Hey you evolutionists...

[galacticmonkey 5,000+ posts]

Nobody cares that much. Believe or not believe. I don't give a shit. You can go fuck yourself waiting for me to prove anything to you.
I bet $100 to $1 that I kind find a shit ton of irrational things you do....Why do you take such an antagonistic approach when it comes to religion. Like your irrationality is okay...because you can rationalize it. Their irrationality is not okay because you cannot rationalize it.

Explain to me how your interest in car audio and the countless thousands you have wasted is the highest and best use of your money and that no other investment or asset allocation would have nor could have provided a higher return on satisfaction. Let's see your empiracle proof you heartless jackass? I doubt your mind of copy and paste off the internets could provide ME with anything but a reasonable argument. Hell, you can't even make a god damn decision with what you want to do with that worthless POS van. Yet, you say it's a fun hobby. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

It is rational. I like loud stereos, therefore I bought a ton of stuff to make a loud stereo. Whats the problem there?

 

[perfecxionX 10+ year member]

Doesn't matter. If you don't spend every second and every cent on the highest and best use, you aren't being rational.
Yes, it get's to be a bit ridiculous...but being antagonistic about those who believe in God to provide irrefutable proof is silly as well. However, this street runs both ways. I equally dislike those who push religion as much as I do those who push against it. You spend all this time railing against religion when you aren't spending similar effort on your spending habits, career goals, personal goals, etc.

I dont think anybody is demanding that every thing you do be rational; much of our daily lives and pursuits do not follow some line of logic, or may even be irrational. But just consider for a second the situation we are in today. Religious divisions seem to provoke more violence in the world than race, political ideology, or even nationality. Happily, most religious people in the west have had their beliefs infused with tolerance and may consider their personal beliefs benign but even in our own country there are countless consequences to religious dogmatism: opposition to science education, contraception education, stem cell research, violence over abortion, homosexual bigotry, trampling the 1rst amendment, and on and on...

In any of these controversies all someone needs to do is invoke 'faith' and the debate is over. All you need to do is say "my faith teaches me that stem cell research is immoral," and thats it, end of story. Its considered offensive to most people to even challenge such a statement. This is a norm that has to change, and is why i take the topic so seriously. Religious dogmatism has consequences. So many people seem to wander through life without ever giving these beliefs a second thought and if i can just make someone stop to think a little more critically about the things they believe then it is absolutely worth the effort.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2RlmiF_zy4&feature=related

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

It is rational. I like loud stereos, therefore I bought a ton of stuff to make a loud stereo. Whats the problem there?

I like God.

the end.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

I dont think anybody is demanding that every thing you do be rational; much of our daily lives and pursuits do not follow some line of logic, or may even be irrational. But just consider for a second the situation we are in today. Religious divisions seem to provoke more violence in the world than race, political ideology, or even nationality. Happily, most religious people in the west have had their beliefs infused with tolerance and may consider their personal beliefs benign but even in our own country there are countless consequences to religious dogmatism: opposition to science education, contraception education, stem cell research, violence over abortion, homosexual bigotry, trampling the 1rst amendment, and on and on...
In any of these controversies all someone needs to do is invoke 'faith' and the debate is over. All you need to do is say "my faith teaches me that stem cell research is immoral," and thats it, end of story. Its considered offensive to most people to even challenge such a statement. This is a norm that has to change, and is why i take the topic so seriously. Religious dogmatism has consequences. So many people seem to wander through life without ever giving these beliefs a second thought and if i can just make someone stop to think a little more critically about the things they believe then it is absolutely worth the effort.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2RlmiF_zy4&feature=related

My god doesn't care about those things. My God doesn't care that I get smashed out of my skull on the weekends. My God doesn't intervene and is apathetic to the human condition. I believe in God as a thing that grades you on how you lived your life.

How many times to you compromise what you felt was the right thing to do? I think stem cell reserach is okay. I don't think religion should be taught in school as a science, but I do think there should be religious education if it can be done properly and fairly. I think it would be good to be exposed to other religious perspectives for a global economy. Class would be an elective though. Don't care about the queers. That's a states rights issue. If the state doesn't like gays, make them move to a state that does...unless it can be proven that "gay" has about as much choice as "race" and I don't believe it does.

As for the bolded part, the name of the game is making money...and using it how you see fit. I donate considerable sums to animal shelters because that's what I care about. Sure people are starving to death in the streets, but I am unconcerned with them.

