Religion

[/MSG/]

No douche-brain... American principles simply do not include Federalism. In fact, one could argue, true founding principles don't support Federalism at all. In that case, it is you who support Federalism, who are "un-American."

Really? The Federalist Papers are unamerican? That would make the constitution unamerican. Which makes sense to you, since you seem to hate it so much.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Really? The Federalist Papers are unamerican? That would make the constitution unamerican. Which makes sense to you, since you seem to hate it so much.

LMAO... Do you even know why they were called the "Federalist Papers?"

 

[The Dude]

It's not what the klansman thinks is racist, most white and black people consider the confederate flag a racist symbol. And Dixtard in defieance has a definision only a klansman could defend.

 

[AnyOldIron]

Dixie

The burden in a court of law would be for you to prove that God doesn't exist, and you can't.

By your definition of jurisprudence, I could accuse you of being a serial killer, and the onus would be on you to demonstrate that you weren't. How would you go about doing that?

No legal system in the world works like that, nor any system of Epistemology. The onus is always on the person making the affirmative statement.

First we need to define what is meant by "exist?" If you mean, in a physical sense, no... supernatural things do not "exist" in the physical realm, and aren't expected or required to. If this is your criteria, it is woefully flawed. If you mean, is there a supernatural realm, and can I prove it? I would again point to the fact that mankind has always been spiritual, often sacrificing life for their spiritual beliefs. I would say it's a rather odd attribute for humans to have for so long, and there be nothing to it. Does that "prove" anything? Not really, because the supernatural ultimately requires faith and belief in the supernatural, there is no definitive "proof."

Exist as in actually is in some objective form, rather than as a subjective idea with no basis to support it. What makes you believe such an entity as a deity exists?

And again, truth is not a democracy. For many centuries, man held the belief that the earth was flat. That was an odd attribute for humans, and there was nothing to that. Arguing from the basis that man has always believed something is incredibly weak. The historical retreat of 'god' as an explanation of that that mankind doesn't understand, ie the 'god of the gaps', from early man's attribution of every phenomenon to a deity (think Zeus for storms and Poseidon for the seas) to the modern use as some vague and ambigious (and rather superfluous) first cause, undermines that notion.

 

[Minister of Truth]

LMAO... Do you even know why they were called the "Federalist Papers?"

A federalist is one who supports the US Constitution, because it is itself, a federal system. When I referenced the "document in its entirety," I was referring to that. Only a moron needs the term to appear with a Merriam-Webster definition in order to believe that the document is referring to federalism when it lays out federalism in practice.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie

By your definition of jurisprudence, I could accuse you of being a serial killer, and the onus would be on you to demonstrate that you weren't. How would you go about doing that?

No legal system in the world works like that, nor any system of Epistemology. The onus is always on the person making the affirmative statement.

My statement is: I don't know if there is or isn't a God... could be... could NOT be... I don't KNOW!
Your statement is: There is no God! (affirmative statement)

The ONUS is on YOU! MORON! Get busy!

Exist as in actually is in some objective form, rather than as a subjective idea with no basis to support it. What makes you believe such an entity as a deity exists?

Objective form? Do you mean a physical form? Again, supernatural things can't meet the requirement of providing physical proof, otherwise, they would not be supernatural. So you are correct, there is no physical evidence to support the supernatural... it's impossible for that to be the case. Now, you ask what makes me believe such an entity exists as a diety... I don't "believe" it, I know it! This would be like me asking you why you believe your Mum exists. I can't see your Mum, so I can choose to believe she exists or doesn't exist, but you have a different perspective. You're trying to convince me that something I know and am familiar with, doesn't really exist, and I reject that. Now, what is this thDeityIs it a Diety? Is it God? I don't know... I do know some force or energy is coursing through the universe, and we as humans, have the capacity to tap into that energy to better our lives.

And again, truth is not a democracy. For many centuries, man held the belief that the earth was flat. That was an odd attribute for humans, and there was nothing to that. Arguing from the basis that man has always believed something is incredibly weak. The historical retreat of 'god' as an explanation of that that mankind doesn't understand, ie the 'god of the gaps', from early man's attribution of every phenomenon to a deity (think Zeus for storms and Poseidon for the seas) to the modern use as some vague and ambigious (and rather superfluous) first cause, undermines that notion.

Being wrong about the nature of geometry of the Earth, is not an "attribute" at all. Humans have always had the inclination to worship. A noted physchiatrist once postulated, if there was no such thing as God, man would have to invent him. We simply can't function as a species without worship. Now, you'll say, that's impossible, because you function and you don't believe in God, but you do worship something... If I could have a candid conversation with you for a few hours, I could tell you what you worship, why you choose to reject God, and how you can find your spirituality again.

You can say it's weak all you like, from a purely scientific standpoint, it is quite profound. Any species of life we've ever studied, does NOT display attributes without a reason. Salmon don't swim up stream because they are superstitious. An objective scientist has to look at the connection between human spirituality and the level of human achievement. We're the only species that worships God, and we are the only species to send man to the moon. Is that just a bizarre coincidence? I think science would suggest causation.

 

[The Dude]

Most sane people don't know if there is a god. Why the fuck is it any part of politics?

 

[Minister of Truth]

Most sane people don't know if we'll ever correct our spending problem, either.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Most sane people don't know if we'll ever correct our spending problem, either.

Shutting down Lewis-McChord would reduce the deficit, wouldn't it?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

So what evidence can you produce to support your assertion that 'the supernatural' exists?

by weight, exactly the same poundage of evidence you can produce to support your assertion it does not........

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Most sane people don't know if there is a god. Why the fuck is it any part of politics?

Most sane people don't know if we'll ever correct our spending problem, either.

Topic of the thread is Religion. Sorry!

I know I haven't exactly talked about Religion, but I am not religious. I am very spiritual, I probably spend several hours a day in spiritual meditation. I have a great deal of respect for Christianity in present-day form, I come from a Christian family. My experience with religion spans about every mainstream religious denominations, I sampled it all... but my ultimate finding is, religion is simply man's way of attempting to understand something they can't comprehend any other way. By putting a face on God... by giving him human attribute... HIM... as if God would have genetalia or a physical human body... because, that is what we can understand as humans and relate to. So man has developed these assorted systems of belief, ritual, moral behaviors, believed to be beneficial in pleasing God. I can't find a sound argument for ANY organized religious belief, as the "be-all-end-all" on the subject of God. I think the common understanding is, that something, some force or energy, is responsible for our existence and the existence of our planet, universe, and everything else.

PHYSICS!! .......We even developed a science of gathering and composing based on the reliability of how things work in our universe. There is a system of order in the physical realm, we invented physics to explain those predictable things. As we've advanced, we have discovered black holes and dark energy... places in our universe where our "laws of physics" simply no longer apply. Up is down... right is left... slow is fast... good is evil? ...We don't know! Our understanding of things is incomplete, yet some of us arrogantly conclude they have all the information and have made a determination on God. It defies reason, it defies logic, because the simple truth is, none of us KNOW or can PROVE the existence or non-existence of God.

 

[WinterBorn]

So what evidence can you produce to support your assertion that 'the supernatural' exists?

I have faith.

 

[The Dude]

I don't really give a shit what superpower people believe in.
Why is it part of the republican (mostly) way?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I don't really give a shit what superpower people believe in.
Why is it part of the republican (mostly) way?

Two reasons mainly. The first is that they are scared of change and the second is that their convinced their particular religious belief has cornored the market on the truth.

 

[The Dude]

Two reasons mainly. The first is that they are scared of change and the second is that their convinced their particular religious belief has cornored the market on the truth.

Let me just point out for the Jesus freaks, I'm getting my angry on for having to pay 13 yrs of catholic school tuition.

 

[WinterBorn]

Let me just point out for the Jesus freaks, I'm getting my angry on for having to pay 13 yrs of catholic school tuition.

Then send your kids to public school. Paying for 13 years of catholic school is a choice you made.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Topic of the thread is Religion. Sorry!

I know I haven't exactly talked about Religion, but I am not religious. I am very spiritual, I probably spend several hours a day in spiritual meditation. I have a great deal of respect for Christianity in present-day form, I come from a Christian family. My experience with religion spans about every mainstream religious denominations, I sampled it all... but my ultimate finding is, religion is simply man's way of attempting to understand something they can't comprehend any other way.

Well that's convenient, isn't it. You've framed the belief in a way that makes it impossible to verify the truth of the matter without already believing that it is true. Why is this such a common line in religious apologetics? What other real thing in the universe depends on your initial belief in it to verify its existence?

By putting a face on God... by giving him human attribute... HIM... as if God would have genetalia or a physical human body... because, that is what we can understand as humans and relate to.

They're just heroes who were promoted to extreme deification by the human process of myth. This has happened many times in many different ways. If it pointed to the same being, you would expect them to be more similar to each other. As it is, the current reality fits much better with various cultures independently inventing deities than accessing some central source of knowledge. If record keeping were as sloppy today as it was 2000 years ago, idiots would be worshipping presidents 100 years after their term. As it is, we know they're not Gods because we have records of it. You can still see many historical figures in the process of being granted mythical qualities, though. It's just a flaw in human reasoning. If someone is thought of is great, people will begin saying untruly great things about them, and others won't question these people for fear of denying that persons unquestionable greatness. In a couple of decades, you have a hero with ridiculous attributes, give it a few centuries and you've got a God. If record keeping is slightly less primitive, you might have a prophet instead of a God (although prophets are sometimes promoted to Godhood as well, as we see in the case of Jesus).

So man has developed these assorted systems of belief, ritual, moral behaviors, believed to be beneficial in pleasing God.

Because we've invented a being whom we've finally given all possible positive attributes in the process of mythification. Everyone's God is different to them, of course, because God, having all positive attributes, can't possibly have the negative attribute of disagreeing with their value system.

I can't find a sound argument for ANY organized religious belief, as the "be-all-end-all" on the subject of God. I think the common understanding is, that something, some force or energy, is responsible for our existence and the existence of our planet, universe, and everything else.

Energy = ability to do work
Force = any influence that causes a free body to undergo a change in speed, a change in direction, or a change in shape (can be reduced down to magnetism, gravitation, the electroweak force, and the strong nuclear force)

These can't be responsible for the creation of the universe as they are attributes of the universe itself. There is not yet an adequate theory for what caused the big bang. That does not imply that God exists. The appropriate response to lacking knowledge on a subject is not to just accept whatever the first random crazy person you meet says about the subject.

PHYSICS!! .......We even developed a science of gathering and composing based on the reliability of how things work in our universe. There is a system of order in the physical realm, we invented physics to explain those predictable things. As we've advanced, we have discovered black holes and dark energy... places in our universe where our "laws of physics" simply no longer apply.

The existence of black holes and dark energy merely expanded our knowledge of physics. If the laws of physics are "broken", the "laws of physics" are changed to account for it. Since physics is a field of study trying to find out what truly is, it's impossible for something that is to contradict true physics. By existing, it's part of physics. It may disagree with our interpretation of physics, but it does not disagree with physics. I know this is confusing to a religious person, such as yourself. Religion believes that it's found all the answers, so if anything contradictory comes up, they merely deny it's existence. Physics, on the other hand, knows that it doesn't know everything, and is in the process of trying to find out as much as it can. This sensible approach is bizarre and incomprehensible to a religious person, who feel they must assign an absolute truth value to everything, even if they have to do so with faulty or incomplete information. You've really given away the fact that you think in this manner with this line.

Up is down... right is left... slow is fast... good is evil?

It depends on your perspective.

...We don't know! Our understanding of things is incomplete, yet some of us arrogantly conclude they have all the information and have made a determination on God. It defies reason, it defies logic, because the simple truth is, none of us KNOW or can PROVE the existence or non-existence of God.

Our understanding is incomplete, yes. Science fills in the incomplete sections with "incomplete", religion fills it in with "God".

 

[/MSG/]

Well that's convenient, isn't it. You've framed the belief in a way that makes it impossible to verify the truth of the matter without already believing that it is true. Why is this such a common line in religious apologetics? What other real thing in the universe depends on your initial belief in it to verify its existence?



They're just heroes who were promoted to extreme deification by the human process of myth. This has happened many times in many different ways. If it pointed to the same being, you would expect them to be more similar to each other. As it is, the current reality fits much better with various cultures independently inventing deities than accessing some central source of knowledge. If record keeping were as sloppy today as it was 2000 years ago, idiots would be worshipping presidents 100 years after their term. As it is, we know they're not Gods because we have records of it. You can still see many historical figures in the process of being granted mythical qualities, though. It's just a flaw in human reasoning. If someone is thought of is great, people will begin saying untruly great things about them, and others won't question these people for fear of denying that persons unquestionable greatness. In a couple of decades, you have a hero with ridiculous attributes, give it a few centuries and you've got a God. If record keeping is slightly less primitive, you might have a prophet instead of a God (although prophets are sometimes promoted to Godhood as well, as we see in the case of Jesus).



Because we've invented a being whom we've finally given all possible positive attributes in the process of mythification. Everyone's God is different to them, of course, because God, having all positive attributes, can't possibly have the negative attribute of disagreeing with their value system.



Energy = ability to do work
Force = any influence that causes a free body to undergo a change in speed, a change in direction, or a change in shape (can be reduced down to magnetism, gravitation, the electroweak force, and the strong nuclear force)

These can't be responsible for the creation of the universe as they are attributes of the universe itself. There is not yet an adequate theory for what caused the big bang. That does not imply that God exists. The appropriate response to lacking knowledge on a subject is not to just accept whatever the first random crazy person you meet says about the subject.



The existence of black holes and dark energy merely expanded our knowledge of physics. If the laws of physics are "broken", the "laws of physics" are changed to account for it. Since physics is a field of study trying to find out what truly is, it's impossible for something that is to contradict true physics. By existing, it's part of physics. It may disagree with our interpretation of physics, but it does not disagree with physics. I know this is confusing to a religious person, such as yourself. Religion believes that it's found all the answers, so if anything contradictory comes up, they merely deny it's existence. Physics, on the other hand, knows that it doesn't know everything, and is in the process of trying to find out as much as it can. This sensible approach is bizarre and incomprehensible to a religious person, who feel they must assign an absolute truth value to everything, even if they have to do so with faulty or incomplete information. You've really given away the fact that you think in this manner with this line.



It depends on your perspective.



Our understanding is incomplete, yes. Science fills in the incomplete sections with "incomplete", religion fills it in with "God".

You'd make a fine Lovecraftian.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Our understanding is incomplete, yes. Science fills in the incomplete sections with "incomplete", religion fills it in with "God".

Actually, science doesn't fill in anything, YOU fill in 'complete', based on your limited knowledge and understanding. You have made a definitive determination on what is true and what isn't, and you refuse to examine possibility further. That isn't science, it is the antithesis of science, actually. Science is supposed to NOT fill in the blanks, but continue to ask questions... you've stopped asking questions because you believe you know the answers. Yet, you admit, you DON'T know the answers. Odd.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

There is not yet an adequate theory for what caused the big bang. That does not imply that God exists.

If you can't theorize rationally, what caused the universe to be created, how can you conclude it wasn't by the hand of God? Yes, if it can't be rationally explained and there is no theory of physics to apply... it certainly DOES imply the work of some superior force or intelligence. You can dismiss that possibility, but again, you are contradicting science to do so. Science says we must keep asking questions, and we can't discount ANY possibility on the basis of our emotions. That's what you are doing here, dismissing the possibility because you don't want to believe in the possibility that God may exist.