Mali Posted May 22, 2011 Report Share Posted May 22, 2011 Religion and science are tools. Even a hammer can be used for murder, but in most cases it is used for building. The wielder of the tool determines its purpose regardless of the makers intended function. Like the hammer, religion and science can be used for the good of mankind, to build communities and expand our knowledge about the world... or they can be used in the pursuit of power. Pali's atheism is just another religion, and defines his worldview. He is on the pulpit just like a preacher would be. He is entitled to his faith just as much as anyone else. The women mentioned in the original post is obviously very ill. I don't think it is appropriate to blame that on religion. Although, it does appear that the whole rapture business was made to take advantage of peoples beliefs and enhance visibility of that individuals agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyzarius Posted May 22, 2011 Report Share Posted May 22, 2011 Just stick to "the way" and everything will be fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atebos Posted May 22, 2011 Report Share Posted May 22, 2011 Just for your information. The staff almost did a pwipe in anticipation of the end of the world. (Un)fortunately, there was a split 3 vs 3 vote which was resolved when Volgathras broke the pwipe button. Oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balgashang Posted May 22, 2011 Report Share Posted May 22, 2011 Volgathras would -never- break the pwipe button, what else could be more chaotic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demiterracotta Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 Did the radio airing of 'War of the Worlds' teach people nothing? People will always believe in something, be it science, God, beer, some nut on the radio.....Anume...... and nobody needs a reason or a justification to believe what they do. And that is the bottom line. Believe what you want, preach what you want, but throwing hostility at entire groups of people because of your personal beliefs only tends to cause more hate and discontent. Just a couple pennies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted May 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 It is not false statements. It is akin to political mudslinging. Your using fractions of fractions of the truth to get across your point. Did you do any research to see if that woman had a history of mental instability? Did you check if she was under heavy stress? Nope. You took the first layer of truth' date=' and presented it because that is what best got your point across. The fact of the matter is the woman WAS mentally unfit, and had been in trouble before for doing crazy things (inducing public panic). This time her insanity went too far, and you got to blame her actions on religion.[/quote'] I actually did do a quick Google search on her, but found nothing unrelated to this beyond Facebook and Myspace pages which I didn't bother to check out. If you have information that shows her as mentally disabled, please give the source (but I hope you understand that, without proper context, the simple existence of a charge along the lines of disturbing the peace doesn't show much). However, without such information available (and I tried to find some as much as I cared to, which wasn't much, as generally a person's psychiatric and medical history are protected information), I made no assumptions - her stated motive for her actions as reported was her belief that the world would be soon ending and that she did not wish her children to suffer through it. I do not see this as an irrational thought process, so long as the initial premise is granted. http://brittaj17.wordpress.com/2011/...uthy-jan-2011/ Clearly this one is the fault of Science. Had we not had technological advancements like TV, Internet, and Firearms, the children would never have learned to disrespect their mother, and the mother would not have a gun to shoot the disrespectful children.[/quote[ You are looking at the causes of the circumstances she found herself in - and this is not a bad thing in any respect, and I don't mean to suggest it is in any way... quite the opposite, I think too often the causes of the circumstances are neglected. However, in this particular instance, the circumstances don't seem to have anything to do with the motive for the crime, which is what I am primarily concerned with for the purposes of this discussion. Yes, modern science is responsible for TV and the internet (firearms predate it), which may have played a causal role in the children being disrespectful of their parents - but isn't the god you believe in both omniscient and omnipotent? If that is the case, then nothing can possibly happen without that god's approval or apathy - so assuming your god exists, it either wanted this to happen or didn't care if it did. If you ask me, that makes him far more responsible for the outcome then anyone or anything that played an incredibly indirect role in the creation of the circumstances surrounding it. Religion and science are tools. Even a hammer can be used for murder' date=' but in most cases it is used for building. The wielder of the tool determines its purpose regardless of the makers intended function. Like the hammer, religion and science can be used for the good of mankind, to build communities and [b']expand our knowledge about the world... or they can be used in the pursuit of power. In what way has religion ever expanded our knowledge of the world? More to the point: as I see it, this is very much a false equivalency. When religion is used by