How Critical Thinkers Lose Their Faith in God

Rune said:
Too bad one as brilliant as you does not understand the definition of the word faith.
Click to expand...


http://www.google.com/webhp?source=...1951&biw=1366&bih=705&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&cad=b




noun /fāTH/ 
faiths, plural


1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or somethin - this restores one's faith in politicians
2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof
3. A system of religious belief - the Christian faith
4. A strongly held belief or theory - the faith that life will expand until it fills the universe

...

In the context, 2 works fine for me. Believers claim that there best proof is the spiritual perception of God. Which confirms the point made by the article.
 
Professor Baxter said:
http://www.google.com/webhp?source=...1951&biw=1366&bih=705&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&cad=b




noun /fāTH/ 
faiths, plural


1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or somethin - this restores one's faith in politicians
2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof
3. A system of religious belief - the Christian faith
4. A strongly held belief or theory - the faith that life will expand until it fills the universe

...

In the context, 2 works fine for me. Believers claim that there best proof is the spiritual perception of God. Which confirms the point made by the article.
Click to expand...

In reality the definition of faith is simple, belief without proof.
 
Rune said:
Wait, you said ILA and thinks in the same sentence, LOL.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, good point!! I should stop expecting that!!

Had him on ignore...when he did it big "mea culpa" decided to give him the benefit of the doubt and took him off. And to be fair, he hasn't been using the vile language he used to use (I'm assuming here he isn't ALSO 007). His "blessed day" stuff is annoying, but he's just doing it to be annoying so I can ignore it.

He hasn't been quite dense enough to put back on ignore, but if I find myself spiralling down the drainhole with him, I'll do that.
 
tekkychick said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_censorship_in_the_United_States

http://www.uncp.edu/home/acurtis/Courses/ResourcesForCourses/BannedBooks.html

http://www.ala.org/advocacy/banned/frequentlychallenged

http://www.overstock.com/guides/faqs-about-banned-books

Wasn't able to break down how often liberals vs conservatives try to ban books, but given the books banned, gotta think it's mostly conservatives. Tea Party does it

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/7167-the-tea-party-moves-to-ban-books



Not always politicians, of course -
Click to expand...

I sincerely apologize for not being more clear in my context. Is anyone pushing legislation in Congress to ban books? Anyone pushing legislation to censor music?

Do individuals or groups of individuals get their collective knickers in a twist and try to ban things? Sure. To claim it is the sole purview of the right is just an out and out false food. Look at the efforts the left takes to get Beck off of the air. Look at the efforts to get Limbaugh off of the air. You don't think that is the same type of censorship?

Of course not, because to you the ends justify the means. Don't be obtuse. Nobody of any real importance is trying to ban books and you know it.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
and its really pissed tekkychick off, as she's had to read the whole Potter series at black market libraries......

Free Harry Potter!....Free the Prisoner of Azkaban!....Free popcorn!.....
Click to expand...

That was funny. I also heard those underground showings of the Vagina Monologues were a good ole fashioned hoot n anny
 
I Love America said:
I sincerely apologize for not being more clear in my context. Is anyone pushing legislation in Congress to ban books? Anyone pushing legislation to censor music?
.
Click to expand...

So you're changing your question when we prove you wrong?

I agree that book banning tends to be more local than national. It's still happening. And we like to fight conservatives locally as well as nationally. So what does it matter where it's happening?

Congress has banned books in the past - or tried to
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-trombetta/halloween-books-banned_b_772473.html#s163192title=TOMB_OF_TERROR

And wasn't it Congress who passed the v-chip?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-chip
 
Rana said:
It doesn't unless you try to push your beliefs on me in the form of laws or regulations, such as not allowing gays to marry, book bannings, censorship of music and movies, etc.
Click to expand...

And before you go too far down the path of trying to say conservatives don't want to ban books, ILA, please read Rana's entire quote. She said nothing about national politicians and she listed other things as well.
 
tekkychick said:
So you're changing your question when we prove you wrong?

I agree that book banning tends to be more local than national. It's still happening. And we like to fight conservatives locally as well as nationally. So what does it matter where it's happening?

Congress has banned books in the past - or tried to
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-trombetta/halloween-books-banned_b_772473.html#s163192title=TOMB_OF_TERROR

And wasn't it Congress who passed the v-chip?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-chip
Click to expand...

I sense that you are desperate for an "internet win" and I am not in the mood of playing semantics. I read Rana's post and she said "laws and regulations". Now it is not a huge assumption to think that the majority of what we are talking about on this board relates to NATIONAL politics. If you want to play the game of finding some obscure local politician to puff up your chest and "win" then so be it.

But, you know what I was talking about. You aren't that obtuse. Or.............
 
tekkychick said:
And before you go too far down the path of trying to say conservatives don't want to ban books, ILA, please read Rana's entire quote. She said nothing about national politicians and she listed other things as well.
Click to expand...

And she didn't say anything about groups trying to put pressure on organizations. She said laws and regulations. Now, I have to qualify every statement with you with regards to national and/or local politics, please let me know now so that we don't continue to do this dance. It is tedious and tiresome and I am really not in the mood for it. You may like to play that game, but I do not wish to.


If you and Rana want to believe that GOP is out there trying to ban books en masse then so be it. Of course we won't mention the lefts attempts at censoring Limbaugh and Beck. Oh no, that would be well......the truth and inconvenient for you

Have a wonderful day :)
 
Maybe the focus needs to be "banning information?"

Books WERE at one time the main (not counting word of mouth) method of information dissemination and they WERE banned then and now and here and there. Many countries still try to ban parts of the internet and even cell phone coverage. TV content has been censored since its inception. (Anyone remember The Smothers Brothers or TV married couples having to keep one foot on the floor?) There are always censors (by whatever name) limiting what can go into different libraries - especially school libraries. As we move more information into digital format and e-readers overtake printed books - what then?

In some of the more religiously intolerant areas of the world, there are fanatics shooting school children trying to learn "too much" or the "wrong things." Children like an individual girl in Pakistan and murderers shooting up entire schools in Africa because they are learning English. In places like Texas (that great bastion of free thinking *sarcasm*) the ACLU Foundation of Texas and its many chapters (try to) raise awareness of censorship — and promote the free exchange of ideas — during national Banned Books Week each fall. *source > http://www.aclutx.org/resources/banned-books/

Yes, books still get banned in the US today. But, why get hung up on "BOOKS" unless you are just living in the past? You don't have to burn a book to keep it's information from certain people. You only have to keep it away from some people by limiting it in some way. And you can be sure people will try. And I'm not even arguing that there isn't certain information I would like kept secret or away from some people. But, long term that is probably going to fail anyway. Think Wiki leaks and Snowden, just as tow recent examples. Consider how much bomb making information terrorists get off the internet. etc. etc.

You just can't successfully keep putting the genie back in the bottle.
__________

But wait... Am I (and other recent posters) off topic?
Was this the " How Critical Thinkers Lose Their Faith in God" thread?

I really must watch that. :)
 
Last edited:
Red Mule said:
Maybe the focus needs to be "banning information?"

Books WERE at one time the main (not counting word of mouth) method of information dissemination and they WERE banned then and now and here and there. Many countries still try to ban parts of the internet and even cell phone coverage. TV content has been censored since its inception. (Anyone remember The Smothers Brothers or TV married couples having to keep one foot on the floor?) There are always censors (by whatever name) limiting what can go into different libraries - especially school libraries. As we move more information into digital format and e-readers overtake printed books - what then?

In some of the more religiously intolerant areas of the world, there are fanatics shooting school children trying to learn "too much" or the "wrong things." Children like an individual girl in Pakistan and murderers shooting up entire schools in Africa because they are learning English. In places like Texas (that great bastion of free thinking *sarcasm*) the ACLU Foundation of Texas and its many chapters (try to) raise awareness of censorship — and promote the free exchange of ideas — during national Banned Books Week each fall. *source > http://www.aclutx.org/resources/banned-books/

Yes, books still get banned in the US today. But, why get hung up on "BOOKS" unless you are just living in the past? You don't have to burn a book to keep it's information from certain people. You only have to keep it away from some people by limiting it in some way. And you can be sure people will try. And I'm not even arguing that there isn't certain information I would like kept secret or away from some people. But, long term that is probably going to fail anyway. Think Wiki leaks and Snowden, just as tow recent examples. Consider how much bomb making information terrorists get off the internet. etc. etc.

You just can't successfully keep putting the genie back in the bottle.
Click to expand...

it is hilarious that there are those who think this is just an issue from the right

:rofl2:
 
tekkychick said:
So you're changing your question when we prove you wrong?



And wasn't it Congress who passed the v-chip?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-chip
Click to expand...

/chuckle....danged conservative censors!.....from the above....
The V-chip was an added provision in Bill Clinton's Telecommunications Act of 1996. He said, "If every parent uses this chip wisely, it can become a powerful voice against teen violence, teen pregnancy, teen drug use, and for both learning and entertainment," as he signed the law on February 8, 1996. "We're handing the TV remote control back to America's parents so that they can pass on their values and protect their children."[3] The addition of the V-chip into the Telecommunications Act was helpful to attract American voters for the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top