[besson3c]

Everything would be so much better if I could call the shots.

One of my biggest peeves in politics is how people fixate on stuff that is pretty unimportant, or if it is slightly important, stuff where the attention garnered is way out of proportion in comparison to the really big issues facing our country now (the economy, jobs, etc.).

I'd love to propose a "don't give a shit" category, and that issues that fall into this category get shut down and time not wasted discussing them. I do wonder sometimes how many of these sorts of issues are deliberately planted to distract us - the bread and circuses thing. I would love to be present at all of those cable news shows and have to power to interrupt people when they are yammering on and say "don't give a shit!! Next..."

Here are some issues that would go in my "don't give a shit" category, feel free to expand on this:

- anything that relates to questioning a politician's patriotism: flag pins et all
- whatever battle of words is going on between Rush, Maddow, Beck, Oibermann, and whomever else
- Sarah Palin post 2008 election
- anything related to a politician's religion
- anything relating to something a politician did 10+ years ago, unless it was really crazy and hard to ignore (people change)
- the cultural center in New York (maybe I care about this a little, but I'm already tired of the consternation)
- Obama's birth certificate, religion (see above), whether he still smokes
- during Bush's presidency: him removing brush
- what presidents do while on vacation
- the sex lives of politicians (so long as they aren't abusing their power). I don't care about gay sex or whatever
- teleprompters
- facial expressions
- most polls, esp. well outside of election season
- how a politician winning or losing an election was due to the support of another politician

I'm sure I'll think of more stuff later...

[turtle777]

Reported for verbal masturbation.

-t

[besson3c]

Turtle: I think you need to get laid

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

- anything related to a politician's religion
- Obama's birth certificate, religion (see above), whether he still smokes

I am curious how Glenn Beck's religion is potentially important but the religion of the most powerful man on earth is not.

I think that having an endless line of actively religious Presidents has been a detriment and would rather see that discussed and stopped than some guy on TV.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I am curious how Glenn Beck's religion is potentially important but the religion of the most powerful man on earth is not.

If this is directed at me, I don't think either are important.

I think that having an endless line of actively religious Presidents has been a detriment and would rather see that discussed and stopped than some guy on TV.

Being religious is a private and personal matter. I think problems arise when people try to measure the religious commitment of a president and use religion as a driver for wedge issues and stuff. I don't mind actively religious presidents, so long as their beliefs are considered completely irrelevant in every way.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If this is directed at me, I don't think either are important.

Being religious is a private and personal matter. I think problems arise when people try to measure the religious commitment of a president and use religion as a driver for wedge issues and stuff. I don't mind actively religious presidents, so long as their beliefs are considered completely irrelevant in every way.

One's religion affects their judgement. People generally base their decisions on their personal philosophy, in this case that is their religion. It's how we get federal money going toward "faith based initiatives", judges and justices appointed who desire to eliminate abortion, religious plaques on public property, pushes for prayer and intelligent design in public schools, opposition to gay marriage…not to mention, do you really approve of decisions being made by our leaders based upon their prayers rather than their reason?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

One's religion affects their judgement. People generally base their decisions on their personal philosophy, in this case that is their religion. It's how we get federal money going toward "faith based initiatives", judges and justices appointed who desire to eliminate abortion, religious plaques on public property, pushes for prayer and intelligent design in public schools, opposition to gay marriage…not to mention, do you really approve of decisions being made by our leaders based upon their prayers rather than their reason?

We can't and shouldn't stop our leaders from believing whatever it is they want to believe, but when I say that their religion should be "completely irrelevant", I mean so far as it impacts actual policy by favoring certain choices based on religious argument. Obviously this is hard to pinpoint, but it would be hard to pinpoint atheism as an influence as well.

To me religion should be similar to gender, race, dietary preference, etc. in so far as it is sort of there in the periphery, but does not define or weigh heavily into the decisions being made. As far as philosophy goes, I think that political philosophy would be far more influential than religious philosophy. Every religion in the world tells people to be nice to their neighbors, not to kill, be guided by greed, etc. yet virtually every powerful leader we have ever known has been corrupted by that power, been involved in war, etc. So, I'm not sure how influential religious philosophy has been in comparison to religious belief and dogma which has been seemingly far more apparent.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

We can't and shouldn't stop our leaders from believing whatever it is they want to believe, but when I say that their religion should be "completely irrelevant", I mean so far as it impacts actual policy by favoring certain choices based on religious argument. Obviously this is hard to pinpoint, but it would be hard to pinpoint atheism as an influence as well.

I'm not suggesting that we stop anyone from believing anything. I am suggesting that one should reject those who disagree with their views. In this context, I am wondering how someone such as yourself who seems to have a negative view on the effects of religion could support having people in power with these views.

To me religion should be similar to gender, race, dietary preference, etc. in so far as it is sort of there in the periphery, but does not define or weigh heavily into the decisions being made.

None of these things in-and-of-themselves dictate ones decisions.

As far as philosophy goes, I think that political philosophy would be far more influential than religious philosophy. Every religion in the world tells people to be nice to their neighbors, not to kill, be guided by greed, etc. yet virtually every powerful leader we have ever known has been corrupted by that power, been involved in war, etc. So, I'm not sure how influential religious philosophy has been in comparison to religious belief and dogma which has been seemingly far more apparent.

Political philosophy is derived from and dependent upon ones metaphysics and epistemology. If one's beliefs are based upon religion, so then will their political beliefs. Generally speaking.

[Dork.]

An interesting discussion resulted from this thread? Who would have thunk it.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Political philosophy is derived from and dependent upon ones metaphysics and epistemology. If one's beliefs are based upon religion, so then will their political beliefs. Generally speaking.

I think I agree with this statement, but you overstate the importance of religious beliefs here. I think that political philosophy is what is important when evaluating politicians, and what their philosophy is derived from is only of token interest. If someone with political power thinks abortion should be illegal, does it really matter whether they come to this conclusion because of their religion, or because of a purely secular belief that the inalienable right to life extends to proto-humans in the womb?


(As for things I don't give a **** about because they really don't matter, I would add golf, bowling, and NBA basketball to the list....)

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Here are some issues that would go in my "don't give a shit" category, feel free to expand on this:

- anything that relates to questioning a politician's patriotism: flag pins et all
- whatever battle of words is going on between Rush, Maddow, Beck, Oibermann, and whomever else
- Sarah Palin post 2008 election
- anything related to a politician's religion
- anything relating to something a politician did 10+ years ago, unless it was really crazy and hard to ignore (people change)
- the cultural center in New York (maybe I care about this a little, but I'm already tired of the consternation)
- Obama's birth certificate, religion (see above), whether he still smokes
- during Bush's presidency: him removing brush
- what presidents do while on vacation
- the sex lives of politicians (so long as they aren't abusing their power). I don't care about gay sex or whatever
- teleprompters
- facial expressions
- most polls, esp. well outside of election season
- how a politician winning or losing an election was due to the support of another politician

I'm not certain that this is possible. The differences between Western politicians are so minor that they, and their pundits, need/drive us to focus on those differences in order to distinguish them from each other and to keep us from realizing that the emperor(s) have no clothes.

Once the bulk of the population realizes this, they might actually demand politicians to come up with their own platforms rather than just parroting the established platform dictated by their party.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

One's religion affects their judgement. People generally base their decisions on their personal philosophy, in this case that is their religion.

In all cases their philosophy is their religion. How is it that folks who acknowledge that religion is a human-construct, always eliminate the "human" from the equation? One sect of folks may tell you that gay sex is wrong, others may tell you that critiquing gay sex is wrong; both pushing their own morality.

It's how we get federal money going toward "faith based initiatives"

While federal money going toward faith-based initiatives offers a slippery slope opportunity that should be overseen with caution, it enjoys a great deal of bipartisan support for the fact that faith-based programs have been involved in effective, grass-roots philanthropy for decades. While I'm not 100% sold on them, I don't see why at this point this is a concern.

judges and justices appointed who desire to eliminate abortion

This is no different than Judges and justices who desire unfettered or less-regulated abortions. Just because they do not claim this view in the context of a religion doesn't mean it's somehow more reasoned or rational.

religious plaques on public property

Religious plaques on public property have been the norm in this country since its founding. I think too many mistake "separation of church and state" as something more than a letter from Jefferson to some concerned Baptists and have misinterpreted "separation" as "suppression". There is no such principle constitutional or otherwise.

pushes for prayer and intelligent design in public schools

And others pushing for no prayer in schools and/or allowing no opportunities for anyone other than the "preferred" sects to express their diversity.

opposition to gay marriage

You seem to imply that opposition to gay marriage is an exclusively religious view when the same rates of failed marriages exist in the church as outside the church for example. In other words, if religion has such a profound impact on decisions, why is this difference not more apparent in the decision to get a divorce? Distaste for homosexuality is unique in that it generally transcends party, religions, and cultures; in this case religion becomes little more than a scapegoat for those pushing some other morality.

…not to mention, do you really approve of decisions being made by our leaders based upon their prayers rather than their reason?

I don't have a problem with it at all and in light of the fact that there's little to suggest those without prayer are making more effective decisions, I don't see why this is such a problem for you.

[ebuddy]

In the case of not giving a shxx; I'm not concerned with the President's vacations among all the other things besson mentioned including the "birther" stuff, "muslim" stuff, flag-pin stuff, etc... It just doesn't matter.

These are all subjective and unproductive when there are so many apparent and productive discussions to be had over policy and actions, not thoughts and philosophies.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

In the case of not giving a shxx; I'm not concerned with the President's vacations among all the other things besson mentioned including the "birther" stuff, "muslim" stuff, flag-pin stuff, etc... It just doesn't matter.

These are all subjective and unproductive when there are so many apparent and productive discussions to be had over policy and actions, not thoughts and philosophies.

It also often seems like the wingnuts on both sides that perpetuate this sort of stuff, possibly in collusion with moneyed interests and the media if you want to get a little conspiratorial.

Not only is all of this really annoying, makes me feel like life is a living idiocracy, but it's gotta hurt both parties when the moderates who are looking in are hearing too much of this sort of stuff on both sides, having it dominate conversation. I often think that we'd all be better off if we could just blurt out "STFU" when given the opportunity rather than try to deconstruct this nonsense, because it is just not deconstructable with the people that espouse this stuff.

It sucks that we have to compete with this stuff, it's like a property owner working hard to make his/her property beautiful only to have some dumbass destructively spray paint "I like hot dogs" somewhere! <-- awesome analogy

[turtle777]

Oh, wow, this thread really resulted in a feeding frenzy. Besson must be ecstatic.

-t

[besson3c]

I'm actually surprised that I seem to be the only one with a shopping list of dumb topics I wished would disappear...

Oh well, my being strange is not a novel concept.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm actually surprised that I seem to be the only one with a shopping list of dumb topics

I'm glad. One is enough for a forum

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I wished I would disappear...

Fixed that for ya
I kid, I kid.
-t

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

In all cases their philosophy is their religion. How is it that folks who acknowledge that religion is a human-construct, always eliminate the "human" from the equation? One sect of folks may tell you that gay sex is wrong, others may tell you that critiquing gay sex is wrong; both pushing their own morality.

I'm not sure what your point is. The term religion as I use it is based upon the supernatural, philosophy…even flawed philosophy…is an attempt to use the one and only tool man has to make sense of the world: their reason. Religion is the avoidance using this tool. Did you really want to get into a religious argument? That's not what I intended.

While federal money going toward faith-based initiatives offers a slippery slope opportunity that should be overseen with caution, it enjoys a great deal of bipartisan support for the fact that faith-based programs have been involved in effective, grass-roots philanthropy for decades. While I'm not 100% sold on them, I don't see why at this point this is a concern.

One, I don't want federal money going to any religious institution. Of course, I don't want my money going to ANY private institutions such as these…religious or not. What bothers me is the insidious way in which these institutions are heralded as somehow worthy of federal money over secular ones, and the implication that the support of religion in general is both beneficial to society, and proper for federal government. I disagree on both counts.

Two, giving federal money to faith based charities is essentially privatized welfare. I don't want my money being used for any welfare programs. Not even those that are privately run. Secular included.

This is no different than Judges and justices who desire unfettered or less-regulated abortions. Just because they do not claim this view in the context of a religion doesn't mean it's somehow more reasoned or rational.

No it doesn't necessarily mean that they came upon their opinion rationally, but it is more likely. Conversely, the pro-life stance far more likely to be based upon faith than not.

Religious plaques on public property have been the norm in this country since its founding. I think too many mistake "separation of church and state" as something more than a letter from Jefferson to some concerned Baptists and have misinterpreted "separation" as "suppression". There is no such principle constitutional or otherwise.

I don't misunderstand anything. The ONLY religious ANYTHING I am willing to tolerate in government are those of the individuals in office. That is to say, when the President or someone in congress talks about god or says a prayer, that's fine with me. Plaques, financial support, official prayers at the beginning of a session…I don't want. That "they did it back then" isn't really an argument, otherwise we could argue that slavery or women not being able to vote was a mistake to change. I would support a constitutional amendment to clarify this if necessary. The founders didn't get EVERYTHING right. Eminent domain is another that should go.

You seem to imply that opposition to gay marriage is an exclusively religious view when the same rates of failed marriages exist in the church as outside the church for example. In other words, if religion has such a profound impact on decisions, why is this difference not more apparent in the decision to get a divorce? Distaste for homosexuality is unique in that it generally transcends party, religions, and cultures; in this case religion becomes little more than a scapegoat for those pushing some other morality.

You are right, ignorance and blind bigotry is pretty pervasive.

I don't have a problem with it at all and in light of the fact that there's little to suggest those without prayer are making more effective decisions

What is there to suggest otherwise? We could argue back and forth on this but there is no evidence of effectiveness of prayers or the existence of those that they pray to. We also don't allow the non-religious to hold office in this country so it's kinda hard to collect data.

Reason is all we have. I don't have any respect for those who make their decisions otherwise.

I don't see why this is such a problem for you.

You don't see why an atheist has problem with those to talk to themselves in order to make decisions affecting all of our lives. Really?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I'm not sure what your point is. The term religion as I use it is based upon the supernatural, philosophy…even flawed philosophy…is an attempt to use the one and only tool man has to make sense of the world: their reason. Religion is the avoidance using this tool. Did you really want to get into a religious argument? That's not what I intended.

But from the dawn of mankind, there had always been religion and most of the greatest thinkers of our time, in the sciences and otherwise, had some religious foundation. In other words, there's no evidence that religion is being used in lieu of reason. In any society, there will be under-achievers and over-achievers; religion is not an adequate determinant. Why would you conclude that I'm arguing religion? I'm arguing what I consider a fallacious generalization of religious people, how they represent in leadership, and the record of decision-making both inside and outside the church.

One, I don't want federal money going to any religious institution. Of course, I don't want my money going to ANY private institutions such as these…religious or not. What bothers me is the insidious way in which these institutions are heralded as somehow worthy of federal money over secular ones, and the implication that the support of religion in general is both beneficial to society, and proper for federal government. I disagree on both counts.

Well, in this I cannot heartedly disagree though I don't see the dangers in it as applied today. I think you'll find the amount of Federal money going to faith-based programs pales in comparison to the amount of Federal money going to secular institutions so I'm not sure why you have the perception that the message is "faith-based is better than secular".

Two, giving federal money to faith based charities is essentially privatized welfare. I don't want my money being used for any welfare programs. Not even those that are privately run. Secular included.

Again, I cannot heartedly disagree at all. I much prefer any such entities if they exist at all, to be administered at the State level where there is greater accountability and localized best-practice for local anomalies. The problem is, a culture of hand-outs has created more hats-in-hand overall. Do I want an environment where the only Federal dollars being doled out are to secular institutions providing services I would consider destructive for a wealth of reasons having nothing to do with a religion? In this case you're left with only eliminating faith-based programs which I cannot support either. In short, I'll give you the Open Door Mission for Planned Parenthood.

No it doesn't necessarily mean that they came upon their opinion rationally, but it is more likely. Conversely, the pro-life stance far more likely to be based upon faith than not.

I disagree. Distaste for abortion transcends party, religion, and culture as well. In fact, while this issue has been championed as a "women's rights" issue, more women support tighter restrictions on the practice than men. The reason abortion is legal is because the "pro-lifers" weren't unified in their opposition due to the compelling arguments of rape, incest, and health of mother. The argument put forth by Clinton; "it should be safe and rare" resonated with people across both political and religious boundaries because the lion's share of abortions are in fact due to a pervasive societal ill of irresponsible sex. To say; "the pro-life stance is far more likely to be based upon faith than not" is an intellectual copout IMO being used in the exact same way you suggest religion is being used; a way to avoid the myriad of reasoned, rational problems with the practice up to and including its overall health implications and how the results of the practice have manifest. In short, of all the debates I've had with others on abortion, I've never once used "Because the Bible said so" as an argument. In fact, while I'm a practicing Christian, I've never once used; "Because God told me so in prayer" or any such equivalent in any debate.

I don't misunderstand anything. The ONLY religious ANYTHING I am willing to tolerate in government are those of the individuals in office. That is to say, when the President or someone in congress talks about god or says a prayer, that's fine with me. Plaques, financial support, official prayers at the beginning of a session…I don't want. That "they did it back then" isn't really an argument, otherwise we could argue that slavery or women not being able to vote was a mistake to change. I would support a constitutional amendment to clarify this if necessary. The founders didn't get EVERYTHING right. Eminent domain is another that should go.

And yet you've repeatedly mentioned your distaste for the idea of prayer and the assumption that this is the sole driver of decision-making among those of faith; faith is in conflict with reason and rationale. I wasn't saying "plaques have been the norm" as a means of suggesting that progress is bad, it was a way of saying that this practice in and of itself is harmless and is not in conflict with a Constitutional principle frequently abused by those hostile to faith. Churches and their related marches up to and including a most noteworthy reverend, were instrumental in championing civil rights. The Catholic Church were among the most vocal opponents to Hitler's regime for example.

You are right, ignorance and blind bigotry is pretty pervasive.

Pervasive enough that it would be applied with as much fervor to religion, yes.

What is there to suggest otherwise? We could argue back and forth on this but there is no evidence of effectiveness of prayers or the existence of those that they pray to. We also don't allow the non-religious to hold office in this country so it's kinda hard to collect data.

First of all, simply because someone claims to be religious doesn't mean they are. Second of all, just because they claim to be religious and pray, doesn't mean they pray, listen for specific direction, and act. As one who does not believe in god(s), their actions would still be the product of their own psyche no? In this it is no different than simply stopping to think through a matter. Should I conclude that the godless always act on impulse?

Reason is all we have. I don't have any respect for those who make their decisions otherwise.

Not everyone arrives at their reason through the same vehicle. There is no evidence to suggest those who've arrived at their reason through the vehicle of religion have employed less rationale or rendered less effective decisions.

You don't see why an atheist has problem with those to talk to themselves in order to make decisions affecting all of our lives. Really?

So... rather than employing any particular reason or rationale, you've concluded that this practice is bad by virtue of the fact that you're an atheist? How does this help you make your point? Notwithstanding, I think you're fundamentally mistaken on prayer, but I'm not sure that's a healthy discussion for us either.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

But from the dawn of mankind, there had always been religion and most of the greatest thinkers of our time, in the sciences and otherwise, had some religious foundation. In other words, there's no evidence that religion is being used in lieu of reason.

Huh? Religion exists in lieu of reason. The conclusions drawn by those who created religion are not arrived at through reason…rationalization perhaps…but not reason. Religion doesn't encourage the use of reason by its followers, it demands obedience to a higher authority and adherence to its dogma (yes, when I say "religion" I am generalizing, what I describe applies to most religions.)

I'm arguing what I consider a fallacious generalization of religious people, how they represent in leadership, and the record of decision-making both inside and outside the church.

Never in the history of mankind has a religious society led to anything resembling morality. Likewise, no such societies have been led into prosperity by their leaders following their religious tenets. It wasn't until men came along who understood that religion had no place in government and created a nation based upon reason rather than dogma, individual freedom rather than obedience that we saw anything close to morality and prosperity for the most people. These men were not religious. Believers? Yes…but not religious.

No, I do agree that there is no way to know that a religious man will make poor decisions, because there is no way to know whether or not he will actually follow his the teachings of his religion at any given time. However, the very fact that he is religious makes it more likely that he will make irrational decisions because he is more likely to follow religious teachings, and his status as a believer is evidence that he is prone to deny reason.

To say; "the pro-life stance is far more likely to be based upon faith than not" is an intellectual copout IMO being used in the exact same way you suggest religion is being used; a way to avoid the myriad of reasoned, rational problems with the practice up to and including its overall health implications and how the results of the practice have manifest.

In terms of legality, the so-called "reasoned, rational problems" are totally irrelevant here. No one has the right to legally compel another to act responsibility with their own body. No one. Most secular arguments against abortion that I have heard are based upon these things.

Any other argument against abortion relates to the rights of the unborn, which are overwhelmingly preached by the faithful. Again, not all. Most.

First of all, simply because someone claims to be religious doesn't mean they are.

All the more reason to distrust them and their choices.

Second of all, just because they claim to be religious and pray, doesn't mean they pray, listen for specific direction, and act. As one who does not believe in god(s), their actions would still be the product of their own psyche no? In this it is no different than simply stopping to think through a matter. Should I conclude that the godless always act on impulse?

The "product of their own psyche" is not the same thing as the "product of reason"…

Not everyone arrives at their reason through the same vehicle. There is no evidence to suggest those who've arrived at their reason through the vehicle of religion have employed less rationale or rendered less effective decisions.

Reason is not something you arrive at. It is a process. One that must be understood and used consciously. It doesn't happen by accident and it doesn't mean that just because a decision is arrived at through the intellect, that decision was arrived at through reason.

Reason is not "arrived" at through the "vehicle of religion". Religion is rejected through the vehicle of reason (or accepted through its misuse ).

So... rather than employing any particular reason or rationale

I have. That there is NO evidence of prayer having any positive effect on decision-making, and NO evidence that those whom one would pray to exist at all. Its very practice is irrational in its use, useless in practice, and an evasion of the value of ones own judgement.

you've concluded that this practice is bad by virtue of the fact that you're an atheist? How does this help you make your point?

No, the same process that leads me to my conclusion about god(s) also leads me to my conclusion about prayer. I am at a loss as to how one who rejects the existence of any gods and the value of such beliefs, and explicitly upholds reason as mans only means of knowledge…would possibly see value in praying to such gods for guidance, instruction, inspiration or any other such divinations.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Huh? Religion exists in lieu of reason. The conclusions drawn by those who created religion are not arrived at through reason…rationalization perhaps…but not reason.

What I'm telling you is that religion has always been a part of the human psyche and an integral part of its capacity for reason. If by "conclusion" you're referring to the conclusion that a God exists, you're talking about a different way of interpreting evidences and zero that stands in the way of the empirical sciences. You imply a sort of "God of the gaps" intellectual copout among those of faith when there's little to suggest those of faith were content to merely say "God did it". In other words, there is nothing to suggest a religious person has less capacity for forming conclusions based on empirical evidence. Again, there are over-achievers and under-achievers in any society; religion or faith is not an adequate determinant.

Religion doesn't encourage the use of reason by its followers, it demands obedience to a higher authority and adherence to its dogma (yes, when I say "religion" I am generalizing, what I describe applies to most religions.)

And yet there are a wealth of Jewish, Muslim, and Christian scientists for example that essentially comprise a who's-who of Nobel laureates in the fields of physics, chemistry, biology, and literature to name a few.

Couple of problems with your argument above anyway;

• Saying religion doesn't "encourage the use of reason by its followers" is just moving the goal posts as not only had this not been your point of contention prior, it is even more difficult to establish. You've suggested that religion hampers reason and that its adherents are handicapped by their faith, but this is not borne out by the evidence of some of the greatest thinkers of our time. Perhaps your hostility toward faith hampers your ability to accept this empirical evidence?
• The Bible for example, encourages that one seek out a matter and not only question, but challenge the words within it. This notion that adherents to faith must be blind is ignorant not only of the number of man-hours spent analyzing every word, but of those who came to faith through a great deal of reason.
• There have been actors who will abuse any tenet to suppress a collective intellectually or otherwise. This is no different than the use of science in supposing there are superior and inferior races of man that they can be bred-out for example; a means of creating a common enemy. While this endeavor was supposedly borne of reason, it was clearly mistaken and the implications even more clearly destructive. The absolute worst players of history were decidedly unreligious. What dogma must have led them to this degree of ignorance and greed? What higher authority mandated their activities?

In this, reason is abused as a dogma all its own and its cults no more or less contributory to civilization.

Never in the history of mankind has a religious society led to anything resembling morality.

So... missions providing sustenance and medicine to those in need is not moral? Long-term respite care, care for the poor, the elderly, the infirm... these do not resemble morality? The very word "hospital" itself, is derived from the Christian concept of hospitality in receiving traveling visitors to provide them sustenance. The hosting Bishop was often a skilled physician providing necessary medical attention and believed per his faith that he was commissioned by God to welcome and care for all, including non-believers. Many of the first hospitals in the US were founded from religious tenets.

Likewise, no such societies have been led into prosperity by their leaders following their religious tenets. It wasn't until men came along who understood that religion had no place in government and created a nation based upon reason rather than dogma, individual freedom rather than obedience that we saw anything close to morality and prosperity for the most people. These men were not religious. Believers? Yes…but not religious.

The first formal institutions of higher education in the US were themselves, religious institutions. Is this not the first front of prosperity? This nation was founded on a principle of unalienable rights granted by a God and not a government. They built a nation that opened its first Continental Congressional session in prayer, that believed the Bible was useful instruction in the classroom, included God in every member state's constitution, and yes... most of them were more than believers, but adherents to a specific religion. None of them expressed an abandonment of religious tenets in forming this nation, but accredit it as the source of their ideology, the motive for action, and its success the blessings of obedience.

No, I do agree that there is no way to know that a religious man will make poor decisions, because there is no way to know whether or not he will actually follow his the teachings of his religion at any given time. However, the very fact that he is religious makes it more likely that he will make irrational decisions because he is more likely to follow religious teachings, and his status as a believer is evidence that he is prone to deny reason.

This is simply preposterous smacintush. You have absolutely zero, other than your own dogma, to base this notion on. Missing of course is any evidence to back your claim and your willful disregard for well-documented history and facts speaks more to a problem for the non-believer in this case than it does a believer.

In terms of legality, the so-called "reasoned, rational problems" are totally irrelevant here. No one has the right to legally compel another to act responsibility with their own body. No one. Most secular arguments against abortion that I have heard are based upon these things.

No, but this right over your own body often begins and ends with the right over another body. Science has yet to define the inception of human "life", yet you base your marginalization of the unborn on what exactly? Notwithstanding the fact that there are a wealth of laws including seatbelt laws which govern one's own body comprising a wealth of motives that do not necessarily stem from religious dogma.

Any other argument against abortion relates to the rights of the unborn, which are overwhelmingly preached by the faithful. Again, not all. Most.

You're wrong on a couple of fronts here IMO. First, just because the majority of those who oppose abortion are of a faith, doesn't mean a tenet of faith is the only source of that opposition or argument to bolster it (reason). Again, I'm a practicing Christian and not once have I used a Biblical or Christian tenet as the foundation of my reason for opposition. Furthermore, opposition to abortion encompasses a wealth of arguments from a lack of progress on what it is that necessitates the practice, through the practitioners themselves, to the health implications of the women who've had them.

All the more reason to distrust them and their choices.

The point is there is nothing to suggest non-believers are acting with any more integrity or reason.

The "product of their own psyche" is not the same thing as the "product of reason"…

I disagree and am saying they are one in the same.

Reason is not something you arrive at. It is a process. One that must be understood and used consciously. It doesn't happen by accident and it doesn't mean that just because a decision is arrived at through the intellect, that decision was arrived at through reason.

But there is nothing in the process of reason that requires the abandonment of a faith or religion. Zero.

Reason is not "arrived" at through the "vehicle of religion". Religion is rejected through the vehicle of reason (or accepted through its misuse ).

But again, you have absolutely no evidence of this. You have no evidence that religion must have been abandoned to apply reason.

I have. That there is NO evidence of prayer having any positive effect on decision-making, and NO evidence that those whom one would pray to exist at all. Its very practice is irrational in its use, useless in practice, and an evasion of the value of ones own judgement.

Once again, you have nothing more than your distaste for the practice of prayer and meditation and ignorance of what prayer actually is from which you base your conclusion. In other words, you're employing a peculiar disregard for empirical evidence in your own reasoning across the board on this. While there are many who will express the usefulness of prayer and meditation in their personal lives and while some of the greatest minds and leaders throughout history have attributed their motives and perseverance to their faith; it is you that knows better. You know better because you do not have evidence of prayer having a positive impact on decision-making. This is a remarkably empty narrative here with all due respect.

No, the same process that leads me to my conclusion about god(s) also leads me to my conclusion about prayer. I am at a loss as to how one who rejects the existence of any gods and the value of such beliefs, and explicitly upholds reason as mans only means of knowledge…would possibly see value in praying to such gods for guidance, instruction, inspiration or any other such divinations.

That you cannot see it is not the point. Again, your argument on the superiority of reason over religion relies on a profound lack of any empirical evidence to back the claim. Does this not seem the least bit ironic to you?

[BadKosh]

I find it kind of funny that those who claim that God doesn't exist don't know what to look for. Just because you looked all over your house and still couldn't find your car keys doesn't mean they aren't in your house, just that you didn't find them.

[sek929]

In that analogy you can 'find' your keys without actually having them in your hand. That is religion. The holding of an absolute belief with no proof other than your own convictions.

Not sayin' it is wrong, but can you fault people in this day and age for being skeptical of something that is only 'proven' by people who have convinced themselves it's the truth?

[besson3c]

In that analogy I guess those car keys would also normally be invisible and only show up in prayer if you really believe that they exist, or something like that?

[BadKosh]

No. Perhaps *God* is not a physical being, and therefore, there are no tests to identify God. If God were a chunk of Steel, you could find God with a magnet. There are no god Detectors or Sensors. How do you know God does not exist?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

No. Perhaps *God* is not a physical being, and therefore, there are no tests to identify God. If God were a chunk of Steel, you could find God with a magnet. There are no god Detectors or Sensors. How do you know God does not exist?

How do you know the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How do you know the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist?

Precisely.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Precisely.

I guess I should have said the "fl_ing spa_hetti mon_ter" though, just to avoid blasphemy of his noodly appendage...

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How do you know the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist?

Oh, that's easy.

I had it for dinner yesterday. With meat sauce. Yummy.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Oh, that's easy.

I had it for dinner yesterday. With meat sauce. Yummy.

-t

YOU ATE MY LORD??!!

You ****ing bastard! Why did you do that?? How ****ing could you? I mean, really! How would you like it if I ate your God. I mean, instead of those little tiny pieces they give you in church, what I just stole the entire thing and just ate them all?

Very not cool, I might just report you for this.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

No. Perhaps *God* is not a physical being, and therefore, there are no tests to identify God. If God were a chunk of Steel, you could find God with a magnet. There are no god Detectors or Sensors. How do you know God does not exist?

We have sensors that can detect the appearance of sub-atomic particles. We have sensors that map the background radiation of the universe.

We have developed an ability to discern nonsense from fact, and have honed this ability for quite some time now. If an all powerful being did exist, I believe that he would be a measurable phenomenon. Maybe not with our current understanding of existence, but I would not put it out of the realm of possibility.

What irks me is the notion that God will never be proven, or CAN never be proven. If I were a Christian and a scientist, I would want to prove God does exist, instead of insisting it's something that will never be proven and you simply have to believe to see his presence.

[besson3c]

Mmmm... tasty communion wafers.. nom nom nom!

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

YOU ATE MY LORD??!!

You ****ing bastard! Why did you do that?? How ****ing could you? I mean, really! How would you like it if I ate your God. I mean, instead of those little tiny pieces they give you in church, what I just stole the entire thing and just ate them all?

Very not cool, I might just report you for this.

So ? I do this with my Lord, too. And I also drink him. Sundays, at church.

*shrug*

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

So ? I do this with my Lord, too. And I also drink him. Sundays, at church.

*shrug*

-t

Okay then, I really need you to help me out here: http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...f/#post4003667

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

In other words, there is nothing to suggest a religious person has less capacity for forming conclusions based on empirical evidence. Again, there are over-achievers and under-achievers in any society; religion or faith is not an adequate determinant.

Yes there is. The rejection of reason. Whether outright rejection or the inconsistent, arbitrary application of reason. I know…you disagree. Perhaps it is because we have a profound disagreement about what exactly reason is.

And yet there are a wealth of Jewish, Muslim, and Christian scientists for example that essentially comprise a who's-who of Nobel laureates in the fields of physics, chemistry, biology, and literature to name a few.

This proves what? That there are religious scientists, that's about it. In a world where the overwhelming majority of people are religious, this is neither surprising nor supportive of your case.

Couple of problems with your argument above anyway;

Saying religion doesn't "encourage the use of reason by its followers" is just moving the goal posts as not only had this not been your point of contention prior, it is even more difficult to establish. You've suggested that religion hampers reason and that its adherents are handicapped by their faith, but this is not borne out by the evidence of some of the greatest thinkers of our time. Perhaps your hostility toward faith hampers your ability to accept this empirical evidence?

Don't get hung up on my choice of words. My intended meaning was the same: Religion in general discourage logic and reason, either explicitly or implicitly. The best of them allow for one to use their own judgement on one hand, while on the other demanding obedience and adherence to its tenets regardless of their objective practical value or evidence of their truth/accuracy. This conflict is untenable. You either value reason or you don't.

The Bible for example, encourages that one seek out a matter and not only question, but challenge the words within it. This notion that adherents to faith must be blind is ignorant not only of the number of man-hours spent analyzing every word, but of those who came to faith through a great deal of reason.

Really, you don't want to use the words of the bible to argue religions' respect for reason do you?

The absolute worst players of history were decidedly unreligious. What dogma must have led them to this degree of ignorance and greed? What higher authority mandated their activities?

In the last century you mean. The major players had the same sort of underlying ideas that religion does. The sacrifice of the few for the greater good, and most of these were a sort of state worship. Loyalty and obedience to a "higher authority" were mandated and so were the service of the people for the benefit of all. Read the philosophy and theory espoused by the likes of Stalin and Hitler, substitute a few words to give reference to a supernatural entity and it all sounds eerily like the words of a theologian, or those in power now for that matter.

So... missions providing sustenance and medicine to those in need is not moral? Long-term respite care, care for the poor, the elderly, the infirm... these do not resemble morality?

Eh, these things are ok if you have the desire to help and you can swing it. As a basis for how a society should conduct itself? No. There is a word for those that sacrifice their own interests for the sake of others: slave.

The first formal institutions of higher education in the US were themselves, religious institutions. Is this not the first front of prosperity? This nation was founded on a principle of unalienable rights granted by a God and not a government. They built a nation that opened its first Continental Congressional session in prayer, that believed the Bible was useful instruction in the classroom, included God in every member state's constitution, and yes... most of them were more than believers, but adherents to a specific religion. None of them expressed an abandonment of religious tenets in forming this nation, but accredit it as the source of their ideology, the motive for action, and its success the blessings of obedience.

Yet they saw absolutely no need to base anything in the constitution on religion or its tenets. Only a single reference to a "creator". As I said, they saw the value in wiping religion from the institution government.

This is simply preposterous smacintush. You have absolutely zero, other than your own dogma, to base this notion on. Missing of course is any evidence to back your claim and your willful disregard for well-documented history and facts speaks more to a problem for the non-believer in this case than it does a believer.

In your opinion. You haven't said anything or provided any evidence to the contrary. The fact is that history in written by the winners, and religious oppression had been the norm in this world for thousands of years. History DOES speak for itself. As we get closer to the present, the less influence churches and religious dogma has had on both our governments and especially science. And as this has happened there has been an exponential growth in what we know and what we can do.

No, but this right over your own body often begins and ends with the right over another body. Science has yet to define the inception of human "life", yet you base your marginalization of the unborn on what exactly?

In any discussion of rights, there must be a hierarchy. Some rights take precedence over others. It simply has to be this way to resolve any conflicts between different rights. In this case, we have on one hand: the right of an fully formed human adult woman to live her life by her own judgement and to do anything she pleases with her own body and anything in it. On the other: we have the "right" not of a human, but a potential human, which by your own admission science cannot determine whether is a "life" at all…which is for all intents and purposes a part of its mother. So, I ask YOU…what do you base the elevating the "right" of something that may or may not be a "life" above the rights of living, breathing, actual human? You said it yourself…there is no scientific evidence of the moment of "life". What we do have is scientific evidence that hundreds of fertilized eggs are expelled continually by a woman's body. Why is THIS ONE worthy of rights above and beyond its mother's? Cell count? Regardless, this embryo is inside a human, was created by this humans action, and is 100% dependent on this human for its very bodily functions. By what standard do YOU claim to be able to command what this woman does with it?

Notwithstanding the fact that there are a wealth of laws including seatbelt laws which govern one's own body comprising a wealth of motives that do not necessarily stem from religious dogma.

I fail to see your point.

You're wrong on a couple of fronts here IMO. First, just because the majority of those who oppose abortion are of a faith, doesn't mean a tenet of faith is the only source of that opposition or argument to bolster it (reason).

So, are you saying that the pro-life movement isn't necessarily based its proponents faith?

Again, I'm a practicing Christian and not once have I used a Biblical or Christian tenet as the foundation of my reason for opposition.

So, if there was empirical evidence that decidedly contradicts the pro-life view, you would have no problem abandoning it?

I disagree and am saying they are one in the same.

What can I say, you are wrong, but I think that this may be a semantic argument.

But there is nothing in the process of reason that requires the abandonment of a faith or religion. Zero.

Reason requires observation of facts. Conducting yourself without facts to support your actions is not reason. It's something else. Reason and faith are polar opposites.

But again, you have absolutely no evidence of this. You have no evidence that religion must have been abandoned to apply reason.

What I am saying is that one cannot apply reason to the questions of how we got here and why, and come to the conclusions that religion does. I am also saying that if one claims to have respect for reason and buys into religion they either don't understand reason or they don't really have respect for it. Otherwise, why would they abandon it on such important questions?

Once again, you have nothing more than your distaste for the practice of prayer and meditation and ignorance of what prayer actually is from which you base your conclusion. In other words, you're employing a peculiar disregard for empirical evidence in your own reasoning across the board on this.

There is no empirical evidence for the value of prayer. None. Zero.

While there are many who will express the usefulness of prayer and meditation in their personal lives and while some of the greatest minds and leaders throughout history have attributed their motives and perseverance to their faith; it is you that knows better. You know better because you do not have evidence of prayer having a positive impact on decision-making. This is a remarkably empty narrative here with all due respect.

That so many before and currently use prayer lends nothing to evidence of its value. People pass a great many beliefs and practices on to the next generation that make no sense.

That you cannot see it is not the point. Again, your argument on the superiority of reason over religion relies on a profound lack of any empirical evidence to back the claim. Does this not seem the least bit ironic to you?

It is ironic, but not for the reasons you state.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

... there is nothing to suggest a religious person has less capacity for forming conclusions based on empirical evidence.

I agree ... but only to a degree. If there were *solid* empirical evidence disproving the existence of God, do you think a devote religious person would accept that evidence?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I agree ... but only to a degree. If there were *solid* empirical evidence disproving the existence of God, do you think a devote religious person would accept that evidence?

Exactly.

My question is: How does one say on one hand that they have the capacity and respect for reason, then just throw it out when its conclusions aren't agreeable with their views? How can such a person's conclusions be reliable when they can just toss out reason in such a manner?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by sek929 

What irks me is the notion that God will never be proven, or CAN never be proven. If I were a Christian and a scientist, I would want to prove God does exist, instead of insisting it's something that will never be proven and you simply have to believe to see his presence.

The finite can never fully grasp or comprehend the infinite. So "proof" of the infinite is impossible by definition. Can we prove that the universe is endless and has no physical boundary at the outer edge? Can we prove that it does? Besides, there are various "notions" of God. Many would argue that the universe itself is a reflection of the Creator. That they are two sides of the same coin. So in that sense ... the "proof" is all around us. The problem comes when people start limiting the very CONCEPT of God to the finite words and understanding contained in books that are thousands of years old ... and then try to reconcile that with modern science and knowledge that is ever expanding and evolving. That is the fundamental cause of the conflict between organized religion and science. IMO ... there is no conflict between God and science ... because the infinite can't be at odds with the finite. But organized religion and science are both finite ... so that's a different story altogether.

OAW

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The finite can never fully grasp or comprehend the infinite. So "proof" of the infinite is impossible by definition. Can we prove that the universe is endless and has no physical boundary at the outer edge? Can we prove that it does? Besides, there are various "notions" of God. Many would argue that the universe itself is a reflection of the Creator. That they are two sides of the same coin. So in that sense ... the "proof" is all around us. The problem comes when people start limiting the very CONCEPT of God to the finite words and understanding contained in books that are thousands of years old ... and then try to reconcile that with modern science and knowledge that is ever expanding and evolving. That is the fundamental cause of the conflict between organized religion and science. IMO ... there is no conflict between God and science ... because the infinite can't be at odds with the finite. But organized religion and science are both finite ... so that's a different story altogether.

OAW

Aside from my view that there is a very broad spectrum of interpretation and meaning rendering the age of the books unimportant, for what it's worth I thought this was an excellent post.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Aside from my view that there is a very broad spectrum of interpretation and meaning rendering the age of the books unimportant, for what it's worth I thought this was an excellent post.

Much appreciated my friend.

OAW

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by sek929 

We have sensors that can detect the appearance of sub-atomic particles. We have sensors that map the background radiation of the universe.

We have developed an ability to discern nonsense from fact, and have honed this ability for quite some time now. If an all powerful being did exist, I believe that he would be a measurable phenomenon. Maybe not with our current understanding of existence, but I would not put it out of the realm of possibility.

What irks me is the notion that God will never be proven, or CAN never be proven. If I were a Christian and a scientist, I would want to prove God does exist, instead of insisting it's something that will never be proven and you simply have to believe to see his presence.

Those sensors won't work to 'see' to the other side of the universe. I think we will know if God exists or not, but not for a few more centuries, when our science is better. God isn't required for the existence of the Universe, so it will be interesting to find out what is really going on. Is the heat left over from a 'big bang' or the continual cycles of an oscillating universe? God may not be within our universe, and therefore undetectable.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Much appreciated my friend.

OAW

Get a room!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Yes there is. The rejection of reason. Whether outright rejection or the inconsistent, arbitrary application of reason. I know…you disagree. Perhaps it is because we have a profound disagreement about what exactly reason is.

What evidence do you have that non-believers do not also apply reason in an arbitrary fashion? How are they void of emotions and/or impulse decision-making or even whacky beliefs for that matter?

This proves what? That there are religious scientists, that's about it. In a world where the overwhelming majority of people are religious, this is neither surprising nor supportive of your case.

That's kind of a cop-out IMO smac. When you imply that religious people are hampered in their decision-making and/or handicapped in their application of reason, I would think citing noteworthy minds in various disciplines that exercise reason as a career-choice constitutes reasonable evidence to the contrary. My point is that religion is not a suitable determinant.

Don't get hung up on my choice of words. My intended meaning was the same: Religion in general discourage logic and reason, either explicitly or implicitly. The best of them allow for one to use their own judgement on one hand, while on the other demanding obedience and adherence to its tenets regardless of their objective practical value or evidence of their truth/accuracy. This conflict is untenable. You either value reason or you don't.

I realize we disagree on the faith itself and I accept that, but you've moved beyond the "faith handicap" to serving in a capacity other than adherent of a faith. i.e. even if you say the faith itself is unreasonable, there's no evidence to suggest this has adverse affects on their ability for reason outside the confines of a church building nor can you establish the degree of reason among non-believers.

Really, you don't want to use the words of the bible to argue religions' respect for reason do you?

As it relates specifically to a blind acceptance of its tenets, yes. It requires that you do nothing. You can take it or leave it. While there is a great deal of wisdom and information in the Bible from which one could draw reason, you seize on those things you think are ridiculous when there is nothing, but evidence of folly all around you. In this, we're at square one where everyone's capable of lacking reason; religion is not a determinant.

In the last century you mean. The major players had the same sort of underlying ideas that religion does. The sacrifice of the few for the greater good, and most of these were a sort of state worship. Loyalty and obedience to a "higher authority" were mandated and so were the service of the people for the benefit of all. Read the philosophy and theory espoused by the likes of Stalin and Hitler, substitute a few words to give reference to a supernatural entity and it all sounds eerily like the words of a theologian, or those in power now for that matter.

Their lack of faith and religious reverence obviously had no bearing on their lack of reason. That's the point. Religion is not a determinant.

Yet they saw absolutely no need to base anything in the constitution on religion or its tenets. Only a single reference to a "creator". As I said, they saw the value in wiping religion from the institution government.

I said "state" constitutions for a reason. The founding document over the several states was not intended to extol the virtues of a specific religion as that is in conflict with the very freedoms it does extol, but to allow autonomy through the several states religious and otherwise. The framers of the Constitution were overwhelmingly, practicing Christians of various denominations. The Federalist papers illustrate the differences between the Divine laws of Scripture, Natural law of God as observed through mankind (reason, the ideal that man is not perfectible- not "generally good", but ultimately corruptible; an inherently Biblical principle), and municipal or human laws as they seek the aforementioned higher laws for civil application. i.e. God-given (unalienable) rights vs State-granted privileges. The Declaration of Independence reiterates this ideal with "Nature's God"; a means of crafting governance that limits the agendas of man.

In your opinion. You haven't said anything or provided any evidence to the contrary. The fact is that history in written by the winners, and religious oppression had been the norm in this world for thousands of years. History DOES speak for itself. As we get closer to the present, the less influence churches and religious dogma has had on both our governments and especially science. And as this has happened there has been an exponential growth in what we know and what we can do.

First of all as I demonstrated with examples, the oppression of man is the corruptible nature of mankind itself and not the product of any religion. Again, you're taking a human construct and removing the "human" element to slander the construct. i.e. you're not making any sense to me. Notwithstanding the fact that in most cases it is the tenets of religion that must be abandoned to allow for tyranny. Secondly science does not, as a discipline, regard ethics, morals, or philosophies of any kind useful or otherwise. To draw an arbitrary line in the sand that says you must either reject religious dogma (an entirely different discipline) or reject reason, then frame advancement as the abandonment of religion is patently shallow. There is still an "establishment" of science that relies on all evidences to its time and is every bit as corruptible as it was in the days of the Church. I don't see how you attribute whatever success it is you'd cite (which you haven't) to secular humanism. The arguments against the establishment of the time were lodged by those who, themselves were of faith.

In any discussion of rights, there must be a hierarchy. Some rights take precedence over others. It simply has to be this way to resolve any conflicts between different rights. In this case, we have on one hand: the right of an fully formed human adult woman to live her life by her own judgement and to do anything she pleases with her own body and anything in it. On the other: we have the "right" not of a human, but a potential human, which by your own admission science cannot determine whether is a "life" at all…which is for all intents and purposes a part of its mother. So, I ask YOU…what do you base the elevating the "right" of something that may or may not be a "life" above the rights of living, breathing, actual human? You said it yourself…there is no scientific evidence of the moment of "life". What we do have is scientific evidence that hundreds of fertilized eggs are expelled continually by a woman's body. Why is THIS ONE worthy of rights above and beyond its mother's? Cell count? Regardless, this embryo is inside a human, was created by this humans action, and is 100% dependent on this human for its very bodily functions. By what standard do YOU claim to be able to command what this woman does with it?

To answer why THE ONE fertilized egg is worthy of rights above and beyond its mother's; Id' say it's just a law of numbers smac. Any one of them that satisfy the basic, biological requirements of fitness arrive to a place where they are regarded differently by their host. I mean, I love all the little guys, but you gotta choose your battles.

My problems with abortion encompass everything from what this archaic birth-control industry does to the women it exploits to erring on the side of protection. As a matter of fact, the practice of abortion declines as science shows us what occurs during pregnancy and exactly what it is being aborted. A newborn remains dependent upon its care-taker until it is capable enough to care for itself. In this sense you have a lesser, dependent which affects a great many things in the life of the caretaker/adult. At what point is the lesser worthy of protection? What arbitrary threshold are YOU prepared to accept for the endowment of rights?

So, are you saying that the pro-life movement isn't necessarily based its proponents faith?

I'm saying the pro-life movement simply has a different standard than the pro-choice movement. Particular regard for the unborn and/or the pregnant mother to-be has in fact been a societal norm that transcends religions and cultures and perhaps it's as much to do with an inherent need to propagate the species as it is any religion. I mean, what morality are you arguing for? A better one? Why is it better?

So, if there was empirical evidence that decidedly contradicts the pro-life view, you would have no problem abandoning it?

WIth all due honesty, my mind would be at least as open to this evidence as you would evidence to the contrary.

Reason requires observation of facts. Conducting yourself without facts to support your actions is not reason. It's something else. Reason and faith are polar opposites.

... and yet the act of arguing a point void of facts is reasonable? How do you know all the facts are available anyway?

What I am saying is that one cannot apply reason to the questions of how we got here and why, and come to the conclusions that religion does. I am also saying that if one claims to have respect for reason and buys into religion they either don't understand reason or they don't really have respect for it. Otherwise, why would they abandon it on such important questions?

Religion does not necessarily define the "how", it gives a "why"; something science does not acknowledge and cannot regard. Two entirely different disciplines. A human applies all its senses to all experiences. For you to pop in and say "AHA! That's the one!" is to mimic the sentiment of history's tyrants who would readily perpetrate whatever ignorance served them most.

There is no empirical evidence for the value of prayer. None. Zero.

If prayer served no other purpose than a means of reflecting on all the facts available, it would have value. I think the burden of proof that prayer hampers reason is really on you in this.

That so many before and currently use prayer lends nothing to evidence of its value. People pass a great many beliefs and practices on to the next generation that make no sense.

They also pass on a great many that do make sense, should we regard them all as LIES or TRUTH? You've got this really rigid line you're trying to draw here, but I'm not seein' it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Get a room!

Rooms are too small, that's why we do it in the Lounge.

[besson3c]

Here's another one...

The Christine O'Donnell witchcraft thing.

It's a little disconcerting that we have a candidate for senate who believes/believed in witchcraft in the first place, but she said this a long, long time ago in reference to her teenage years, I think, so.... who the f cares?

There's a statement that Mike Pence, an Indiana Republican, says that O'Donnell should have to "explain these remarks". How about "no she shouldn't, because witchcraft does not exist and WE DON'T CARE!!!"

[turtle777]

Well, sh!t, most politicians believe in witchcraft.

How else do you think they'd believe things like Quantitative Easing, bailouts and other policies would work ?

-t

[besson3c]

It depends on how you define "work". If your objective is to minimize job losses, you could argue that they did work, and it looks like the government is getting all of their money back directly from these bailed out companies, so perhaps this dispute has a larger philosophical component than anything else? I agree with you on the philosophical end especially since financial reform to help prevent a bailout from happening again has been so slow moving...

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It depends on how you define "work". If your objective is to minimize job losses, you could argue that they did work, and it looks like the government is getting all of their money back directly from these bailed out companies, so perhaps this dispute has a larger philosophical component than anything else? I agree with you on the philosophical end especially since financial reform to help prevent a bailout from happening again has been so slow moving...

How do you mean; "it looks like the government is getting all their money back directly from these bailed out companies"? Where did you see this?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

How do you mean; "it looks like the government is getting all their money back directly from these bailed out companies"? Where did you see this?

tarp funds paid back - Google Search

[BadKosh]

Yeah, those high school days were crazy. Witchcraft. Drinking. Hanging around with friends. Sounds pretty radical to me.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

YOU ATE MY LORD??!!

You ****ing bastard! Why did you do that?? How ****ing could you? I mean, really! How would you like it if I ate your God. I mean, instead of those little tiny pieces they give you in church, what I just stole the entire thing and just ate them all?

Very not cool, I might just report you for this.

Dude, relax. Christians eat and drink their Lord every Sunday.