Oh by the way, the list of scientists that believe in God, is unbelievably long.
Which does not mean anything, the argument fails or prevails on it's own merits,not by the merits of the speaker.
There is no rational reason to believe in something which is not supported by any (evidence which can be counted as evidence) evidence.
Those scientists are just fools on that one matter, they might be brilliant on their field of science but fools on that matter.
Are you implying that those men could not be such brilliand scientists without their irrational belief ?
Quote:
However, you're ½ right when you say that my beliefs affect my actions. I do believe in a Christian God. Coincidentally I also believe in science.
In your case it does not affect on that, but your belief in god most certainly affects something else and if not with you, there are billions of people to whoms actions their belief affects.
Also when one chooses belief when accepting something to be truth opens a door for people to believe in something else which is supported by no evidence more easily.
I by no mens ment that it must affect on somebody accepting scientific findings, there are lots of people who are like you.
Quote:
Why is that you, sniperfin, only fixate on the bad instances?
Cause the world would have lesser bad instances making it a better place.
Quote:
I have to agree with uberrig. "Science" is not a belief, and certainly isn't mutually exclusive with religion.
It isn't when the scientist is honest but it can hinder their work. Lets take the most brilliant scientist ever (who was religious aswell), who in my mind is the father of modern science,Newton.
When he finally encountered a problem he couldn't find an answer,no matter how hard he tried,he gave up and gave the credit to mystery (god). Without his belief he might had continue the search for the ansewer even it at the time seemed to be something where one can't find an answer.
And guess what, later came people who solved the problem, but much later.
Quote:
By your own definition you're adding to the problem as well. You're singular belief that all religions are creating all the problems in the world is not scientific.
I have no such belief, where have I stated that ?
Religions are one instance which creates huge problems, naturally there are other instances too.
For example religions are currently the main instance trying to hinder the equal rights form 2% of the populatio, I see that a huge problem.
Quote:
. You cry foul at having religion thrust upon you when you do the same in turn with science.
Science is currently the only available tool for us for finding the answers and it has provided constantly information. In fact everytime in there has been a conflict with religion and science (they have provided different answers for a question), quess what, science has been correct (or has shwon that the answer given by religion is not right), every single time.
Infact if we someday find some other way, we must test and verify it with science, funny but true.
I am not pushing science from anybodys throat, if somebody wants to diss it, by all means they are free to do so, but when somebody starts to offer answers which are in direct violation with science, then we have a problem.
And that happens all the time, and in many cases the information is coming from a religious instance.
Quote:
Why is it so hard for you, sniperfin, to live in a world where religion and science can not only work together but work together for the benefit of all with either belief, or both, as a driving force for good?
Because one is real and one is not, one offers benefits based on reality, one offers benefits which are based on something irrational which means that those benefits don't stand on solid ground.
Lets say an alcoholic who finds god because those helpind him offers him god as solutions.
He is sober and thanks god, but then someday finds out that the god he believed in is just imagination.
The base for his change is gone, what do you think happens next ?
Faith by definition is believing without a good reason and therefore the worst available tool to find correct answers, thats why religions and beliefs based on faith should not have any part on the society decision making etc. Individually you can believe what ever you want.
In your religion faith is even couraged by your founder, those who believe without evidence are blessed.
#1496300 by mbodnar (Airborne Mod) at 2012-09-04 23:23:00 (10 months ago) - [Report]
hOG wrote:
sniperfin wrote:
Also in god we trust printed in money directly violates constitution, but somehow the same constitution thumpers who always refer to constitution when it is a question about guns don't give a shit about this direct violation as a good christian hypocrite should do.
There are other symbols as well. The All-Seeing Eye of God for example. I don't see any of them as violations and I doubt so would their supreme court. It offends your anti-religion agenda though.
Sniper (and others) like to replace the word "of" with "from".
This is how they misinterpret the constitution.
#1496301 by unknown[81460] at 2012-09-04 23:27:12 (10 months ago) - [Report]
America will bring global peace, and they have the bombs to back it up!
#1496304 by Timex (Power User) at 2012-09-04 23:34:04 (10 months ago) - [Report]
mbodnar wrote:
hOG wrote:
sniperfin wrote:
Also in god we trust printed in money directly violates constitution, but somehow the same constitution thumpers who always refer to constitution when it is a question about guns don't give a shit about this direct violation as a good christian hypocrite should do.
There are other symbols as well. The All-Seeing Eye of God for example. I don't see any of them as violations and I doubt so would their supreme court. It offends your anti-religion agenda though.
Sniper (and others) like to replace the word "of" with "from".
This is how they misinterpret the constitution.
Looks like I don't get an answer as to why Sniper thinks some words printed on a debt resolution instrument are a violation of the US Constitution so I will simply point out his 2nd mistake...it does not establish a State controlled religion much the same as the Pledge of Allegiance:
Quote:
On March 11, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance in the case of Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School District.[34][35] In a 2–1 decision, the appellate court ruled that the words were of a "ceremonial and patriotic nature" and did not constitute an establishment of religion.
To be honest if I was to visit Finland I would possibly get my ass in a sling and jailed as I really have no idea how the laws and history are in that country.
Looks like I don't get an answer as to why Sniper thinks some words printed on a debt resolution instrument are a violation of the US Constitution
Because it is distributed by your government.
Quote:
On March 11, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance in the case of Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School District.[34][35] In a 2–1 decision, the appellate court ruled that the words were of a "ceremonial and patriotic nature" and did not constitute an establishment of religion.
Good, seems like you finally accept what courts say and support the obama care which is backed up by your suprime court as constitutional. Btw, how is a bill and a pledge stated in a ceremonial occasions directly comparable ?
Is it patriotic and ceremonial when you hold a dollar note in your hand ?
Finally, I for one don't give a shit how your courts interprate your constitution, but I just wanted to point out your hypocricy. Ooh the moaning and grining the day when the gun statement is interprated in a way which modifies the current system, that was my point.
You hold value on the constitution when it is about things you value, but you don't give a damn when it is about something which you are not interested on, that my point, to show that you are hypocrites (just like soon we are going to see a rant about court backed obama care by our senile tracker member), which is fine, it's part of human nature.
#1496314 by Timex (Power User) at 2012-09-05 00:14:18 (10 months ago) - [Report]
Quote:
Because it is distributed by your government.
Sorry but you are 100% wrong again.
It is via the Federal Reserve System which is NOT part of the US Government.
Quote:
seems like you finally accept what courts say and support the obama care which is backed up by your suprime court as constitutional.
Wrong yet again (4th time in only 2 pages).
You must have forgotten that I pointed out that the courts job was not to RE-WRITE the bill (a fine is just that ...not a tax) and the fact it is not over and done with.
Remember my words to effect of "If you think once in court is enough you are naive" ?
As soon as they start FINING people it will go back into court as now we will have 312 million victims who are able to file a class action.
EDIT:
The USSC did not modify a system about the 2nd Amendment...it upheld exactly what the US Constitution says.
It looks like you now have 5 wrong ideas/understandings in only 2 pages.
Did you have enough sleep over this past weekend or just it just one big party?
Someone once said that hardcore Christians shouldn't be members of torrent sites. Maybe it was Trypt? Can't remember. I say live and let live. If you feel something is wrong, don't do it. Otherwise you'll feel guilty afterwards.
/on-topic:
I haven't read the news, but I do know that from the point of view of many, it's easy to imagine what could happen and what could've happened if the roles were reversed. To give an example...
Scenario 1 - the event described in that news article - What was done could cause extremists to go out to the streets, kill someone, attack someone, maybe a few terrorist attacks... In a few words, make a big deal out of it. The cartoon story comes to mind.
Scenario 2 - Reversed roles - The story wouldn't even gain momentum, because most Christians aren't extremists. In fact, most Christians see any type of extremism movement as a sect or fake Christian church, and condemn it. Of course there are people who are a little bit off but Christians are not associated with violence anymore. I once heard a non-Christian criticizing a Christian saying "You speak of love but you did this and that in the Crusades". He had to refer to stories from centuries ago, but had nothing to say about the present.
Imagine that any religion beside Islamic is a blasphemy for them. So when a Islamist receives a banknote on which is written 'In God we trust' this is considered a blasphemy. And this is the first step to ruin their economy. Really, when everything moves around the religion there is no much hope.
The message 'In God we trust' is deprecated, but had a meaning when the idea came up; shotguns were to common in US back then.
If is to have a message on banknotes, there aren't too many options, except art related stuff like is practiced in many countries: put the face of an artist on one side of the banknote, a sculpture on the other side and a message like 'Time is the only thing you can't buy' and there it is.
Imagine that any religion beside Islamic is a blasphemy for them. So when a Islamist receives a banknote on which is written 'In God we trust' this is considered a blasphemy. And this is the first step to ruin their economy. Really, when everything moves around the religion there is no much hope.
The message 'In God we trust' is deprecated, but had a meaning when the idea came up; shotguns were to common in US back then.
If is to have a message on banknotes, there aren't too many options, except art related stuff like is practiced in many countries: put the face of an artist on one side of the banknote, a sculpture on the other side and a message like 'Time is the only thing you can't buy' and there it is.
You're an idiot if you think any muslim would reject US currency just because it has a religious message on it. Seriously, your post was a joke right? I sincerely hope it was.
#1496432 by unknown[81460] at 2012-09-05 21:30:23 (10 months ago) - [Report]
Timex wrote:
tokol wrote:
I sometimes wonder how these threads would turn out if about a dozen people were forumbanned for a week or two.
/offtopic
Carry on.
What like censorship when people bring up a thought and others are not welcome to comment upon such?
No its the broken record that people are tired of hearing, if anyone wants to discus US politics or whatever shite you were waffling about then start a topic about that, then people wont click on a topic per title just to see it has been hijacked with the same old same old.
If people wish to discus the merits beyond the topic title then by all means start a thread about that, its a pure slap in the face to the OP to see a thread go the way this one was heading.
You wouldnt go to the kitchen and take a shit so why discuss that crap in this thread?
brings peace to the world?
that's new, i thought it was the cause of all shit
#1496484 by mrunne (Power User) at 2012-09-06 08:51:49 (10 months ago) - [Report]
VeryBadGuy wrote:
Timex wrote:
What like censorship when people bring up a thought and others are not welcome to comment upon such?
no more like constant forum rule breaking
Theres a slight difference between rules and blatantly stopping people from speaking entirely.
Anyhow I do sometimes wonder if the world would be a better place without religion or would people just find something else to use to make war on each other.
Theres a slight difference between rules and blatantly stopping people from speaking entirely.
for example staying on topic and stopping ppl from taking the conversation going in different directions is not censorship its enforcing the rules of serios chat...rules I believe many ppl have never read because they are more strict than the general forum rules
You know this thread has gone so far off topic even Columbus couldn't find his way back.
Off topic:
Actually, Columbus found America because he was basically lost...
He started preparing his journey in Portugal as he was planning to offer his services to the Portuguese Crown. We rejected him because the Portuguese already knew you couldn't get to India taking that path .
We knew there was land there because we had been already nosing around in the area. And our analysis of charts and maps was far superior that any other country. So basically by doing the correct math, you would never take the trip.
The reason we never went to America before was because what mattered at the time was the control of the spices coming from India. So, finding a naval path to India was a priority.
Right after getting to India and securing the naval path, we went ahead and "discovered" Brasil including basically the whole of South America...
You have to see that Portugal had the best navigators of the time, it had the richest and most active ports at the time, etc... Basically, we were years ahead of time compared to everyone else. Getting to India by sea at the time was compared to getting to the moon nowadays, it was a huge endeavour, something that was not to be considered like "yeah i did some maths and i have a feeling it's this way" thing.
Vasco da Gama had a much more realistic project that proposed getting to India via the coast of Africa and that's how it happened. The Portuguese got there first.
So, Columbus went ahead and offered his project to Spain. They were clueless and desperate, so they promptly accepted his proposal...
Anyway, Columbus sailed off in direction to India (lol) and when he got to the bahamas or whatever, thinking he had finally reached India, he called the local ppl that were on the beach Indians. He didn't take long to find out he wasn't actually in India at all, but the name remained.