Don't get me confused with those people riding around on their bikes in 100* weather telling me I shouldn't drink in my own yard.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

What makes you think that ending religion is not a career or personal goal?
You're choosing to define what is valuable and what is not in a seemingly arbitrary way.

My cumulative time in this thread arguing about religion is extraordinarily trivial compared to the time I have taken to understand it, which was the ultimate goal in the first place. Even if I can do something as simple as dissuade another person from logical fallacies, the time it takes is really quite insignificant, and yet it can be very easily argued that, even if I did spend a great deal of time for something that could actually better society, I did not waste a minute.

Regardless, the bulk of my time is not spent arguing on the internet against religion.

Let's also keep in mind the topic of the thread. If someone posted a thread about how you shouldn't give your kids vaccines, I would be posting just as much in there, but there is a definite lack of antagonists for the few other discussions of intellect on this site.

I was mainly referring to galatic's approach when referring to antagonism. I'd rather not get into it with you on highest and best use of time. We could go on and on, and in the end, we'd agree to disagree.

 

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

I bet $100 to $1 that I kind find a shit ton of irrational things you do....Why do you take such an antagonistic approach when it comes to religion. Like your irrationality is okay...because you can rationalize it. Their irrationality is not okay because you cannot rationalize it.

I perform a highly irrational ritual.....I smoke cigarettes. How stupid is that? I spend $15-$20/week on cigarettes, probably 1 hour per day (cumulative) smoking them, and it takes years off my life by doing so. I know I should quit. But after a stressful day at work or during a stressful time, that first puff is just such a reliever! Calms the nerves and gives you a chance to just step back and relax for a minute. I understand that the best thing I could do for myself is ween myself off cigarettes or attempt to stop cold turkey. There are all kinds of companies and organizations that tell me I should quit and try to persuade me into action.

My irrational behavior has a scientific basis in the psychology of addictive habits, addictive chemicals in the cigarettes & the biochemical reactions to both by my body.

Maybe we should view religion the same way? Religion to the religious is the cigarette to a smoker. It costs $15-$20/week in donations to the church, around an hour a day in praying (or performing other rituals) and reading the bible (or other religious book) and forces them to spend most of their life denying reality. After a stressful day or during a stressful time, reciting that prayer is just so relieving! It gives them a chance to calm their nerves. A chance to step back and relax, allows them to feel less alone in this world and hopeful for the next. So why is it wrong that we rally against this irrational behavior if it's encouraged to rally against mine? Yes, mine carries health risks, both for myself and potentially those inhaling my second-hand smoke. But theirs carries intellectual and logical consequences that affect society not just in the form of public discourse, but in the way it shapes public policy. Stem cell research, a pharmacists and doctors willingness and legal responsibility to provide certain pharmaceuticals to patients or perform certain procedures, abortion, wars between nations and ongoing terrorist attacks, rights of those in a same-*** relationships, etc etc.

Why shouldn't we take such an antagonistic approach to religion when organizations such as whitelies takes such an antagonistic approach towards smokers? Why shouldn't we encourage the religious to ween themselves off religion with rational and logical thought and scientific explanations in the same way we encourage smokers to ween themselves off cigarettes? Or better yet, to stop "cold turkey". Why shouldn't we attempt to persuade them into action?

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

Why shouldn't we take such an antagonistic approach to religion when organizations such as whitelies takes such an antagonistic approach towards smokers?

They shouldn't....except I share a burden of your health care costs. I drink and drive so it all comes out in the wash. I have steadfastly advocated a non-agressive form of religious practice. I don't think those queer boys should come around my house when I am on beer 9 of a 12 pack and I don't think people should force you to quit smoking.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

rights of those in a same-*** relationships, etc etc.

This is different. Because states define the legal and financial aspects of relationships, they should also be allowed to define who is and who is not allowed to particiate. Legal marriage is an act of the state no different than putting up a stop sign. There is a committee process by which signs are erected, where they are erected, along with size, shape, and height. The guarentees created by marriage are available to me and a woman, me and a man, me and my cat through legal mechanisms already in place.

 

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

This is different. Because states define the legal and financial aspects of relationships, they should also be allowed to define who is and who is not allowed to particiate. Legal marriage is an act of the state no different than putting up a stop sign. There is a committee process by which signs are erected, where they are erected, along with size, shape, and height. The guarentees created by marriage are available to me and a woman, me and a man, me and my cat through legal mechanisms already in place.

