Kids and politics

[Inv3rted]

Excellent riposte! You have won me over with that brilliant response! Your argument skills are truly the nonpareil!

My point still stands. Since the 4th century BCE, the Western and Middle Eastern world has known that the Earth is a sphere. As the three major religions of the world are from these areas, they never thought the world was flat.

Two things wrong with this quote. First, you're about to quote an argument from Richard Dawkins on religion. As he has never actually read the Bible, he's about as qualified to talk about Christianity as he is qualified to discuss quantum physics; e.g., not at all. Secondly, you claim his proof to be irrefutable. Nothing is irrefutable. Absolutely nothing. Even mathematical axioms have been refuted.

Oh yeah, because not reading the entire Bible means you can't call out Christianity on its blatant bullstuff. You only need to read a few passages to see what utter crap this piece of literature is. I did not say it was irrefutable proof that God does not exist. I said it was irrefutable proof of his extreme improbability. Big difference. And he is more qualified to discuss quantum physics than you are to discuss politics. He is fully aware of the scientific method as well as the creeds of basic logic, and these you seem to lack. Also, instead of arguing with his proof, you simply brush it off and claim inaccuracy. No logic, just denial. Good job, you've proven yourself a perfect example of what most religious believers do: ignore anything that makes them question anything. And to add one final damning rebuttal of your utterly useless string of words: Richard Dawkins did read the bible.

I suppose you know absolutely nothing about historians, do you? Don't even try to say otherwise, because this sentence definitively proves you don't. Since it seems like you're completely unaware of the fact that the Bible is widely used by historians for its historical value, and the Old Testament is considered to be, for the most part, historically accurate.

LOL. LOOOL. LOOOOOOOOOOOL.

What is historically accurate about the bible? The creation story? The Jesus story? The flood? None of these are true. Who considers the Old Testament to be true for the most part? Evangelical nuts who have no education or any actual scientist? Get the forget out of the 17th century. What historians get out of the Bible are not direct facts, but instead ideas about the culture of the time period they are written. In this sense it does have historical value and my previous statement was misguided. But that does not mean any events in it are true. Simple as that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history#Historical_accuracy This shows what little actual historical facts can be taken from the Bible.

People loose their faith in some way or are never taught about it in the first place because of parents who lost their faith. That's how a belief spreads just like religions. No Atheism isn't a religion, but it is a belief. But Inv3rted keeps avoiding his reasons for not believing, so I have no idea on how to judge his arguments. But I assume from the fact that he has to insult everyone who has a counter argument that he is someone who has a grudge, or someone who lost their faith or was taught not to have one by parents who did.

My reasons for not believing are logic and free thinking rationalism. I was brought up as a theist, a Zoroastrian (of my own choosing; it was my mother's religion but I didn't have to follow it). You speak of losing faith like a bad thing, like it will ruin you and spin your life into an abyss. If you feel insulted because I use profanity and direct insults at you as well as your beliefs, please consider that I am passionate about this subject. This passion has actually gotten me out of a depression that's lasted about two years now, so I think you can forget off with your "I was so miserable until I found my faith again" religious nonsense. Furthermore, you bring in my parents into this argument, showing a great deal of maturity on your point. Such a great deal that you believe that parents can not have a secular attitude towards anything, considering one is an atheist and the other is a theist. Both of them taught me the most important thing: a secular upbringing that lets a child choose things on their own will ultimately lead them to a ration and free thinking outlook on the world.

PS forget off and pray some more

[Ad Bot]

[Wedge]

You invalidated your whole argument in one paragraph.

What a stunningly arrogant statement.

When your ideal of perfection is a jealous hypocrite, you can safely say that their morality is skewed.

Forgive me, my use of the word hypocrite was entirely incorrect. "I am a jealous God" literally reads as "I am the one true god and worshiping any other God will make me angry." What did you read it as? God looks lustfully at his neighbor's wife? Explain how this makes God a hypocrite or makes Christian's since of morality skewed.

Whether or not the majority of Christians believe the first four Ten Commandments are as important as the rest (considering the Bible says so), they all believe that God is the ultimate perfection.

Sure. Christians believe their God is flawless. How is the bad? How does it lead to religious morality destroying the world?

Even if the God of the Bible existed, it would he harmful to worship him in a strictly moral sense (might as well considering he'll kill your family while you watch and then torture them for eternity if you don't).

You have failed to establish how exactly this is harmful.

[Inv3rted]

What a stunningly arrogant statement.

That's what happens when you forget over your whole post with a paragraph.

Forgive me, my use of the word hypocrite was entirely incorrect. "I am a jealous God" literally reads as "I am the one true god and worshiping any other God will make me angry." What did you read it as? God looks lustfully at his neighbor's wife?

Humility isn't a Christian virtue or anything...you know...just sayin'.

Sure. Christians believe their God is flawless. How is the bad? How does it lead to religious morality destroying the world?
You have failed to establish how exactly this is harmful.

You must be pretty dense to not see it yet. I said he is more than flawless. He is the believer's standard of perfection. Do not deny this; it is at the core of half the theistic defenses. He is a hypocrite, he is a murderer, he is jealous, and he is the standard of perfection for so many people. You still don't see how there is a negative aspect here?

[Snackbar]

Good job selectively reading Wikipedia articles. Try reading the last paragraph of the section you just mentioned.

By the way, Richard Dawkins has never seriously studies or read the Bible. "Would you need to read learned volumes on Leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?" Since Richard Dawkins wrote that, I think that you don't know an awful lot about him. Furthermore, Dawkins actually values the Bible as a piece of literature, which I think you may find hard to believe.

[Rughugger]

My reasons for not believing are logic and free thinking rationalism. I was brought up as a theist, a Zoroastrian (of my own choosing; it was my mother's religion but I didn't have to follow it). You speak of losing faith like a bad thing, like it will ruin you and spin your life into an abyss. If you feel insulted because I use profanity and direct insults at you as well as your beliefs, please consider that I am passionate about this subject. This passion has actually gotten me out of a depression that's lasted about two years now, so I think you can forget off with your "I was so miserable until I found my faith again" religious nonsense. Furthermore, you bring in my parents into this argument, showing a great deal of maturity on your point. Such a great deal that you believe that parents can not have a secular attitude towards anything, considering one is an atheist and the other is a theist. Both of them taught me the most important thing: a secular upbringing that lets a child choose things on their own will ultimately lead them to a ration and free thinking outlook on the world.

PS forget off and pray some more

Having passion for something and just being a richard are two different things. You obviously can't tell the difference. And since you see fit to constantly throw a jab at me only shows me you are losing an argument and have to try and redirect my attention to your lack of productive discussions.

I bring your parents into the argument because they are responsible for teaching you throughout your young life. The fact that they obviously haven't taught you respect for other people and their beliefs is not the main goal here, but I'm sure they have their reasons for allowing you to be your fowl-mouthed self.  

And you speak of religion as the basis for all civilization going to stuff. Same argument, different subject matter. Welcome to hypocrisy. So you can also "forget off with your 'I wasn't happy til I dumped religion.' bullstuff." Not so good when it turns right back onto you, is it?

PS, Jesus still loves you even if you don't believe in him. Have a nice day. :)

[Inv3rted]

Good job selectively reading Wikipedia articles. Try reading the last paragraph of the section you just mentioned.

Yeah because that's the majority of the old testament. Don't try and wiggle your way out of this one, smartass.

By the way, Richard Dawkins has never seriously studies or read the Bible. "Would you need to read learned volumes on Leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?" Since Richard Dawkins wrote that, I think that you don't know an awful lot about him.

Considering I've read two of his books and watched many of his lectures, I wouldn't say I know much either. That page says nothing about his reading of the Bible. He said that he had not read books by many theologians, which is totally different. Your point is still invalid. Go read a history book, and preferably retake that middle school curriculum on the scientific method.

Furthermore, Dawkins actually values the Bible as a piece of literature, which I think you may find hard to believe.

I value it as literature too. There are plenty of dark stories which are great literature. But the fact is, if you see any value beyond that, there is a problem. What if I saw some great truth of the universe about the morals presented in the movie Inglorious Basterds? I can appreciate the movie without appreciating the morals.

[Inv3rted]

Having passion for something and just being a richard are two different things. You obviously can't tell the difference. And since you see fit to constantly throw a jab at me only shows me you are losing an argument and have to try and redirect my attention to your lack of productive discussions.

Losing an argument? I have laid many valid points out that no one has even bothered to refute directly.
I bring your parents into the argument because they are responsible for teaching you throughout your young life. The fact that they obviously haven't taught you respect for other people and their beliefs is not the main goal here, but I'm sure they have their reasons for allowing you to be your fowl-mouthed self.  

I am unaware as to how I can have a fowl mouth, but I'll go with it. As I said, they taught me to be secular. Because of the passion I have developed, I have become more aggressive in my beliefs. But I do not wish any harm to you; I wish to try and knock some sense into your head.

And you speak of religion as the basis for all civilization going to stuff. Same argument, different subject matter. Welcome to hypocrisy. So you can also "forget off with your 'I wasn't happy til I dumped religion.' bullstuff." Not so good when it turns right back onto you, is it?

Way to be a dumbass. I told you your point was invalid because I presented the exact opposite argument. I was not trying to claim any sort of validity in the argument about personal feelings based on belief. That's a very poor thing to resort to, and you did it. There is a big difference between religion's effect on society and religion's effect on mood. I called you out on your handicapped statement, and the best your wise old mind can think of was that? Good job.

PS, Jesus still loves you even if you don't believe in him. Have a nice day. :)
Not according to the Bible.

[Rughugger]

Losing an argument? I have laid many valid points out that no one has even bothered to refute directly.
Which have been countered with equally refutable counterarguments, you just dismiss them because it's religious.
I am unaware as to how I can have a fowl mouth, but I'll go with it. As I said, they taught me to be secular. Because of the passion I have developed, I have become more aggressive in my beliefs. But I do not wish any harm to you; I wish to try and knock some sense into your head.
You obviously haven't proofread any of your responses then. I see foul language in all your replies, all directed at people who have an equal passion for their beliefs as you claim to have in yours.
Way to be a dumbass. Oh noes, foul language! I told you your point was invalid because I presented the exact opposite argument. I was not trying to claim any sort of validity in the argument about personal feelings based on belief. That's a very poor thing to resort to, and you did it. There is a big difference between religion's effect on society and religion's effect on mood. I called you out on your handicapped statement, and the best your wise old mind can think of was that? Good job.
Then why bother to prove a point that has no validity? Kinda pointless, isn't it? And that response wasn't directed at you, or didn't you notice the "Bisjac" at the start of that? Sounds like someone is desperate for arguing material because they're running out of Wikki resources.
Not according to the Bible.
You're reading the wrong material then.

[Snackbar]

Perhaps we have two different definitions of the Old Testament. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. After all, you've never read the Bible.

How is my point invalid? Even if he has read parts of the Bible (and he clearly hasn't read it thoroughly, thanks to several rather large mistakes he has made), he still hasn't read up on his facts, because he still makes wrong assumptions about the Bible.

You value it as a piece of literature, yet you say "you only need to read a few passages to see what utter crap this piece of literature is"? I'm sorry, but I think those two statements are incongruous.

And he is more qualified to discuss quantum physics than you are to discuss politics.

I believe you're giving Richard Dawkins quite a lot more credit than you ought. Besides, you're not even using the word politics correctly. I'm not talking about national policy here, I'm talking about why you should stop attacking Christianity like a one-man Inquisition.

[Grumpy]

This converstation hurts my small brain

[Bisjac]

snack where do you get off assuming anyone that dont believe in your religion just plain didnt read your bible?
i was raised as a christian, and i am now atheist BECAUSE i know the bible so well.

most Christians don't have a clue whats in the bible. they don't even know why they argue half the things they do.
most religious folk are phonies. follow the traditions out of habit and don't even understand the faith or history at all.

[Inv3rted]

I was making fun of you calling me a fowl mouth. You used the wrong word. I'm sorry if that flew by your all knowing head. I am aware that I use expletives.

Perhaps we have two different definitions of the Old Testament. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. After all, you've never read the Bible.

You said the majority of the old testament was correct. I called your bullstuff. What's the different definition?

How is my point invalid? Even if he has read parts of the Bible (and he clearly hasn't read it thoroughly, thanks to several rather large mistakes he has made), he still hasn't read up on his facts, because he still makes wrong assumptions about the Bible.

And you still don't bother to even refute a word of his arguments because you can't. Good job.

You value it as a piece of literature, yet you say "you only need to read a few passages to see what utter crap this piece of literature is"? I'm sorry, but I think those two statements are incongruous.

It still has value. The plot of Inglorious Basterds was utter stuff, but it was a fun watch. It's utter crap because people actually believe it. By utter crap I was talking about its truth. It's bullstuff.

I believe you're giving Richard Dawkins quite a lot more credit than you ought. Besides, you're not even using the word politics correctly. I'm not talking about national policy here, I'm talking about why you should stop attacking Christianity like a one-man Inquisition.

My point was that you brought up quantum physics when it was totally unrelated, so I brought up politics. You make silly assumptions about my vocabulary when you lack the intellectual ability to defend your own beliefs with logic.

[Snackbar]

snack where do you get off assuming anyone that dont believe in your religion just plain didnt read your bible?

Where did I say this? I specifically mentioned Richard Dawkins and Inverted, as both clearly did not read the Bible. I never said that you didn't, or that anyone else didn't, just those two.

most Christians don't have a clue whats in the bible. they don't even know why they argue half the things they do.
most religious folk are phonies. follow the traditions out of habit and don't even understand the faith or history at all.

I wouldn't say most. I'm sure some do, but no one I have ever known has been like that. Even if they are "phonies", there's not much I can do about that, is there? All I can do is make sure that I have faith for the right reasons.

[Wedge]

That's what happens when you forget over your whole post with a paragraph.

I did not.

Humility isn't a Christian virtue or anything...you know...just sayin'.

I don't even see how this is related to humility, but I'll attempt to decipher your argument and humor you. Humility requires something to be humble to. Christians believe there is no other God and therefore there is nothing for him to be humble to. I'm sure the "be nice to your neighbor" commandment would cover that were there another God. Since there is nothing for him to be humble to, there is nothing to measure humility with.

You must be pretty dense to not see it yet. I said he is more than flawless. He is the believer's standard of perfection. Do not deny this; it is at the core of half the theistic defenses.

Why would I deny this? I never have. Apparently there was some ambiguity. I'll make it clear again. I believe Christians believe their God is flawless.

He is a hypocrite, he is a murderer, he is jealous, and he is the standard of perfection for so many people. You still don't see how there is a negative aspect here?

A murderer? This is new. Do gods murder? Is it murder if a god kills? Murder is unlawful. It is not against the law for a god to kill. In fact, it is a god's god-given right to snuff out the life of its creations at whim. Supposedly they have a good reason for this, typically it's punishment for some grievous offence against humanity or the religion. This does not conflict with it's message that killing is wrong for it's subjects to do.

The flaw is in and of itself judging a god on the same standard as a human. By the nature of religion god is above humans.

And none of this is even relevant to your point that "Christian morality is destroying America." Suppose that the book it's based on has fallacies in it? How does this manifest itself in the values themselves being poor?

Let's clarify something. None of my posts have been trying to state Christianity is true or that you have to believe it. My arguments so far have been trying to get you to justify your ridiculous comment about how America needs to throw away its morals because they're too shrouded in religion, that these morals are invalid because of inconsistencies, and other such things. That's what I tried to lead every argument back to. I don't even get what you were proposing. Our morals are already secular. Murder is declared unlawful in common law "because it is evil." This is a moral. How is this shrouded in religion? Some people chose to believe that this is evil because a god said so. So what? What is wrong with this? God doesn't exist? So?

I do not think you are concerned that America's morals are too religious. I think what you meant to complain about was the prevalence of religion which is something altogether different and totally separate from what I was arguing with you about and what you originally wrote.

Morals with religious undertones are horrible for society.

This is what I'm arguing with. I'm smart enough not to touch "Religion is stupid and should be abolished" with a 50 foot pole. If thats where you want to take this then forget off, I'm not coming.

If you want to argue more about how Christian morals are the cancer that is killing American politics and here me retort with more, no, that's people bending a religious text to fit a political agenda, let me know.

[Snackbar]

My point was that you brought up quantum physics when it was totally unrelated, so I brought up politics. You make silly assumptions about my vocabulary when you lack the intellectual ability to defend your own beliefs with logic.

I apologize, I was mistaken. I shouldn't call your knowledge of vocabulary into question. Rather, I should call into question your knowledge of literary devices. Ever heard of an brown townogy? I suppose not, because you certainly didn't recognize it when I used it.

And you still don't bother to even refute a word of his arguments because you can't. Good job.

Fine. I will.

1. Among the hardest things to figure out in the universe was how the universe and its appearance of design arises.
2. Humans have a natural tendency to assume that what looks designed is designed by a creator.
3. This is false, and is a sky hook. The designer must be more improbable that what is designed, and that raises the question of who designed the designer. This leads to an infinite regress, which is unacceptable.
4. The opposite of a sky hook, a crane, was the process discovered by Darwin: evolution by natural selection. This explained how life diversified on Earth, thus proving that the appearance of design in life is an illusion.
5. The same crane has not yet been discovered in the larger field of physics, but it is possible to apply a similar kind of selective process leading to improbable structures to the whole of the cosmos. This, of course, requires more luck, but by use of the anthropic principle we may postulate more luck than imagined.
6. Such a crane in physics would be ultimately satisfying, because at present we do not have any valid and non-sky hook designer methods for the universe.

Richard Dawkins's "proof" is simplistic in that it states that God is improbable because God must be complex, and therefore must have been designed by someone else. If that's the case, than I guess scientists should stop trying to create the Grand Unified Theory, because it's clearly highly improbable according to Dawkins, because the GUT would be far more complex than anything it's trying to explain.