No ship at the time could get to India with enough provisions to maintain themselves during the trip. He actually thought that in order to get to Japan he'd only have to cover 4000Km in sea, where in fact the distance is more like 20000Km. He was lucky he found the yanks. hehe
So yeah, i wouldn't trust Columbus to find his way anywhere...
On topic:
Religion, globally speaking, has never brought peace anywhere...
From the ancient times to modern history, there are numerous examples of conflicts between religions and atrocities committed in the name of god.
I also believe that religion impairs our judgement and limits us from thinking "outside the box" in comparison to attributing all that's unexplainable or hard to explain to the work of god.
Maybe humanity once needed religion and maybe that's why it was created in the first place, but i think we're living a time where religion is finally being abandoned by the most civilized nations. People everywhere are more and more thinking and less and less believing.
In my country, not only a few decades ago, if you said that god doesn't exist, you would get weird looks like you we're saying something at least very inappropriate. At least we're evolving in some aspect...
I also believe that religion impairs our judgement and limits us from thinking "outside the box" in comparison to attributing all that's unexplainable or hard to explain to the work of god.
It most definately does, thats been the case through out the history. As I already mentioned it even affected the most brilliant scientist ever, newton. From angry zeus throwing lightings to curses which cause deceases, everything which was unknown was god's work.
Non wonder the argument of ingorance (look at the nature,a fine tuned universe, How can all this be without an intelligent creator behind it, I just can't understand that, the odds are too just too small, etc.) is the main argument when you ask a religious person why does he/she believes that god exists.
Quote:
So yeah, i wouldn't trust Columbus to find his way anywhere...
But he found his way back home (which was his plan) and vbg's argument talked about way back.
#1496518 by hOG (Crusader Mod) at 2012-09-06 13:46:44 (10 months ago) - [Report]
@ THEBiZ
Religion might not have brought global peace back in the day of Columbus, but for long stretches of time, from time to time, it ensured the stability of the Roman Empire against foreign enemies. So a regional peace, but far from Shangri-La of course. The same kind of regional peace can be seen in the history of other countries like England under and after the reign of the Tudor family and in the Scandinavian countries. Blood and Crown, Church and Kingdom.
Humanity obviously still needs religion. To give you an example of some countries which are often regarded by the liberal and leftist media in English speaking countries as "atheist". In Denmark ~80 percent of the population are members of the Evangelical-Lutheran Church. In Finland the number is even larger and about ~61 percent regard themselves as religious. Denmark, Norway and Finland both have specific paragraphs written into their constitutions, which connect religion with the state. Something that would be completely unheard of to say an American.
So if you go to a Scandinavian country and say that God doesn't exist.. you best run fool
On the other hand when you compare how religion affects scandinavian countries in their politics, the affect of religion is much lower comparing to USA where there is no state religion, quite contrary, it's forbidden by their constitution.
The fact that religion is tied to state limits it's power and brings it more close to secular values.
Even over 80% belongs to church and 60% believes in somekind of god, most of the finns support abortion, believe that evolution theory is correct, support gay marriage, accept gay and lesbian priests etc.
When there was a gay adoption debat here in finland it was quite funny when there were christians who were against it and used the bible to back up their view and then there were other christians (lesbian priest and a hetero priest) who were pro gay adoption and used bible to back their view (pun intended).
The secular laws about equality etc. force the church to follow them aswell.
For example when the church has employed secretaries etc. (people who are woking in the church but are not directly working on jobs which are related to the religion) and they have demanded that the person must be religious or belong to church, those demands have been ruled to be against the law and a rejected person who was the best for the job but was rejected due those reasons was paid compensations / or he/she was employed after the decision.
Also one group which worked among teenagers produced a video about gays and lesbians and how those peope are broken and faith can heal them.
Our culture minister cutted their aid incomes after that.
Infact the church here has become so secular that those who see themselves as true believers have left it and formed their own branches. In some cases they were forced to leave (priests who rejected to work with woman priests were first warned and then booted if they didn't leave voluntarely). They formed luther foundation (which is still tied to the state church, although the head biship of the church wants them out).
The "true believers" have also their own tv channel which is on national network.
They critisize the state church for it's open minded views and how it has lost the touch on what bible represents. They broadcast creationism propaganda and anti-islamic propaganda which is always tied to pro israel propaganda.
Quote:
Humanity obviously still needs religion.
Nah, only the weak members of human race do, and we all know what nature thinks about weak members, according to the origin of species.
#1496534 by mrunne (Power User) at 2012-09-06 14:46:01 (10 months ago) - [Report]
hOG wrote:
@ THEBiZ
So if you go to a Scandinavian country and say that God doesn't exist.. you best run fool
Say what? I've told people that god does not exist many times without being burned at the stake. This one time this woman tried to convert me asking if I wanted to hear more about the lord and such. I told her that thank you no, I'm an atheist at which point her child asked me whats an atheist. The woman got in a hurry to tug her child away when I started to explain that an atheist does not believe in god. Was hilarious
#1496535 by tidus (Power User) at 2012-09-06 14:49:32 (10 months ago) - [Report]
BoB wrote:
You know this thread has gone so far off topic even Columbus couldn't find his way back.
#1496545 by hOG (Crusader Mod) at 2012-09-06 16:01:46 (10 months ago) - [Report]
@mrrunne
Mr. unne, I was joking.
sniperfin wrote:
On the other hand when you compare how religion affects scandinavian countries in their politics, the affect of religion is much lower comparing to USA where there is no state religion, quite contrary, it's forbidden by their constitution.
The fact that religion is tied to state limits it's power and brings it more close to secular values.
Even over 80% belongs to church and 60% believes in somekind of god, most of the finns support abortion, believe that evolution theory is correct, support gay marriage, accept gay and lesbian priests etc.
When there was a gay adoption debat here in finland it was quite funny when there were christians who were against it and used the bible to back up their view and then there were other christians (lesbian priest and a hetero priest) who were pro gay adoption and used bible to back their view (pun intended).
The secular laws about equality etc. force the church to follow them aswell.
For example when the church has employed secretaries etc. (people who are woking in the church but are not directly working on jobs which are related to the religion) and they have demanded that the person must be religious or belong to church, those demands have been ruled to be against the law and a rejected person who was the best for the job but was rejected due those reasons was paid compensations / or he/she was employed after the decision.
Also one group which worked among teenagers produced a video about gays and lesbians and how those peope are broken and faith can heal them.
Our culture minister cutted their aid incomes after that.
Infact the church here has become so secular that those who see themselves as true believers have left it and formed their own branches. In some cases they were forced to leave (priests who rejected to work with woman priests were first warned and then booted if they didn't leave voluntarely). They formed luther foundation (which is still tied to the state church, although the head biship of the church wants them out).
The "true believers" have also their own tv channel which is on national network.
They critisize the state church for it's open minded views and how it has lost the touch on what bible represents. They broadcast creationism propaganda and anti-islamic propaganda which is always tied to pro israel propaganda.
I agree with a lot of what you said. But I would be careful about using the word secular about the Finnish state, which has the closest connection to its Lutheran church of all the Nordic countries, practically a state-church, and in your own words force its politically charged concepts upon the ecclesiastic rule.
I have no doubt that the Finnish society is, as my own, secularized; meaning here that faith is thought to belong to the private sphere and not public. That is seen as an expression of politeness within Nordic culture. So when someone called the "true believers" wants to set that in reverse and let the private affect the public sphere, no doubt it causes furor.
(You have no problem describing the Evangelical-Lutheran church as secular and thus liberal and you see that there can be no connection at all between my viewpoints and theirs???)
Quote:
Humanity obviously still needs religion.
Quote:
Nah, only the weak members of human race do, and we all know what nature thinks about weak members, according to the origin of species.
The weak members would then be the majority of the human race. Everywhere you go in the world you will find religion in some form. I am also surprised you would choose nature and not man in this. We have conquered nature, nature has not conquered us. Darwin is a footnote
(Sarcastic Admin) at 2012-09-05 03:34:59 (10 months ago) - [
(Mad Ultra Mod) at 2012-09-05 09:37:17 (10 months ago) - [
.
