Kansas Really Damn Close To Legalizing Anti-Gay Discrimination

[Kohan]

your capacity to not-read never ceases to amaze me, kohan. i described several varying degrees of vitriol, none of them pure. most had a large infusion of self-righteousness and idiocy.

Is this a serious post? I must agree with hey here.

When I talked about vitriol, I was referring to the overall perception, and the reaction of mockery and dismissal. I didn't even quote what you had written, as I was not addressing your childish assessment specifically. (That isn't an insult, by the way—I doubt you or anyone else could see your assessment as anything other than a tale of children yelling at a playground.) Even if I were, it does not matter if the examples you created carried tones of other things. That does not mean that it isn't vitriolic to take a discussion and playfully act as if all of its participants are the lowest common denominators.

If you want to attempt to derail a conversation by first painting everyone as foolish—playing the centric—and then by arguing semantics, I suppose you can, but you're only cementing the point that other people were trying to make.

[ringthree]

Whether there is a factual basis for religion or not, it's not your place or anyone else's to tell someone they aren't allowed to believe a certain thing or are "a fool" for believing it.

I don't really know what to consider myself because I'm neither religious nor "agnostic". I believe if life was created then it was purely by someone else's accident whether by chance or by design. I don't believe in the Bible but I have read it. My views on religion have evolved significantly since I first started posting here.

However, in a logical way, I do firmly believe that if you walk around touting that people who hold religious values are stupid then you are honestly no better than religious folk who walk around touting that people who don't hold them are stupid.

Whether facts support religion or not, people are allowed to hold their own beliefs. It's when they try to use those beliefs to oppress, indoctrinate, suppress free will, or otherwise alter the course of humanity that I take issue. If being religious gives people a sense of unity and allows them to treat others great, then fine - whatever. I draw the line when you start "casting people into hell" or "trying to change laws to promote religious freedom" because let's be honest here - the majority of loud assholes that want "religious freedom" are the very same ones who, given the chance, would establish Christianity as a national religion, law, and way of life if you allowed them to. And that is the truth.

As I said I don't care what you believe. But saying "I believe" is not a debate. It's just a statement in the face of fact on this forum. So lets stop using the word debate when we talk about religion, because a debate is not what we are having.

There are intelligent and intellectual defenses of the existence of god. As I said Thomas Aquinas is a great start if you are interested in making an actual logical argument.

[BaneTheBrawler]

am i? because i think BG does a little circlejerk any time religion comes up?

that's quite the leap.

[kuronosan]

As I said I don't care what you believe. But saying "I believe" is not a debate. It's just a statement in the face of fact on this forum. So lets stop using the word debate when we talk about religion, because a debate is not what we are having.

There are intelligent and intellectual defenses of the existence of god. As I said Thomas Aquinas is a great start if you are interested in making an actual logical argument.

Please begin your argument as to how Thomas Aquinas is an appropriate intellectual defense of the existence of God or "a" god. Go.

[Serra]

As I said I don't care what you believe. But saying "I believe" is not a debate. It's just a statement in the face of fact on this forum. So lets stop using the word debate when we talk about religion, because a debate is not what we are having.

There are intelligent and intellectual defenses of the existence of god. As I said Thomas Aquinas is a great start if you are interested in making an actual logical argument.

Both sides of the existence of god(s) debate are are built around the statement "I believe". Is there a difference between the statements "I believe there is a god" and "I do not believe there is a god" -- because I'm pretty sure neither side can prove that they're correct.

[hey]

Both sides of the existence of god(s) debate are are built around the statement "I believe". Is there a difference between the statements "I believe there is a god" and "I do not believe there is a god" -- because I'm pretty sure neither side can prove that they're correct.

The latter is "i do not believe". That's the difference. You'd have a point if it was "i believe there is no god", but most people don't say that for a reason.

Not believing something is the default. From birth, you automatically don't believe anything, until something changes that.

[Serra]

I fail to see how you're pointing out anything but semantics.

There are plenty of things we are told and believe without having to experience ourselves or see proof of. This might be a long shot, but I'm assuming no one here has ever drank bleach or seen anyone who has. And yet, we all know not to.
(This example provided by needing to do laundry today~)

[hey]

Do people just say semantics as if the word magically nullifies any argument?

You asked what the difference is. What kind of answer were you expecting? You literally asked for an explanation of the semantics.

[Serra]

It was a rhetorical question meant to get at the point was that there is no definitive proof one way or another.

[hey]

Right, there's no proof, or even compelling evidence, so by default, the only logical thing is to not believe it.

[ringthree]

Please begin your argument as to how Thomas Aquinas is an appropriate intellectual defense of the existence of God or "a" god. Go.

Here is the very most basic explanation: http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/course...ntanalysis.htm

I am not sure if you were expecting something different.

[hey]

lol, when did those become good arguments?

[kuronosan]

Nope, that's what I was expecting you to do.

[Kryssan]

The Summa Theological was a monumental document for its time that started a revolution, but the claim that Aquinas proved God or set up a method to do so is bunk. And has been debunked many times over.

One of the main issues with organised religion besides people using it as an overt control tool to get the objects of their desires is that is a cap on imagination itself. It presuppositions that there is only one correct explanation that we must all accept that was developed by another human being's imagination alone, lacking any evidence to support it and always displaced by the scientific method. As I noted in my previous post, its actors have irrevocably damaged our progression as a species many times over. Even in simple ways; IE the god did it and because I can't figure it out nobody else can either excuse. Even Newton fell for that one. Thankfully, Laplace shat all over that; you know, a few hundred years later. It is... gross, how often that has been the case throughout history.

Having faith in something is not an issue, and should not be an issue. We can laugh at Greene and Tyson when they go at it, but recognise what exactly is going on there. I personally do not think Greene will be able to prove what he has set off to do even with my limited understanding of the field without some fundamental changes in our understanding of the universe, but it wouldn't be the first time that were to occur ( baryonic matter is so little of the universe, so much left for us to learn ). Even if it doesn't though, it will still prove something. It is not the emptiness that religion proffers. Not yet anyway, standby for the string theory religiosity coming to a theatre near you.

[ringthree]

The Summa Theological was a monumental document for its time that started a revolution, but the claim that Aquinas proved God or set up a method to do so is bunk. And has been debunked many times over.

One of the main issues with organised religion besides people using it as an overt control tool to get the objects of their desires is that is a cap on imagination itself. It presuppositions that there is only one correct explanation that we must all accept that was developed by another human being's imagination alone, lacking any evidence to support it and always displaced by the scientific method. As I noted in my previous post, its actors have irrevocably damaged our progression as a species many times over. Even in simple ways; IE the god did it and because I can't figure it out nobody else can either excuse. Even Newton fell for that one. Thankfully, Laplace shat all over that; you know, a few hundred years later. It is... gross, how often that has been the case throughout history.

Having faith in something is not an issue, and should not be an issue. We can laugh at Greene and Tyson when they go at it, but recognise what exactly is going on there. I personally do not think Greene will be able to prove what he has set off to do even with my limited understanding of the field without some fundamental changes in our understanding of the universe, but it wouldn't be the first time that were to occur ( baryonic matter is so little of the universe, so much left for us to learn ). Even if it doesn't though, it will still prove something. It is not the emptiness that religion proffers. Not yet anyway, standby for the string theory religiosity coming to a theatre near you.

I think several of you are making the mistake that I think they are perfect arguments. I am just saying that you can have a logical discussion from these arguments. That is not what we have in this forum. We have "I believe, and you believe something else, and if we both believe something we then we both must be right". There is no factual, logic explanation as to why belief makes god exist.

[Kryssan]

Actually, I really don't see the difference. Aquinas was a Catholic, constrained by his own religion. He tried to reconcile it, and was poorer for it. His boon was getting other people to think, and for that we can thank him. He opened doors his own Church closed, but he was sidled by said Church in how he could not bring himself to divorce himself from what he reasoned was not accurate. I mean, Das Kapital and Summa Theological are honestly tomes, and they are interesting; but not from a science standpoint. They've served their purpose outside of providing context for future generations.

Edit: I think I should also throw out there, that religion's imagination can be interesting. Some mythos has really great stories. But they are just that. They should make you think, and draw your own conclusions - not blindly accept what others have said on it.

Of course, I'm now going to be a bit hypocritical and admit I'm not claiming I've read either of those tomes ( cliff notes and peer papers yes please ); I included Das Kapital because it shares one comparison point with Aquina's book - it got people to think. Both of them are maddening though, and I don't think anyone can claim to have actually read either fully.

[kuronosan]

Aquinas was a precursor to those trying to reconcile Jesus and dinosaurs. His teaching basically revolved around the idea that God existed whether you believed or not.

How is that logical at all? He was a fan of Aristotle's work and while his ideas were good and people began to think, how does that constitute the existence of God?

Someone said it to me best years ago, and I ignored it. It's a copout to say "hey I think critically and I believe in God that way I can get the best of both worlds, if I'm right about God I go to heaven but if I'm wrong then it won't matter lol".

No.

[archibaldcrane]

Are we being asked to prove negatives in here? Lol

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

[ringthree]

Aquinas was a precursor to those trying to reconcile Jesus and dinosaurs. His teaching basically revolved around the idea that God existed whether you believed or not.

How is that logical at all? He was a fan of Aristotle's work and while his ideas were good and people began to think, how does that constitute the existence of God?

Someone said it to me best years ago, and I ignored it. It's a copout to say "hey I think critically and I believe in God that way I can get the best of both worlds, if I'm right about God I go to heaven but if I'm wrong then it won't matter lol".

No.

Actually, as Kryssan stated, Aquinas was a Catholic and was actually the precursor of people that stopped denying science to reconcile it with religion. He was one of the reasons that the Catholic church tries not to conflict with science.

[kuronosan]

Except no. Saying that there's room for non-believers because God exists regardless and that his love permeates is not proof.

And his five points are logical fallacies. You don't prove something exists by lacking evidence that it doesn't. That proves that faith is possible, not that it's well-grounded.