a person as a tool, it is a tool of manipulation (and tools of manipulation can be used for good or ill, but that doesn't change what they are). When science is used by a person as a tool, it is a tool for gathering knowledge and understanding. Yes, someone can use their knowledge in very selective and scientific-sounding ways to manipulate people - but they aren't actually using science in that process of manipulation, but knowledge or understanding gained from science. There is a distinction here - not a terribly important one, but I can't help pointing it out . Far more importantly, the great distinction between scientific and religious understandings is that scientific understandings have a reality check - religious ones don't. Even in cases of unethical scientific experimentation, if something wasn't being learned, if progress wasn't being made in some way, they would not have continued because it would not have been worth their time - this is a reality check. Where is the reality check on religious faith, most of which has to deal with the afterlife and realities we cannot, by definition, experience until we're dead? (Yes, I'm aware that this specific instance of religious faith has been proven to be false - but that hasn't stopped creationists.) Pali's atheism is just another religion, and defines his worldview. He is on the pulpit just like a preacher would be. He is entitled to his faith just as much as anyone else. Let's start with some basic definitions from dictionary.com. Atheism: 1.the doctrine or belief that there is no god. 2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. Definition one does not quite accurately describe my position (nor that of any self-described atheist I'm familiar with) - primarily as my position is not based on doctrine. Definition two, however, is perfectly accurate. The reason definition one is not quite accurate is that it is too narrow a definition - I do not have a belief in the existence of any gods, but only in some instances do I maintain a belief that the god postulated is actually impossible (yes, the Biblical god on a fairly literal interpretation [and many liberal ones] is one of these). Religion: 1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 2.a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. 3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions. My atheism does not apply to any of these definitions - it is simply my non-belief in the existence of any deities. Atheism itself cannot qualify as a religion, no more than theism (or even more specifically monotheism or polytheism) can - these are single-line definition philosophical positions, and religions are far more complex than that. You are wrong by definition. I expected better from you, Mali. EDIT: Also, every definition of preaching I've found requires a religious context - again, you are misrepresenting my actions by definition. Nor is atheism in any way the basis for my worldview - my being an atheist is a consequence of my being, in a word, a skeptic. If you want to label my worldview, it's "skeptical" - atheism's just covered under that umbrella. The women mentioned in the original post is obviously very ill. I don't think it is appropriate to blame that on religion. Again, I have seen no evidence yet that this woman is mentally ill (the simple fact that she was willing to kill someone does not provide evidence of this, or nearly everyone I argued with on the bin Laden thread is also mentally ill), and I described how her religious belief that the world would be ending soon provides a rational thought process (yes, on the irrational basis of her faith) leading to her actions. EDIT: I can't help but feel like I need to make this point once again: regardless of whether this specific woman is found to be mentally unstable or not, her actions are far from the basis for my negative view of faith-based thinking. If nothing else, her being found mentally unstable almost makes things even worse, simply because when we accept faith-based beliefs as okay it makes it much harder to tell the sane person who talks to god from the insane person who does. Although, it does appear that the whole rapture business was made to take advantage of peoples beliefs and enhance visibility of that individuals agenda. Now THIS I agree with - and I see it as just another symptom of the very same problem. EDIT: Specifically, in what way does encouraging people to believe things on faith, without confirmation by evidence and logic, do anything but make them more susceptible to manipulation by charlatans? Just for your information. The staff almost did a pwipe in anticipation of the end of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The-Nameless Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 Ah, I will consider it a victory since your now using god as a scape goat to why these crimes happened. If you don't believe in god, you cannot use him for an argument There is also the fact that god is morally exempt from the standard we are held to. You simply cannot say god is at fault for murder. He gave us free choice, he did not pull a trigger. It is our job to choose, and accept the consequences of our choices. If you shot yourself in the knee, you could not complain to the company that makes blackpowder because of what you chose to do with it. Same here. We are given the ability to choose whatever path we want. Do whatever we limit ourselves to. We just have to accept the consequences of those choices Pali. Would it help if I said Man made mustard, not god? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted May 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 Ah, I will consider it a victory since your now using god as a scape goat to why these crimes happened. If you don't believe in god, you cannot use him for an argument You missed my point. You were looking at the causes of the circumstances surrounding the incident, rather than the motivations of the perpetrator (which, as I said, was my focus) - I was pointing out that, given your beliefs, the ultimate cause of the circumstances is God, yet you don't seem to be holding him responsible for them. You are being inconsistent in your reasoning, despite it's lack of relevance to the topic I was discussing. You simply cannot say god is at fault for murder. If your god both knows everything and is all-powerful, then it is not logically possible for anything to happen without either its approval or its apathy. If you are capable of preventing someone from killing/raping/torturing/etc. someone else (with absolutely no risk or even real effort on your own part) and you do not do it, you are a being that I consider morally reprehensible. If that god exists, I consider it... words that I will not post here. Something worthy of disgust and hatred - not adoration and worship. P.S. I'd also argue that free will is illusory and does not actually exist as most people think of it. I don't see any reason to view humans as somehow exempt from the physical laws of cause and effect that come into play above the quantum level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The-Nameless Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 You missed my point. You were looking at the causes of the circumstances surrounding the incident' date=' rather than the motivations of the perpetrator (which, as I said, was my focus) - I was pointing out that, given your beliefs, the ultimate cause of the circumstances is God, yet you don't seem to be holding him responsible for them. You are being inconsistent in your reasoning, [i']despite it's lack of relevance to the topic I was discussing. You can only hold God responsible for wonton murder if you are ignorant to how religion actually works. You apparently do not understand the inner workings of religion. You get the Deity/worship factor, but you do not get the structure of it all. You would call a southern baptist, and a methodist christians without a second thought. Holding god responsible for someone killing someone else is like holding the ocean responsible for a shark attack. You can justify it sure, but it is about as flawed as any concept can possibly be. God gave us all the right to choose. Choose whatever we want. The price we pay for that is we can choose poorly. Thousands of people do every day because it is easier. Besides Pali, who are you to piss on my belief system? You ever see me calling you a godless heretic who is going to burn in hell for being a blasphemous bastard? Nope, cause it is your right to choose to do what you want. I can accept it, give you all the reasons why I believe you are wrong, but it is not my place to mount attacks on what makes you a person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted May 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 First off... where have I attacked anyone personally? Yes, I think that some of your ideas are wrong - I think it would be patronizing and condescending of me to not be honest with you about that. I want you to be honest with me when I say something you think is wrong. But I'd also prefer if you explain how and why you think I'm wrong... bringing me to my next point. Your response is not actually a response - you are giving me no explanation of the thought process involved in resolving what I view as a dilemma, you're just saying that I don't understand and that's too bad but I'm still wrong. That's not an argument. Not only that, but the few points where you venture close to an argument (such as the ocean metaphor) make huge categorical errors: the ocean is not a conscious agent capable of rational thought and independent action - your god supposedly is. If it were, then I may not consider shark attacks as a whole unjustified from its perspective (food chain and all - everything lives on something else)... but random murder where the perpetrator gains nothing it requires for survival from the victim, and the ocean were both fully aware and capable of stopping it? You bet I'd lay some blame on the ocean. EDIT: And once again: I view free will as illusory. I do not view our beliefs as things we choose. If you want to argue that they are, go right ahead - I'm perfectly happy to argue my case that they aren't if you really want to get into it. But you can't just say that we choose our beliefs and expect me to accept it at face value. edit 2: I'm going to watch the new Game of Thrones now - back in an hour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The-Nameless Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 You are still not getting it Pali. Murder as a concept was created by man, morals also created by man. You cannot hold God to those concepts simply because you want to. Not how it works. God existed long before mortal concepts of right, and wrong. We CHOSE to create those standards. It all boils down to us being able to choose man. You can sit back on your elitist high horse snob nosing everything religious that comes your way. Realistically I don't give a damn. The problem I have is you constantly bring your antireligious views to public avenues in an attempt to discredit religion, and it gets old. You can say it is not a personal attack. It IS a personal attack. Religion is important to me, and it is part of who I am. Your antireligious propoganda is spiteful, and laced with cynical joy only a pessimist can enjoy. It is distasteful, and to me your the kid who is farting in class so people will laugh. Ha ha, Pali, Ha Ha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted May 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 You are still not getting it Pali. Murder as a concept was created by man' date=' morals also created by man. You cannot hold God to those concepts simply because you want to. Not how it works. God existed long before mortal concepts of right, and wrong.[/quote'] Yes, I am quite happy to make moral judgments on the actions you say your god has taken. I think that it is very sad that YOU don't do the same - if you did, you might realize that it's a character that is not worthy of your worship, whether it exists or not. We CHOSE to create those standards. It all boils down to us being able to choose man. How many times must I say that I do not believe in free will, that if you are going to make that part of your argument then you need to be willing to actually go into it and make your case? My position is based specifically in neuroscience and more generally in human anatomy and evolution overall - what is yours based on? Faith? The Bible? A feeling? You can sit back on your elitist high horse snob nosing everything religious that comes your way. Realistically I don't give a damn. The problem I have is you constantly bring your antireligious views to public avenues in an attempt to discredit religion, and it gets old. Considering the overwhelming prevalence of religion in American society, the utter lack of representation the nonreligious have in politics, the constant intrusions of religious dogma on public education and civil rights... I can't say that I feel much sympathy for you here because of me making an anti-religious forum post here and there. You can say it is not a personal attack. It IS a personal attack. Religion is important to me, and it is part of who I am. Your antireligious propoganda is spiteful, and laced with cynical joy only a pessimist can enjoy. I do not make these posts out of spite. I make these posts out of the tiny little hope that someone might look at them and take the time to actually think about what I'm saying. I will not apologize if they offend you (as I do not think I have said anything that requires an apology), but I hope that you understand that offending you is not my intention - getting you to think about your beliefs and the reasons you hold them is. Again - where am I just ranting and raving? Where am I doing anything beyond pointing out logical pitfalls and the potential negative consequences of them? How am I being offensive here? Where am I insulting you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The-Nameless Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 How is you coming here posting about the "failed rapture" and ragging all over religion, attempting to implicate religious beliefs into baby killing not trying to spite every person who has serious religious beliefs? Who are you to tell me I am wrong? You have no more right to slander God to me, than I have to slander gingers to you. You can sit back, and pretend your doing this out of some hope of awakening, but the truth is you ARE an elitist. You enjoy being right, and feeling empowered over another person or you simply would not do it as much as you do. I am done with this thread, I have spoken my point several times over. I can convince you just as easily as you can convince me. The difference is I am not going to drag your belief system through the mud, then try to tell you it was not aimed at you, just your core. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted May 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 ...if you think I'm trying to just say "hah, religion's wrong and kills babies", then I'm either communicating horribly or you are misunderstanding me to the same extent. The point never was "religion kills babies" - the point was to show an example of how faith, how belief without evidence, can be potentially dangerous. For the record, I keep up enough with the online skeptical community that I get news of what I would call negative religious influence about once a day (the most recent [aka Friday's] had to do with a high school constitutional law violation and the kid who protested against it, a Damon Fowler, being ostracized and threatened to the point where he felt he had to leave town). The only reason I mentioned this Rapture business specifically was because I know a lot of people heard about it - I read about it in various newspapers, I have no doubt it was on TV news (which I don't watch often), and the vast majority of people who shop at the store I work at were familiar with it and making jokes about it. All I wanted to do was point out that it isn't just funny - it does cause harm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRins Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 I mean... would you be offended if I said you were ****ing ugly? Whether it is true or not... it is unnecessary. How you look, how tall I am, and what I, or anyone else, choose to believe are simply part of who we are. I'd honestly prefer you not bring it up, because in my mind you are telling me that I'll never see my grandfather again... even in some spiritual Heaven scenario. The man raised me as his son when my biological father wanted nothing to do with me, and I've literally fought blatantly losing fights because someone popped off at the mouth regarding him. I'm also just barely big enough to realize that what I hope for when