Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 05, 2015, 11:03:11 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 45
1  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Sexual freedom of speech on: Today at 01:38:17 pm
How do you feel about seeing two persons of the same gender kissing?
2  Forum Community / Forum Community / Sexual freedom of speech on: Today at 01:27:05 pm
A fifty day poll.
3  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: RIP Leonard Nimoy on: February 27, 2015, 02:45:18 pm
RIP
4  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Libertarians and abortion on: February 19, 2015, 11:50:39 am
Why not be both?
5  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: for Christians: when does the individual 'Fall into sin'? on: February 19, 2015, 11:45:08 am

the commandment is not to murder. Murder and kill are not synonyms.

There is no difference between the two. Either way the victim is dead. Both
involve intentional killing. Both are really the same. There is a difference
between unintentional killing and intentional killing. War involves intentional
killing. The genocide of millions of Jews by the Nazis was "legal". So if you're
going to split hairs between "legal" and "illegal" killing, that is the same
as saying that the killing of millions of Jews was not a sin because based
on the law it couldn't really be called murder.

Um...No. By your standards then deaths caused in earthquakes and hurricains are murders.


How can they be classified as "intentional"?

If either way the victim is dead, then those deaths are murders, because there's no difference between kill and murder. At least that's how I read your post.

Even leaving aside nature, if someone dies in a car crash, is the other driver a murderer?

As for war, wars are killing, not murder, unless the victim is on the same side as the perpetrator.

I said "intentional" killing. The point is that "Just War" is an oxymoron.
If it wrong to kill people, there are no exceptions. As for car accidents. The point is that they are accidents, which means that they are not intentional. I do not call myself a "Christian", but I would point out that Jesus never killed anyone. He was a pacifist, which is a good thing.
6  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: for Christians: when does the individual 'Fall into sin'? on: February 18, 2015, 02:53:58 pm
the commandment is not to murder. Murder and kill are not synonyms.

There is no difference between the two. Either way the victim is dead. Both
involve intentional killing. Both are really the same. There is a difference
between unintentional killing and intentional killing. War involves intentional
killing. The genocide of millions of Jews by the Nazis was "legal". So if you're
going to split hairs between "legal" and "illegal" killing, that is the same
as saying that the killing of millions of Jews was not a sin because based
on the law it couldn't really be called murder.

Um...No. By your standards then deaths caused in earthquakes and hurricains are murders.


How can they be classified as "intentional"?
7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary Landslide in 2016 on: February 18, 2015, 01:53:03 pm
Of course it begs the question, if Hillary was so great, why did she lose to Obama in the first place?

This.
This vote alone should disqualify her from ever again being elected to any office.
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Hillary Clinton on: February 17, 2015, 11:33:32 am
I am trying to get a better idea of why people support or oppose her.
My choice: oppose too hawkish
9  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: for Christians: when does the individual 'Fall into sin'? on: February 17, 2015, 09:33:32 am
the commandment is not to murder. Murder and kill are not synonyms.

There is no difference between the two. Either way the victim is dead. Both
involve intentional killing. Both are really the same. There is a difference
between unintentional killing and intentional killing. War involves intentional
killing. The genocide of millions of Jews by the Nazis was "legal". So if you're
going to split hairs between "legal" and "illegal" killing, that is the same
as saying that the killing of millions of Jews was not a sin because based
on the law it couldn't really be called murder.
10  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: for Christians: when does the individual 'Fall into sin'? on: February 16, 2015, 05:31:28 pm
Anyone who supports war for any reason is committing the worst SIN humans are capable of. What could be worse than murder or intentional killing which are really the same thing?

Why is it ok to break the commandment "Do not kill"? Why do so many Christians believe in only nine commandments, arrogantly omitting the most important one?

This kind of ignorance is an abomination.
11  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / pistis kai epistēmē on: February 16, 2015, 02:03:10 pm
pistis kai epistēmē (faith and knowledge)

There are two kinds of knowledge
a priori and a posteriori
A posteriori is knowledge obtained by
experience.
Existentialism, for example, is based on a posteriori knowledge, as is science.
A priori knowledge, on the other hand, is based on reason.
Where does "faith" fit into this equation?
How can you know anything merely by "faith"?
What is the difference between "faith" and "blind faith"?
Is faith merely a kind of intuition?
If so, then it can be wrong, because intuition can be wrong.
Reason and experience (or more to the point empirical knowledge) can be
wrong, as well, but they seem to be a more reliable way of knowledge than
mere "faith", because they can be tested and proven wrong.
Can "faith" be tested?
What exactly does the word "faith" mean?
I don't understand how anyone can believe based on faith,
because it seems to be a concept that is difficult to define
or at least understand.

I say faith and knowledge.
Would it be better to say "faith or knowledge" or even "faith vs knowledge"?

Can faith be tested?
12  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: How strongly do you agree or disagree? on: February 16, 2015, 01:34:35 pm
The idea of "God" is problematic. The word "God" implies a male and therefore human deity.
How can "God" be omnipresent and be limited to a human body?
In so far as religion involves this anthropomorphic concept of a male deity, a male "body",
then how does it make any sense?
If Jesus is "God" how could the baby Jesus be "God". How can a little infant be one and the same as the infinite all knowing all powerful all present all good "God"?
13  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: How strongly do you agree or disagree? on: February 16, 2015, 01:29:12 pm
A remarkably bigoted and ignorant statement.

Hardly a convincing argument for whatever it is that you believe. All emotion and no logic.
Not very tolerant either.
In hindsight I take back what I said, given the responses.
14  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: How strongly do you agree or disagree? on: February 16, 2015, 01:27:46 pm
A remarkably bigoted and ignorant statement.

Hardly a convincing argument for whatever it is that you believe. All emotion and no logic.
Not very tolerant either.

If we're going for logic here all that is needed is one counter example, from the entirety of human history, to prove this statement wrong. Given you yourself said "religion can be good" even you think religion poisons everything is false.

It depends what is meant by religion. A better statement would be that reason and logic are superior to blind faith.
That statement, of course, was based on the title of Hitchen's book "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything"

You make a good argument; therefore I am changing my vote from choice 8 to "It depends on the religion".
15  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: How strongly do you agree or disagree? on: February 16, 2015, 01:21:16 pm
0

Even though I tend to believe that religion is, on balance, a negative force in society, these sort of grand, absolute statements are inherently absurd and meaningless.

OK, that's a better way of looking at it.
16  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: How strongly do you agree or disagree? on: February 16, 2015, 12:48:26 pm
Religions are by nature intolerant. Religion is the idea that what you believe is true and what everyone else believes is false. Religion is bad because it involves sectarianism. It causes wars.
The interfaith movement is an exception to all this, but the interfaith movement should be all inclusive, as much as possible. It is hard to include people who don't want to be included.

I am open minded as to religions that go against the sectarian trend of religions of the past.
I voted 8 because I have mixed feelings about the statement.
But, given all the evil committed in the name of God, I find a lot of truth in the statement.
17  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: How strongly do you agree or disagree? on: February 16, 2015, 12:43:42 pm
A remarkably bigoted and ignorant statement.

Hardly a convincing argument for whatever it is that you believe. All emotion and no logic.
Not very tolerant either.
18  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / How strongly do you agree or disagree? on: February 14, 2015, 08:52:23 pm
I'd say about an 8 as far as theistic religion goes
The more strongly you disagree the lower the number
The more strongly you agree the higher the number
with 5 being undecided mixed feelings etc

You can change your vote as often as you change your mind
My beliefs are always changing so I will probably change my vote

you can also vote for 8 different options for those of you who can't make up their minds

I think religion can be good or bad, but I think people can be good without it and it often tends to cause mental problems, division and war, it could be a path to peace but peace would come more quickly if everyone gave up on religion. Religion can be used to comfort people, but so can drugs.

19  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Atheist man opens fire on Muslim students at UNC Chapel Hill on: February 12, 2015, 04:37:38 pm
Maher I believe has said there is no such thing as moderate or liberal Islam and that all Muslims believe X, Y, & Z blah blah.

Here are some youtube videos with Harris

Sam Harris:

"There are hundreds of millions
of Muslims who are nominal
Muslims who don't take the
faith seriously." who don't
want to kill apostates who
are horrified by ISIS" etc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo7z2Ml2tI0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG4WCLOBPbo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVl3BJoEoAU
20  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Atheist man opens fire on Muslim students at UNC Chapel Hill on: February 12, 2015, 03:32:36 pm
Maher I believe has said there is no such thing as moderate or liberal Islam and that all Muslims believe X, Y, & Z blah blah.

If he did, that was stupid. I will have to look at the youtube video and get back to you on that.
21  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Atheist man opens fire on Muslim students at UNC Chapel Hill on: February 12, 2015, 03:29:11 pm
If nobody is blaming atheism, then what is all the arguing here for?

That Atheist extremists like Bill Maher and Sam Harris's saying Islam is an enemy of the West on television should be treated with the equivalency of Muslim political leaders like Ahmadinejad going in front of the U.N. saying the Holocaust never happened.

It is propaganda which incites violence.

You may have a valid point. I saw that show, but I can't remember everything, it was a while ago. I don't think either of them believe that all Muslims are bad people (I obviously don't), I think that they would concede that there are plenty of moderate Muslims. I am sure that they could have chosen their words more wisely.
I for one, have studied Sufism and that doesn't fit in with fundamentalist Islam at all, in fact many more right wing
Muslims consider Sufis heretics.
22  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Atheist man opens fire on Muslim students at UNC Chapel Hill on: February 12, 2015, 03:22:50 pm
As far as their criticism of Islam in particular, well, certainly there are moderate Muslims, but today radical Islam does seem to be problematic, but there are extremists in a lot of religions.

In the following essay, Sam Harris is critical of all religions, not just Muslims:

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/killing-the-buddha/
23  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Atheist man opens fire on Muslim students at UNC Chapel Hill on: February 12, 2015, 03:18:14 pm
If nobody is blaming atheism, then what is all the arguing here for?

Atheism is impossible to blame in good faith (pun intended). Atheism is a no-thing. There's a certain type of worldview that is atheistic, and to some extent preoccupied with this fact, but also characterized by a certain degree of intellectual intransigence and often an animus against Muslims specifically, that I think is what we're arguing about whether or not to blame. (I don't think 'militant atheism' and 'New Atheism' are especially honest terms for this worldview, but it's definitely an identifiable, and specific, ideological current.)

I think what's going on with Dawkins here is that he's concerned about whataboutery, even if the whataboutery is comparing incidents that are, while similar in kind, vastly different in degree. I think this is a reasonable concern for him to have, but I don't think he's doing himself any favors; he really does just seem like he's freaking out, and it's unbecoming. (Then again, Twitter has...never really been a medium in which he acquits himself very well in general.)

My view of the "New atheists" is that they are simply against the abuses of religion. It is wrong to compare them
to religious extremists or call them fundamentalists or to call them 'militant'. They are asserting the right to criticisize religion. You
could say that they are "evangelical" in the sense that they are supporting the superiority of reason over
blind faith. Faith is believing something without science or reason to back it up, and while I can't disprove
it, perhaps, as a reason to believe, I don't 'get it'.
For millenia (at least some of) religion has persecuted atheists, infidels, heretics and scientists.
Even in this century you had the monkey trial.
Atheists and scientists have contributed a lot to the world. Religion (generally speaking) has held us back.
I like the quote from "Inherit the Wind", "I may be rancid butter, but I'm on your side of the bread."
While they may not be as diplomatic as some people would prefer, in being critical of religion, their intentions
is to promote a reasonable debate vis a vis the usefulness of religion.
I might not agree with all their political views, but their defense of reason as a method of seeking truth appeals to me.
24  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Atheist man opens fire on Muslim students at UNC Chapel Hill on: February 12, 2015, 02:56:24 pm
If nobody is blaming atheism, then what is all the arguing here for?
25  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Atheist man opens fire on Muslim students at UNC Chapel Hill on: February 12, 2015, 02:53:56 pm
Is anyone here blaming atheism for this murderers murdering ways?

Good question.

What about Grumps?
"Damn atheists"
He isn't saying so, in so many words. It wasn't a very nice thing to say, however.

Pretty sure Grumps was just being facetious.


I missed that, ok, then.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 45


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines