly practice what he preached, so I dropped out of any political involvement until Ron Paul arrived on the scene. His campaign message absolutely electrified me into action. You don't really seem that committed to a candidate based on what you've said. Check out Paul's positions. Don't view him as a Republican... after all the other Republican candidates don't! He's a constitutionalist, which is what EVERY candidate for the presidency should be.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #90 of 218
Thread Starter 
Nature's God

Wow, this is a statement that is a huge can of worms. It implies that nature is a thinking/believing entity. I could also read into it that polluting nature is against god and against the constitution.

The implications of this are truly mind boggling!
post #91 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Biden is a good man. He could make a good president too. But he has an image problem (an unfortunate situation in politics today).

Clinton should not be considered only for her gender. I absolutely will not vote for her for many reasons but I will not allow a Bush I/Clinton I/Bush II/Clinton II. It shows exactly what I was saying, a majority of Americans are afraid of change.

Dennis Kucinich is my choice for now and Ron Paul could be another as time moves on. But this country and the political system needs a massive overhaul.

I talked to my older brother about his choices and he thinks Romney is the best for him. Consider this; he was a business man first and a politician second. My brother feels that the direction he took (from his father's advice) is a plus for running the country (see Reagan). I would agree, but I don't agree with Romney's stance on religion, policy or his view of the world.

I don't have much time left to decide and if anything Kucinich will be a choice based on conscience whether he makes it or not. I can't imagine myself voting for most of the scum that is running right now (Obama excluded...maybe 2012...if we have that much time).

I stuck with Ron Paul not only because he is 'different', he's right! He supports the constitutional origins of our country and wants to get us away from our illegal incursions and occupation of other nations, something no other candidate promises... which for me is the most baffling thing I've ever heard.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #92 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Shet, I really cannot understand this. I know it is the push of the Democratic party to get a Democrat, any Democrat into office. This is a failure of their party, and there is also massive failure on the Republican side (let it not be said that I don't bash equally) to face issues and the reality of where we are as a nation right now.

I'm not supporting the Democrats simply because they're Democrats, but because I happen to agree with a lot of the positions of the Democratic party. I wish they stood up to Bush better than they do, and I wish they weren't as influenced by the money game as they are -- but in the balance I strike between idealism and a somewhat cynical take on practical realities, I'm reasonably pleased with the current Democratic slate. It has nothing to do with some strong identification with the party itself.

Quote:
If you are looking for someone many Democrats have turned to, look no further than Ron Paul. Personally, I haven't found a more qualified, right on the money candidate than Paul. The first president I was excited enough to vote for was Reagan. Well, he turned out to not exactly practice what he preached, so I dropped out of any political involvement until Ron Paul arrived on the scene. His campaign message absolutely electrified me into action. You don't really seem that committed to a candidate based on what you've said. Check out Paul's positions. Don't view him as a Republican... after all the other Republican candidates don't! He's a constitutionalist, which is what EVERY candidate for the presidency should be.

I don't think of Ron Paul as a Republican.

I think of him as an anti-abortion Libertarian extremist, with a better take on the Constitution than many Republicans (especially the neocon Unity Executive crowd), but still a very cramped view of that document, who just happens to be against the war because wars cost money, and he hates anything that involves the Federal government spending money or expanding in size beyond an organization that might fit into a small post office.

I think of Ron Paul as a man with an irrational and totally historically unjustified faith in the power of the "free" market to solve nearly any problem, a man who would issue in a new age of Robber Baron capitalism, like the halcyon days (cough, cough) of the late nineteenth century.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #93 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

"Even" the evangelicals? Those the people that he's worried about, I'm sure. And as for explaining his religion, well perhaps you're right. Perhaps people would think it's "batshit." My question is...do people still go to see Tom Cruise movies? No really, do they? Further, who gets to judge his religion any less valid than say, Catholicism? I mean, do you know those crazy Catholics pray to---gasp---STATUES!!!?!?!

Let me know when Tom or another Catholic runs for president. Actually, I would prefer a Catholic, since JFK, they've accepted evolution and they typically don't push their beliefs on anyone(except their own kids).
post #94 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider View Post

Let me know when Tom or another Catholic runs for president. Actually, I would prefer a Catholic, since JFK, they've accepted evolution and they typically don't push their beliefs on anyone(except their own kids).

So you're saying a Catholic is OK, but a Mormon isn't. Hmm.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #95 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

So you're saying a Catholic is OK, but a Mormon isn't. Hmm.

Mormonism is Christianity with an American flag around it. A fusion of America and Christianity if you will. You may want to set some time and get an idea of what Mormonism is.

First I share you this.

Quote:
Think about that a second: Romney said "Freedom requires religion". But right away, according to Mormon faith, he runs into a major problem: the history of the church believes that the Constitution was created with freedom of religion, in order to allow free expression of religion to occur.

Therefore, one could only conclude by the Mormon faith that it is not that "Freedom requires religion", but "Religion requires freedom"! Without free expression of religious beliefs, you can not have complete expression of any religion.

Then, look at other countries. Do they have religion in China? Sure. Do they have free expression of it? No. Therefore, people having religious beliefs haven't magically made China a flourishing democracy.

http://politics.reddit.com/info/62jwo/comments/

And a very good view of the history up to the present day.

http://www.pbs.org/mormons/

I have nothing wrong with people making a choice to follow something (without hurting or preaching somebody else about it). He'd also follow the path we've been steered into anyway.



We don't want that do we?

Sorry for the editing, got to run.
post #96 of 218
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #97 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

So you're saying a Catholic is OK, but a Mormon isn't. Hmm.

Nope, you're putting words in my mouth.

A president should govern with the principals outlined in the Constitution, not the Bible.
post #98 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider View Post

Nope, you're putting words in my mouth.

A president should govern with the principals outlined in the Constitution, not the Bible.

Then why, pray tell, do politicians place their hands on the constitution and swear to defend the Bible? Hmmmmm?!
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #99 of 218
The same reason why people affirm on a Bible that their answers are true before testifying in court.

Because the system would go to absolute heck without it.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #100 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

The same reason why people affirm on a Bible that their answers are true before testifying in court.

Because the system would go to absolute heck without it.

[CENTER][/CENTER]

And what the heck does the Bible have to do with telling the truth?

If anything, it gives anyone license to say whatever their version of the "truth" is.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #101 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

The same reason why people affirm on a Bible that their answers are true before testifying in court.

Because the system would go to absolute heck without it.

Oaths don't require swearing on religious texts.

In fact I'd be interested in finding out how many jurisdictions actually use a religious text. Mine doesn't.
post #102 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Oaths don't require swearing on religious texts.

In fact I'd be interested in finding out how many jurisdictions actually use a religious text. Mine doesn't.



Quote:
\tWASHINGTON (AP) - Keith Ellison made history Thursday, becoming the first Muslim member of Congress and punctuating the occasion by taking a ceremonial oath with a Quran once owned by Thomas Jefferson.

"Look at that. That's something else," Ellison, D-Minn., said as officials from the Library of Congress showed him the two-volume Quran, which was published in London in 1764.

post #103 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post


He was talking about courts, and so was I.

But yes, that's true for Congress.
post #104 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

He was talking about courts, and so was I.

But yes, that's true for Congress.

Search results.

Yahoo Answers.

Why do we use the new testament bible when swearing in courts?

Quote:
Those giving evidence (and that includes those merely translating for a witness) who wish to swear rather than affirm, have a range of books to chose from.

They can swear an oath on the New Testament, the Old Testament, the Gita, the Holy Koran and so on. All are provided.

Christians of all demominations tend to swear on the New Testament because:
(a) from a religious perspective it is where Jesus Christ made his word known to man;
(b) from a court perspective, it is smaller and more portable than the whole bible.

In the Uk at least I have not seen the entire bible used in court in taking the oath, but I'm sure it could be produced if someone really demanded it.

From the legal perspective it makes not the slightest odds whether you swear on the Bible or the latest Harry Potter - you are obliged to tell the truth either way and can be committed for perjury if you don't.
post #105 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

The same reason why people affirm on a Bible that their answers are true before testifying in court.

Because the system would go to absolute heck without it.

There's no such thing as telling the "truth" or "lying" anymore. The one thing Bush has taught us, "I could've chosen my words better."
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #106 of 218
Quote:

Yes, that's right.

An oath doesn't require a religious text. Are you suggesting it does?
post #107 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Yes, that's right.

An oath doesn't require a religious text. Are you suggesting it does?

No bud, just contributing information. But as Northgate mentions, nobody is honest anymore. Who give a toss what it used. As the lawyer says, if you are found to be lying you'll get punished for it even if you swore on a Harry Potter book.
post #108 of 218
Quote:

Oath

North Dakota RULE 6.10 COURTROOM OATHS

Quote:
(b) Affirmation. A person must be allowed to make an affirmation instead of taking an oath, by substituting the word "affirm" for the word "swear" and substituting the phrase "under the pains and penalties of perjury" for the phrase "so help you God."

See also;

ACLU of N.C. & Syidah Matteen v. State of North Carolina

Quote:
On May 24th, 2007, Superior Court Judge Paul Ridgeway ruled that people of non-Christian faiths must be allowed to use religious texts other than the Christian Bible when being sworn in as jurors or witnesses in state court proceedings.

Judge Says Multiple Religious Texts Must Be Allowed For Swearing-In Proceedings

So presumably, in NC I could swear a courtroom oath using this;

[CENTER][/CENTER]

But what choices do secularists, agnostics, and atheists have?

[CENTER][/CENTER]

Works for me!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #109 of 218
Sometimes it's just too easy.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #110 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider View Post

Nope, you're putting words in my mouth.

A president should govern with the principals outlined in the Constitution, not the Bible.

And why would Romney do that more than say, Huckabee? Or the Altar Boy, John Kerry? Or Barack "'let's take back this nation for the lord" Obama?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #111 of 218
I think swearing on a copy of the U.S. Constitution would make the most sense.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #112 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

I think swearing on a copy of the U.S. Constitution would make the most sense.

My first thought was to agree insofar as it serves as a kind of synecdoche for the national ideals, but then I started wondering (in terms of the historical significance of swearing on "holy" documents) about the symbolism of swearing to tell the truth by placing a hand on a document designed to be changed.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #113 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

My first thought was to agree insofar as it serves as a kind of synecdoche for the national ideals, but then I started wondering (in terms of the historical significance of swearing on "holy" documents) about the symbolism of swearing to tell the truth by placing a hand on a document designed to be changed.

Heh.

Also, it calls to mind the Supreme Court's power-grab in Marbury v. Madison that the Court is the last word on the Constitution. Maybe they should pledge allegiance to the flag?
post #114 of 218
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

I think swearing on a copy of the U.S. Constitution would make the most sense.

Being hooked up to several stress detectors would make the most sense. Swearing is just another word for talking.

Swearing on religious text is like saying:"I believe in children's stories so I will tell the truth????" WTF
post #115 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

Being hooked up to several stress detectors would make the most sense. Swearing is just another word for talking.

Swearing on religious text is like saying:"I believe in children's stories so I will tell the truth????" WTF

Let me ask you a question: Do you hate all American traditions and standards of behavior, or just a few? Most? Some?

It's an oath...a public pledge. The bible is a symbol of the ultimate law beyond that which man creates. It's a symbol of the person acknowledging that his creator is watching, even if no one else is doing so. Does it have to be a bible? Of course not. But comparing it to "a children's book" is totally invalid, and some would say quite offensive.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #116 of 218
post #117 of 218
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Let me ask you a question: Do you hate all American traditions and standards of behavior, or just a few? Most? Some?

It's an oath...a public pledge. The bible is a symbol of the ultimate law beyond that which man creates. It's a symbol of the person acknowledging that his creator is watching, even if no one else is doing so. Does it have to be a bible? Of course not. But comparing it to "a children's book" is totally invalid, and some would say quite offensive.

I do not hate anything or anyone. (as I have formerly stated here) indeed hate is not in my emotions palette.

In order to be religious one has to trust the un-provable.
If even the highest religious leader constantly lie to protect sex offender and child molesters how is swearing on religious text even a marginally good idea??

I thought the US wants to be one of the most advanced nations yet it relies on the words of people who have lots to gain by telling untruth to find the truth. Does this make sense???

The bible is a bad childrens book, go stand in the corner and be offended, BUHU.

I am offended by the bible.
post #118 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

I do not hate anything or anyone. (as I have formerly stated here) indeed hate is not in my emotions palette.

Then perhaps you'd explain why you consistently lobby to destroy the same.

Quote:

In order to be religious one has to trust the un-provable.

I totally disagree with that. Your statement would be accurate if you substituted the word "faith" for "religion." I think one can be quite religious and have little faith. And I think one can have a high degree of faith without being religious. I myself fall into the second category.

Quote:
If even the highest religious leader constantly lie to protect sex offender and child molesters how is swearing on religious text even a marginally good idea??

Welcome to Cheap Debate Tricks 101! Class, you've just seen an example of stereotyping. "Some religious leaders have turned out to be hypocrites and liars, therefore all religious people are hypocrites and liars." Now class, pay attention closely, because this member has actually combined the stereotyping with another tactic, the non-sequitur. In other words, since all religious people are hypocrites and liars, faith itself is invalid.

Quote:

I thought the US wants to be one of the most advanced nations yet it relies on the words of people who have lots to gain by telling untruth to find the truth. Does this make sense???

Your point is rhetorical and vague.

Q: What does an "advanced nation" constitute?

Q: How do you determine that the US "wants" to be one, or isn't one now?

Q: Who are the people that speak untruth to find truth?

Q: What specifically is their role, since people "rely" on them?"

Q: Who determines what the truth is, religiously speaking?

Quote:

The bible is a bad childrens book, go stand in the corner and be offended, BUHU.

I am offended by the bible.

Yes, yes. As an atheist liberal, you can say and do anything you want. You can shred someone's faith. You can tear down cultural institutions. You can revel in your intellectual superiority. No problem. But man, just wait until some bigoted Christian says he thinks abortion is wrong or that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. Then all bets are off. Then it's your turn to be offended. And boy, you WILL be.

But I digress. I would be interested in hearing what in the bible offends you specifically. If you actually believe in freedom to worship (or not worship), it should not offend you in the slightest. You're acting a little like a child that doesn't believe in the monster in his closet, but is scared of it anyway.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #119 of 218
^I'm not even sure what his point is besides pointless bickering.
post #120 of 218
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Then perhaps you'd explain why you consistently lobby to destroy the same.



I totally disagree with that. Your statement would be accurate if you substituted the word "faith" for "religion." I think one can be quite religious and have little faith. And I think one can have a high degree of faith without being religious. I myself fall into the second category.



Welcome to Cheap Debate Tricks 101! Class, you've just seen an example of stereotyping. "Some religious leaders have turned out to be hypocrites and liars, therefore all religious people are hypocrites and liars." Now class, pay attention closely, because this member has actually combined the stereotyping with another tactic, the non-sequitur. In other words, since all religious people are hypocrites and liars, faith itself is invalid.



Your point is rhetorical and vague.

Q: What does an "advanced nation" constitute?

Q: How do you determine that the US "wants" to be one, or isn't one now?

Q: Who are the people that speak untruth to find truth?

Q: What specifically is their role, since people "rely" on them?"

Q: Who determines what the truth is, religiously speaking?



Yes, yes. As an atheist liberal, you can say and do anything you want. You can shred someone's faith. You can tear down cultural institutions. You can revel in your intellectual superiority. No problem. But man, just wait until some bigoted Christian says he thinks abortion is wrong or that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. Then all bets are off. Then it's your turn to be offended. And boy, you WILL be.

But I digress. I would be interested in hearing what in the bible offends you specifically. If you actually believe in freedom to worship (or not worship), it should not offend you in the slightest. You're acting a little like a child that doesn't believe in the monster in his closet, but is scared of it anyway.

SDW your anger, hate and intolerance is getting the better of you.
The bible carries the cross. By all means technology invented to torture people to death. This offends me. I am also offended by the notion that someone has to die so a believer can be saved, whatever that means. God kills the Egyptians to show off to Moses. That is extremely offensive.

Criminals (Scooter Libby, George Bush etc) tend to speak untruth when under oath or when cornered by the truth.

Religiously speaking there is not truth, this statement is complete nonsense.

The US: 1st on the moon 1st on Mars most nukes, most aircraft carriers, invented MACs the internet could you possibly try and construe this as "wanting to be advanced"?


I couldn't understand the "lobby to destroy the same" related to me avoiding hate ...? Do you mean I want to destroy hate, yes indeed I would like to, I would like to see all hate disappear and be replaced with educating all peoples about all other peoples so we can in John Lennon's words be "sharing all the world".
Oh I forgot you wanted to kill John Lennon or at least deport him.

Do you see evil in peace?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Does freedom require religion?