I leave this planet may not happen. Believe whatever you want, seriously. I encourage you to think on what you believe and explore it as deeply as you possibly could. That being said... it is getting very old to have your beliefs become an attack on mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The-Nameless Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 You want to herald something as evil, and causes problems, and death, and fanatical, tyrannical acts of violence, and terror? Let us blame money. Yet another glorious creation of man. Money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The-Nameless Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 The proper way to call him ugly would be : "The genetic combination of your mother, and father has proven to put out undesirable results. No offense, just analyzing the data provided you know" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted May 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 You want to herald something as evil' date=' and causes problems, and death, and fanatical, tyrannical acts of violence, and terror? Let us blame money. Yet another glorious creation of man. Money.[/quote'] I would say that money is superior to the barter system - the real problem here is simple greed. Which is part of my problem with the reverence many people show for unregulated free-market capitalism: while it may generate revenue, innovation and productivity for the system as a whole, much of the gains tend to be concentrated in very few hands, and the system requires an underclass that is effectively screwed by the process. It'd be really nice if humanity could get over its fascination with owning things - I doubt it would ever happen, but it'd be nice. EDIT: Ah, but you're discounting environmental factors like nutrition and behavior! EDIT 2: Didn't see KRins's post... I see little value beyond temporary comfort in such falsehoods. I also see a great deal of potential harm from believing things based on such flimsy reasoning, harm that, as I see it, vastly outweighs the comfort-value you mention. I think people would be far better off dealing with reality on its own terms than believing in fantasies - and I respect people enough that I'm not going to try to hide reality from them because I don't think they can handle it. While it is rude to just walk up to someone and call them ugly - it is also, in my opinion, wrong to tell an ugly person that they are beautiful. There are ways to be honest without being insulting - believe it or not, that's my intention. And frankly, I don't think that making forum posts, even intentionally insulting ones, is equivalent to insulting someone to their face. I'm not forcing anyone to read my posts. I'm not screaming in your face. This is text on a screen - whether you read it or not is your own choice (I use the word in a different context than the free will discussion, before anyone jumps on it as me contradicting myself ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The-Nameless Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 But thats the thing, your using your opinion to roll over other people's. You are being rude. You are being spiteful. What your saying is coming across as personal attacks. You are thrashing into my style of life. You are undermining my belief system. You are making insults on other people. You just said you don't find comfort in falsehoods to krins. Well krins DOES find comfort in those truths. So now it comes down to you trying to dominate with your opinion. Quite frankly Pali this is not the place to constantly wave your "**** Religion flag". I can't help it if your happy working in a conveniance store, and not knowing there is something more. You can wall yourself in behind all the scientific reasoning you want. You ARE attacking religion. A fair amount of us have said before that we DO find it offensive. So I have to be blunt. Your being a ****ing **** please stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted May 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 ...I am using my opinion to argue with the opinions of other people. I'm not saying "you're wrong, idiot" - I'm saying "I think you are wrong, and here's why". I don't see how that is rude - I think it's a bad thing if you think it is. The main way anyone learns anything is to talk to people who disagree with them or who know more about a subject than they do. Why should your belief in the afterlife be any more off-limits to criticism than someone's belief that Obama's an awesome president (I didn't see anyone criticizing Mali's post as rude, and they shouldn't have - if you re-read political debates on this forum, I think you'll find far more vitriol and personal attacks than I ever spew on religious threads, yet I get called rude more than anyone on those does)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The-Nameless Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 How much ****ing clearer does it need to be. You are being offensive. I am taking offense to every ounce of what your saying. You are argueing with me that you are not really arguing the way I think you are. Ffs man. What you are saying I take in full offense. It doesn't matter if you mean it offensive, it ****ing is. If I am cleaning a gun, and it goes off, and shoots my friend in the face, what I meant does not ****ing matter because it is not what was done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imoutgoodbye Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 Here's why I find this entire conversation distasteful and unethical from my frame of reference: You began this conversation with media sensationalism, which I believe you have denounced before. A small example of why a faith-based system is bad while ignoring a vast majority of good that has come from a faith-based system. A vague example (I simply don't feel like arguing opinions at the moment, so, no, nothing broader) are the morals and rules of society as they pertain to most American laws. Also, as Mali pointed out, you've taken to pulpit, again, in the name of Science or Atheism or whatever you would prefer to call your tool/measuring stick. My opinion on what religion is simply does not matter at this point. I agree with your push for autonomy and critical thinking, but disagree with your attempts to "show people the Light". People cannot be forced to see anything, even in arguments. All that can be done is simply present them with the tools they would require to achieve higher levels of autonomy and critical thinking. What they think of religion at that point is up to them. It's simply unethical and potentially psychologically dangerous to try to outright argue/strip someone of their beliefs. A good dialogue is fine. But this horse has been beat to the point of a monologue. However, being as that I agree with you to an extent, what actions have you taken to present this critical thinking within your community/state? EDIT: These thoughts are my own and in no way associated with FL or its staff or the CMT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted May 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 You are taking offense at the simple fact that I do not believe the things you do, and that I am willing to say that I do not believe the things you do, that I am willing to say that I think the things you believe are wrong. I'm just going to re-post this: Considering the overwhelming prevalence of religion in American society' date=' the utter lack of representation the nonreligious have in politics, the constant intrusions of religious dogma on public education and civil rights... I can't say that I feel much sympathy for you here because of me making an anti-religious forum post here and there.[/quote'] You began this conversation with media sensationalism' date=' which I believe you have denounced before. A small example of why a faith-based system is bad while ignoring a vast majority of good that has come from a faith-based system. A vague example (I simply don't feel like arguing opinions at the moment, so, no, nothing broader) are the morals and rules of society as they pertain to most American laws. [/quote'] I was very clear that I was using a specific example to make a point - there's nothing wrong with doing that. One is not committing a fallacy by using the Nazis as an example of nationalism gone wrong (the fallacy would be saying the Nazis went bad, therefore nationalism is bad). If my position was simply "faith leads to things like this, therefore faith is bad", I would agree that position is simplistic and ignorant as well as an appeal to consequences - but it isn't. My position is that faith is uniquely qualified to lead to things like this, though absolutely not guaranteed to do so, because of its lack of a reality check. This lady was an example - she wasn't the point. And I'd be happy to discuss the mixing of Enlightenment, Christian, and Greco-Roman ideas when it comes to the formation of the American legal system... but don't go thinking religion can take sole credit for them. And frankly, I think you discount the value of a good argument when it comes to making people think about things. They very rarely change someone's mind overnight... but they plant little seeds of thought that sometimes sprout quite nicely down the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imoutgoodbye Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 And I'd be happy to discuss the mixing of Enlightenment, Christian, and Greco-Roman ideas when it comes to the formation of the American legal system... but don't go thinking religion can take sole credit for them. And frankly, I think you discount the value of a good argument when it comes to making people think about things. They very rarely change someone's mind overnight... but they plant little seeds of thought that sometimes sprout quite nicely down the road. Pragraph 1: I agree there are other factors that have come into play within our laws over time, however, the foundation for the Constitution is Puritanical. Paragraph 2: I, once again, agree, as I believe in that little thing known as Transformative Learning. However, I believe you are failing to connect with the audience, unless you're going purely for working towards cognitive dissonance, which you are doing quite well at, but not gaining the desired result. I, sir, bid you good day and good luck in your endeavors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The-Nameless Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 You just are going to sit and pick, and pick at it. Your not simply stating your position, you are slandering mine. To voice your opinion is completely different than dragging mine through the mud. You live in a little world you can control, and you are happy with that. The point is your running around trashing religion at most any point it comes up, and then saying your not. I have told you several times Pali, I do find it very offensive. To the point I would take physical action if I was anywhere near you. Jesus said turn the other cheek. God said I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance, and furious anger so that you may know I am the lord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.