It is defined by the state, however that discourse and eventual policy passing is defined by the religious view held by the constituency and policy makers. Certainly it's possible that one could form a secular argument against same-*** marriage.......however, what is the #1 statement made against same-*** marriage? "The bible defines marriage as being between a man and a woman"........and that statement is commonly uttered by constituents and policy makers alike.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

It is defined by the state, however that discourse and eventual policy passing is defined by the religious view held by the constituency and policy makers. Certainly it's possible that one could form a secular argument against same-*** marriage.......however, what is the #1 statement made against same-*** marriage? "The bible defines marriage as being between a man and a woman"........and that statement is commonly uttered by constituents and policy makers alike.

A friend committed ******* the saturday before last and it got me thinking....why is attempting ******* against the law? It's you life...and quite different from homicide. Then I remember this Law and Order Episode about assisted ******* (which I think is okay...for them, not me) and how it's in the best interest of the state to keep people alive. The more I read and study the bible, the more I reflect on my limited knowledge in philosophy about the nature of the state. The Bible seems to be a mechanism to reinforce the policies of the state....thus, I am suspect that the Bible is a guiding document to salvation at all. It's too much about the state and not enough about personal experience, expectations, and standards.

I digress on that point; however.

I do find it somewhat difficult to navigate the argument that the state can define marriage whatever it likes because marriage is a product of the state if the state is basing such policymaking on the bible. Nevertheless, the state can and should define marriage as it will. I don't have any issue with the States that have democratically elected to allow gay marriage. Gays being married do not make my relationship less valuable. (Provided that one day I can con a girl into marrying me. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif)

 

[galacticmonkey 5,000+ posts]

My god doesn't care about those things. My God doesn't care that I get smashed out of my skull on the weekends. My God doesn't intervene and is apathetic to the human condition. I believe in God as a thing that grades you on how you lived your life.
How many times to you compromise what you felt was the right thing to do? I think stem cell reserach is okay. I don't think religion should be taught in school as a science, but I do think there should be religious education if it can be done properly and fairly. I think it would be good to be exposed to other religious perspectives for a global economy. Class would be an elective though. Don't care about the queers. That's a states rights issue. If the state doesn't like gays, make them move to a state that does...unless it can be proven that "gay" has about as much choice as "race" and I don't believe it does.

As for the bolded part, the name of the game is making money...and using it how you see fit. I donate considerable sums to animal shelters because that's what I care about. Sure people are starving to death in the streets, but I am unconcerned with them.

Don't get me confused with those people riding around on their bikes in 100* weather telling me I shouldn't drink in my own yard.

I dont see a problem with that. You believe in it, but you arent brainwashed like some.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

I dont see a problem with that. You believe in it, but you arent brainwashed like some.

But my belief still requires faith. Faith that the things I do "extra" to make the world (what I feel) better will be rewarded. There must be some reason I work and contribute to my community vs kicking in doors and robbing folks. The motivation isn't a one based on fear of police. Because I am unable to explain or articulate it, I think it's something drawing me to a thought that there's something greater than myself I should be concerned with.

 

[galacticmonkey 5,000+ posts]

But you admit that theres no real proof and that its all just faith, which for someone who has no faith would require a blind belief with no evidence.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

But you admit that theres no real proof and that its all just faith, which for someone who has no faith would require a blind belief with no evidence.

Of course it's all faith. There's no doubt about it. But faith that Jesus is the son of God and all that other jazz....that's a bit hard to swallow. I haven't found an organized religion that believes what I believe. So, I don't have anything to cram don't anyone's throat, unfortunately.

 

[FoxPro5 5,000+ posts]

i am god,

There you go. To know one's self is the full expression of Godliness.

God is not a "thing." No thing can be everything and nothing at the same time. God is not polarized. If God is a thing, He is polarized as that thing and cannot be something else. He then cannot be all. All is not a thing, it's everything. God is *supposed* to be everything and no-thing. Check it, yo.

And holy shmoley is there some horrible trashes on "science" in this tread ('cept for a few peeps). By definition "science" or the method of it, must be falseafiable. If you set a "science" experiment up hoping to "see" or get any result at all.....ummmmm your aint doin' it right, yo. The goal of science is to contribute to current knowlege. Science is not a business of proving things; it's a way of asking better questions. Science can never prove anything, it just rules something else out (preferrably those things that are less intelligent....cough...like "intelligent" design //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif )