who thinks this actually works?

[bereasonable]

this is going to solve our problems?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/us/politics/07prayer.html

Personally I think those people lack critical thinking skills and Perry like most of these religious leaders is a phony. To quote Lisa Simpson:
Prayer. The last refuge of a scoundrel.

[MrVicchio]

this is going to solve our problems?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/us/politics/07prayer.html

Personally I think those people lack critical thinking skills and Perry like most of these religious leaders is a phony. To quote Lisa Simpson:
Prayer. The last refuge of a scoundrel.

I ask: what harm is there in prayer?

[CutterJohn]

I ask: what harm is there in prayer?

None, but it does no good either, unless you find the ritual of it calming.

[MrVicchio]

None, but it does no good either, unless you find the ritual of it calming.

The Bible Tells us, towards the end days, man will reject God, believing instead in himself. Man has done this before, the Tower of Babel for example. I for one find it sad to watch people reject God because it's the cool thing to do.

I understand the concept, believing in God requires that you accept responsibility for your actions. Something that Progressive Thought has told us we're not to take. It's not your fault, do what feels good, etc... etc...

[Hamma]

I accept responsibility for my actions and I never have and never will believe in a higher power. That's a rather broad brush you are painting with there.. ;)

[CutterJohn]

You will not find enlightment from that one. He is trapped in samsara just as we are. Not that I believe this either, just reminding you in case you forget the very large number of people today and in the past who do not believe in that book, or never even heard of it in the first place.


One who doesn't believe in the god Jehova is no different than you not believing in Father Zeus or Wodin or Ra or Quetzalcoatl or Brahma or ten thousand other deities from a thousand other pantheons, remembered or forgotten.

[MrVicchio]

I accept responsibility for my actions and I never have and never will believe in a higher power. That's a rather broad brush you are painting with there.. ;)

I understand that. But is it really different a broad brush then those mocking the prayer event?

I'm merely postulating my theory as for the lack of faith in modern man as an off shoot of progressive thinking. I'm not saying it applies to every person exactly.

[CutterJohn]

I'm merely postulating my theory as for the lack of faith in modern man as an off shoot of progressive thinking.

My theory is that there are far less extreme punishments for apostasy. Fear, the threat of violence or social ostracism, or plain old peer pressure are good at getting people to toe the party line.

There have always been athiests and nonbelievers. They just don't get punished for their lack of belief anymore(In many countries at least).

The open admittance of a lack of faith is an offshoot of progressive thinking, not the reverse. The whole 'Lets not beat or kill people because they think different' line of thought.

[Sovereign]

The Bible Tells us, towards the end days, man will reject God, believing instead in himself. Man has done this before, the Tower of Babel for example. I for one find it sad to watch people reject God because it's the cool thing to do.

I understand the concept, believing in God requires that you accept responsibility for your actions. Something that Progressive Thought has told us we're not to take. It's not your fault, do what feels good, etc... etc...
Yeah because religion is fixated on reason and not fevered by enamored feelings or wild impulses. Oh wait, what about the various times of the medieval era where they called for mass exterminating crusades which were supposedly at the time irrefutable because "god wills it" After all if you had that trifling progressive thought that would inflict you with reservations it would stop you from committing such atrocities! :ugh: Oh yes it has to be the cool factor it cant be because of maintaining rational which is the polar opposite of faith or perhaps we should just invoke Occams razor here? :doh:

Classic case of the charlatan, it seems by your own account that tale is warped entirely. In fact the Judeo-christian doctrine conveys responsibility in a very different manner, the prevailing christian drive of the day is spurred by such calls as "surrender yourself to god!" or "let him take the wheel in your life to be saved" Many would argue that this realm of thought actually subtracts personal responsibility, for instance "cast all your troubles onto him" thus the messiah doctrine at play instills this lesser ethical state of saying "well if I just accept that this guy way back when was crucified for me so that all my sins are forgiven and I'll be guaranteed way into this heaven" thus if this line of thought is correct, one can be pre-absolved of murder or other such prime sins as you have the get to heaven free card at play because you have "accepted this savior into your life" needless to say this is the same lunacy drives sucide bombings and even christian terrorist such as the one in Norway recently which is a distinctive bane to human progress ie progressive movement(s) you so adamantly oppose. If you still feel however that you can in fact justify such dogma then here is what I want to know and I'll quote Hitchens on this; "tell me one great ethical action that only a believer can perform, because I can give you list of vices that can only be attributed to one of deep faith." ex: human sacrifice, circumcision
I understand that. But is it really different a broad brush then those mocking the prayer event?

I'm merely postulating my theory as for the lack of faith in modern man as an off shoot of progressive thinking. I'm not saying it applies to every person exactly.
Non sequitur much?

There is no stereotyping involved with being critical of someones absurdities in this instance and no you're not merely postulating a 'theory' you are attempting to vindicate your supposition.. ;)

[MrVicchio]

Yeah because religion is fixated on reason and not fevered by enamored feelings or wild impulses. Oh wait, what about the various times of the medieval era where they called for mass exterminating crusades which were supposedly at the time irrefutable because "god wills it" After all if you had that trifling progressive thought that would inflict you with reservations it would stop you from committing such atrocities! :ugh: Oh yes it has to be the cool factor it cant be because of maintaining rational which is the polar opposite of faith or perhaps we should just invoke Occams razor here? :doh:

Straw, straw oozes on the floor.

Classic case of the charlatan, it seems by your own account that tale is warped entirely. In fact the Judeo-christian doctrine conveys responsibility in a very different manner, the prevailing christian drive of the day is spurred by such calls as "surrender yourself to god!" or "let him take the wheel in your life to be saved" Many would argue that this realm of thought actually subtracts personal responsibility, for instance "cast all your troubles onto him" thus the messiah doctrine at play instills this lesser ethical state of saying "well if I just accept that this guy way back when was crucified for me so that all my sins are forgiven and I'll be guaranteed way into this heaven" thus if this line of thought is correct, one can be pre-absolved of murder or other such prime sins as you have the get to heaven free card at play because you have "accepted this savior into your life" needless to say this is the same lunacy drives sucide bombings and even christian terrorist such as the one in Norway recently which is a distinctive bane to human progress ie progressive movement(s) you so adamantly oppose. If you still feel however that you can in fact justify such dogma then here is what I want to know and I'll quote Hitchens on this; "tell me one great ethical action that only a believer can perform, because I can give you list of vices that can only be attributed to one of deep faith." ex: human sacrifice, circumcision


Non sequitur much?

No, but you do.

There is no stereotyping involved with being critical of someones absurdities in this instance and no you're not merely postulating a 'theory' you are attempting to vindicate your supposition.. ;)
Here's the problem with your.. ehm, rant. I made a general view of the rise of Atheism. I went into no specifics other then a belief that ones actions are, when you abandon God, not held in check by the consideration of eventual judgement.

You go off about the Norway shooter, a man clearly mental, bring up the Crusades, a time so far different that societal differences are completely incomparable... and then, the most silly commentary about "Let God take the Wheel!"

You completely misunderstand WHY people say that. The point isn't to let GOD control your life, take over, but to rather to turn to Him as your guide through life rather then relying on man.

[CutterJohn]

Here's the problem with your.. ehm, rant. I made a general view of the rise of Atheism. I went into no specifics other then a belief that ones actions are, when you abandon God, not held in check by the consideration of eventual judgement.

His(admittedly not well written) rebuttal was that the fact that you can easily gain forgiveness, or persuade yourself that you have 'permission', can be a contributing cause to antisocial behavior. Sorry, gotta kill/persecute/whatever you because its in this book. Or I'll confess my sins and be forgiven.


The point isn't to let GOD control your life, take over, but to rather to turn to Him as your guide through life rather then relying on man.

If I followed Jehovas Guide to Life(otherwise known as a bible) I'd be required to kill dozens of people I know, for various infractions deemed punishable by death. Probably myself too then. Unless I followed other parts of it, which tell me not to judge anyone and get along with people and be nice and respectful.

Its a very incoherent read. A deity should be able to write more concisely with fewer plot holes and inconsistencies.

[MrVicchio]

His(admittedly not well written) rebuttal was that the fact that you can easily gain forgiveness, or persuade yourself that you have 'permission', can be a contributing cause to antisocial behavior. Sorry, gotta kill/persecute/whatever you because its in this book. Or I'll confess my sins and be forgiven.


That's not how it works...


If I followed Jehovas Guide to Life(otherwise known as a bible) I'd be required to kill dozens of people I know, for various infractions deemed punishable by death.
If you want to wear a sign that says "I don't have a clue what I'm talking about!" be my guest.

Probably myself too then. Unless I followed other parts of it, which tell me not to judge anyone and get along with people and be nice and respectful.

Its a very incoherent read. A deity should be able to write more concisely with fewer plot holes and inconsistencies.
It's a very coherent read, but it helps to read it, not just pontificate based on some other people's bumper sticker commentary on the Bible.

[Hamma]

I understand that. But is it really different a broad brush then those mocking the prayer event?

Nope :D

[CutterJohn]

That's not how it works...

Yet it seems to. Why else would all these people who claim to be of a religion do the things that are banned? :D


If you want to wear a sign that says "I don't have a clue what I'm talking about!" be my guest.

It's a very coherent read, but it helps to read it, not just pontificate based on some other people's bumper sticker commentary on the Bible.

I admit I've made no great study of the christian holy books. I read through quite a lot of it in boot camp, since that and the bluejacket manual were the only reading material made available. In my opinion the bluejacket manual contained far more useful advice. Further study was not warranted.

[Sovereign]

Straw, straw oozes on the floor.
:lol: sure so by using your own logic against the case you present I'm touting a strawman. You see the point was you said people reject god simply because its the cool thing to do and I gave clear examples how that's not the case and here's another; geocentric solar system over heliocentric, at the time the men of the cloth all fancied that the earth had to be the center of it all simply because of its cool factor as it was Gods key creation that lead to the creations of his own image ie man. Despite the constant evidence put forth by Galileo they stayed firm with this cool belief at the time.

No, but you do.
Let me help you out here, if a kid one day proclaimed that unicorns are real and you correct him and mock the silly idea not founded in empirical state you honestly believe that by that virtue it makes you anti kid? :lol:

Here's the problem with your.. ehm, rant. I made a general view of the rise of Atheism. I went into no specifics other then a belief that ones actions are, when you abandon God, not held in check by the consideration of eventual judgement.
:lol: Right and catholic preist today have far greater consideration of eventual judgement then any atheist judge.

You go off about the Norway shooter, a man clearly mental, bring up the Crusades, a time so far different that societal differences are completely incomparable... and then, the most silly commentary about "Let God take the Wheel!"

You completely misunderstand WHY people say that. The point isn't to let GOD control your life, take over, but to rather to turn to Him as your guide through life rather then relying on man.
So its completely unimaginable therefore that one would use the cannon of God and the trinity for their end all be all guide to life? Reason be damned because god wills it!

Again I love how people like yourself seem to ignore Christopher Hitchens famed challenge which to this very day can still not be revoked by faith entrenched minds. Here's some food for thought in the form of a quote: “The equal toleration of all religions ... is the Same as atheism..." - Pope Pius VII, 1808.
His(admittedly not well written) rebuttal was that the fact that you can easily gain forgiveness, or persuade yourself that you have 'permission', can be a contributing cause to antisocial behavior. Sorry, gotta kill/persecute/whatever you because its in this book. Or I'll confess my sins and be forgiven.

If I followed Jehovas Guide to Life(otherwise known as a bible) I'd be required to kill dozens of people I know, for various infractions deemed punishable by death. Probably myself too then. Unless I followed other parts of it, which tell me not to judge anyone and get along with people and be nice and respectful.

Its a very incoherent read. A deity should be able to write more concisely with fewer plot holes and inconsistencies.
No, this is a erroneous misconception of the cannon, preachers dont become great firebrand preachers by adopting anti-social norms and Popes don't become the great "victors of christ" by living a monks life instead they climb the hierarchy of the clergy. etc etc

Case and point Genesis "Now let us go and create man in our image"

Yet it seems to. Why else would all these people who claim to be of a religion do the things that are banned? :D

Well gee I don't know perhaps they could always boast the claim that they are religious but aren't simply for a means to an end to exploit see catholic church also Napoleon comes to mind on posturing as catholic. Again it helps to actually know the cannon and as someone who has come from Judeochristian upbringing and went to a christian school I can attest to the fact this is gross generalization which is not an objective statement.

Let me sum this up for you all as we have detoured from the topic at hand. This sponsored prayer rally is being used simply as a means to the end(s) in bringing Perry the evangelical vote for his future run for president, what many of you have clearly overlooked is a simple clause in civics; separation of church and state ever heard of it?

[CutterJohn]

separation of church and state ever heard of it?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with an elected official having religious beliefs, nor talking about them. They are citizens just as you, and have the right to do these things.

[MrVicchio]

This sponsored prayer rally is being used simply as a means to the end(s) in bringing Perry the evangelical vote for his future run for president, what many of you have clearly overlooked is a simple clause in civics; separation of church and state ever heard of it?

Have you? Show us wherein the Constitution it says this?

It says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/

Unless Perry starts pushing to establish religious institutions and laws... you really have no case.

[Logit]

It's a shame god couldn't join them at this rally. He's probably busy forgiving all those sins.

"Faith" is the term they made up so people wouldn't question the Bible.

12 years of Catholic Education, and I hardly see the point in all of it.

[MrVicchio]

It's a shame god couldn't join them at this rally. He's probably busy forgiving all those sins.

"Faith" is the term they made up so people wouldn't question the Bible.

12 years of Catholic Education, and I hardly see the point in all of it.

That's your right and I must respectfully disagree with you.

[Sovereign]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with an elected official having religious beliefs, nor talking about them. They are citizens just as you, and have the right to do these things.
Sigh...

Beliefs are not the issue here, the brain itself is a belief engine that goes through constant sensory data and forms conclusions. The underlie conflict is when elected officials governing is overridden with a certain belief that triumphs others whereby the establishment of governing is formulated on the basis of inauthentic virtue to terrible ends by way of sharia law for example.

My adamant disposition with faiths is that they are normally safeguarded havens for dogmatism, science on the other hand promotes rational discourse and even when such things are promoted by science which are dogmatic in design such as the former pseudoscience of eugenics it is properly expelled from the realm of the construct altogether. Can we honestly claim the same can be said for faith based beliefs? They are in fact mostly stagnant and do not evolve and adapt to the ever changing climate, the bible doesn't even recognize stem cell research for example yet many spurred on by dogmatism say it repudiates it just like many still to this day believe the bible denounces such foul practices like slavery..

Further more religions are always in conflict in regards to their ill-set ends, the metaphysics at play prompts devoted believers many a time to love out of fear and to hate out of fear, for example parent A loves their child unconditionally parent b loves child because the bible says to or you'll be needing fire insurance for the rest of eternity thereafter. Which is the more moral case scenario? Do you even need to ask if there is a case scenario where loving ones child merely for extrinsic value is more moral?
Have you? Show us wherein the Constitution it says this?

It says:


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/

Unless Perry starts pushing to establish religious institutions and laws... you really have no case.
Key word here: sponsored prayer rally...

If this was in fact just a personal prayer convention of faith then there would be no grave significance other than for those attending..
Also its common knowledge for most of us that separation of church of state stems from that passage aka establishment clause ie state cannot sponsor any religion over others even if it does so implicitly.

[Logit]

That's your right and I must respectfully disagree with you.

Remember when the Pope decided that purgatory no longer existed?

That's when I finally realized Catholicism is crap.

[MrVicchio]

Key word here: sponsored prayer rally...

If this was in fact just a personal prayer convention of faith then there would be no grave significance other than for those attending..
Also its common knowledge for most of us that separation of church of state stems from that passage aka establishment clause ie state cannot sponsor any religion over others even if it does so implicitly.
Actually, NO. It comes from a letter from Jefferson to some Quakers I believe it was, who feared a State Church, like in most countries at the time.

Did you know Jefferson used to attend Church, in the Capitol Building?

Only much later, as educational standards have fallen, and critical thinking skills start to fall, did that bit from a letter start to gain currency.

[MrVicchio]

Remember when the Pope decided that purgatory no longer existed?

That's when I finally realized Catholicism is crap.

Born and Raised a Catholic. My Grandmother would roll over in her grave if she ever learned of my severe disdain for Organized Big Religion.

[NUBLERT]

Actually, NO. It comes from a letter from Jefferson to some Quakers I believe it was, who feared a State Church, like in most countries at the time.

Did you know Jefferson used to attend Church, in the Capitol Building?

Only much later, as educational standards have fallen, and critical thinking skills start to fall, did that bit from a letter start to gain currency.

I like how you throw around "critical thinking skills" as a general term. You cannot critically assess any subject without deep background in it. I'm a teacher and can tell you that telling ppl to critically think doesn't mean they can. 2-3 years background plus experience is needed. You don't just critically think when you deem it so. Educational standards have fallen yes, however, they are standards, not what is taught. There are many teachers who treat the standards as rubbish (myself included) and consider it a barely passing minimum. For anything considered mastery or above requires high standards set by well educated teachers like myself.

If anything I blame religion for the lack of educated individuals. Blind following does not foster the thought patterns required to work towards "critical thinking skills". Americans are only consumers because they are not thinking for their own and being constructive. I can teach and create because I think instead of being slave to a label of religion.

Born and raised catholic, the irony.

[MrVicchio]

I like how you throw around "critical thinking skills" as a general term. You cannot critically assess any subject without deep background in it. I'm a teacher and can tell you that telling ppl to critically think doesn't mean they can. 2-3 years background plus experience is needed. You don't just critically think when you deem it so. Educational standards have fallen yes, however, they are standards, not what is taught. There are many teachers who treat the standards as rubbish (myself included) and consider it a barely passing minimum. For anything considered mastery or above requires high standards set by well educated teachers like myself.

If anything I blame religion for the lack of educated individuals. Blind following does not foster the thought patterns required to work towards "critical thinking skills". Americans are only consumers because they are not thinking for their own and being constructive. I can teach and create because I think instead of being slave to a label of religion.

Born and raised catholic, the irony.

You are only a "slave to religion" if you allow yourself to be. Like anything else in life. Big Religion is no different then anything else in this world, it has it's pluses and minuses. You tar Religion as a whole because of what the Catholic Church decides, interesting. How... critical of you.

[NUBLERT]

You are only a "slave to religion" if you allow yourself to be. Like anything else in life. Big Religion is no different then anything else in this world, it has it's pluses and minuses. You tar Religion as a whole because of what the Catholic Church decides, interesting. How... critical of you.

Puns are unbecoming.

[Sovereign]

Actually, NO. It comes from a letter from Jefferson to some Quakers I believe it was, who feared a State Church, like in most countries at the time.

Did you know Jefferson used to attend Church, in the Capitol Building?

Only much later, as educational standards have fallen, and critical thinking skills start to fall, did that bit from a letter start to gain currency.
This is very poor argumentation, first you contrive this to be an argument based on semantics and now you're walking it back...

How is pinpointing the origin of that phrase even relevant to this topic or your initial stance in saying I have no case? If you truly knew Jefferson's beliefs and philosophy you would had already deduced that he was a deist like most of our founding fathers contrary to the popular belief that they were christian and that thus founded a christian nation. He would clearly not be on your side of the table on this especially with Perry whose state government which has mandated that Jefferson's name be obscured from history books in your states ever dilapidated education system due to it infringing on certain held beliefs of those in office not to mention Perry's own controversial collective of The Prophets. If this isn't an empirical exhibit of exerting governing power in the form of theocracy then reason be damned!


At this point it is difficult to even discern what stance(if any) you are now taking...
Born and Raised a Catholic. My Grandmother would roll over in her grave if she ever learned of my severe disdain for Organized Big Religion.
:lol: Yet you seem to be aligned with someone who advocates this... clear oxymoron it seems.
I like how you throw around "critical thinking skills" as a general term. You cannot critically assess any subject without deep background in it. I'm a teacher and can tell you that telling ppl to critically think doesn't mean they can. 2-3 years background plus experience is needed. You don't just critically think when you deem it so. Educational standards have fallen yes, however, they are standards, not what is taught. There are many teachers who treat the standards as rubbish (myself included) and consider it a barely passing minimum. For anything considered mastery or above requires high standards set by well educated teachers like myself.

Critical thinking contrary to the popular held misconception of the day which is propagated by the far right in this form of pseudo-reason promoted by way of "common" sense" (one size fits all solution) Thomas Paine and John Locke would be rolling in their graves if they knew about this insidious defacement of true reason. True critical thinking comes in two key forms: deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning.

Induction: Every life form that everyone knows of depends on liquid water to exist.
Therefore, all life depends on liquid water to exist.
Deduction: All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore, Socrates is mortal


Here's some of my own induction: Governments tend to work best when those who are elected can govern by the will of the people.

Thus if governments that don't govern by the will or consent of all people are instead impaired by the need to uphold a church's will over that of all its citizens not affiliated then it is therefore not an honest nor worthy system of government as one based on the will of the people.

[MrVicchio]

This is very poor argumentation, first you contrive this to be an argument based on semantics and now you're walking it back...

How is pinpointing the origin of that phrase even relevant to this topic or your initial stance in saying I have no case? If you truly knew Jefferson's beliefs and philosophy you would had already deduced that he was a deist like most of our founding fathers contrary to the popular belief that they were christian and that thus founded a christian nation. He would clearly not be on your side of the table on this especially with Perry whose state government which has mandated that Jefferson's name be obscured from history books in your states ever dilapidated education system due to it infringing on certain held beliefs of those in office not to mention Perry's own controversial collective of The Prophets. If this isn't an empirical exhibit of exerting governing power in the form of theocracy then reason be damned!

Many people are surprised to learn that the United States Capitol regularly served as a church building; a practice that began even before Congress officially moved into the building and lasted until well after the Civil War. Below is a brief history of the Capitol's use as a church, and some of the prominent individuals who attended services there.

=-=The approval of the Capitol for church was given by both the House and the Senate, with House approval being given by Speaker of the House, Theodore Sedgwick, and Senate approval being given by the President of the Senate, Thomas Jefferson. Interestingly, Jefferson's approval came while he was still officially the Vice- President but after he had just been elected President.

=-=

Jefferson attended church at the Capitol while he was Vice President 5 and also throughout his presidency. The first Capitol church service that Jefferson attended as President was a service preached by Jefferson's friend, the Rev. John Leland, on January 3, 1802. 6 Significantly, Jefferson attended that Capitol church service just two days after he penned his famous letter containing the "wall of separation between church and state" metaphor.


http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=90
And who was this Rev that Jefferson, the "non-Christian Deist" would sit through Church for?

Who was the Rev. John Leland?

John Leland (1754-1841), was a Baptist preacher whose life involved writing and preaching about the gospel of Jesus Christ and about the proper relationship between religion and government. In the latter passion, Leland agreed with the position of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, both of whom he knew personally. Leland spent approximately 14 years in Virginia from 1776 to approximately 1790-91. He was a major leader of the Baptists in Virginia. He helped Madison by rounding up support for the defeat of the assessment bill in Virginia in 1784-86, threw his support behind ratifying the new constitution after being assured that Madison did favor a Bill of Rights being added, threw his support behind getting Madison elected over Patrick Henry's hand-picked man, James Monroe, to the House of Representatives of the First Federal Congress. He returned to his home state of Massachusetts. in 1790-91, where he remained as an active minister and champion of separation of church and state and disestablishment till his death in 1841. He wrote articles against establishment while in Massachusetts and testified before the Massachusetts legislature on at least one occasion. He and Issac Backus were probably the most famous of those who fought for religious Freedom in New England.
http://candst.tripod.com/leland10.htm

At this point it is difficult to even discern what stance(if any) you are now taking...

:lol: Yet you seem to be aligned with someone who advocates this... clear oxymoron it seems.

My personal disdain for large organized Churches is a matter of personal preference. I don't see the oxymoron, I just see you missing the point.

Critical thinking contrary to the popular held misconception of the day which is propagated by the far right in this form of pseudo-reason promoted by way of "common" sense" (one size fits all solution) Thomas Paine and John Locke would be rolling in their graves if they knew about this insidious defacement of true reason. True critical thinking comes in two key forms: deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning.


Huh huh. And your point being? You believe Jefferson wasn't a Christian, yet... clearly he attended Christian Church gatherings, as President, in the Capitol Building. I suppose that was just cover for his REAL Religion right?


Here's some of my own induction: Governments tend to work best when those who are elected can govern by the will of the people.

Very good. I cannot argue with this point.

Thus if governments that don't govern by the will or consent of all people are instead impaired by the need to uphold a church's will over that of all its citizens not affiliated then it is therefore not an honest nor worthy system of government as one based on the will of the people.
This is where your blind hatred towards religion ruins any claim you have to critical thinking.

If a person is Religious, that does not mean they are incapable or undesirable as a political leader. Obviously, by your own above reasoning, the will of the people is paramount, then obviously by electing said person the will of the people, is being served.

[NUBLERT]

Rabble rabble rabble this thread is useful.

[Sovereign]

That's some great switch and bate strategy employed there sadly for you I don't buy it. Whats the subject matter at hand again?

Your insatiable naivete at play here is not only derailing the topic at hand but it enervates it altogether. How can you honestly judge all human motive and action at face value? By your own logic you would deduce that Hitler was a christian simply because he invokes Christ death in many of his propitious speeches that were used to entice crowds into antisemitic sentiment.


Also I love how you employ a sweeping allegation that I hate religion or any of its committed devotees when I have made my case to the contrary. I don't hold adamant disdain for its followers rather its the doctrinal which they follow that I loathe which has lead many astray. I'm simply stating the facts, history shows us that religion as well as political systems can spur fanaticism and more times then not it impedes human progress.

Lastly since you have clearly evaded my on topic challenges and substantiated arguments without any succinct refutation of any sort this comes to a much needed end. Ergo my case is the prevailing force which is a potent tempest whereas yours is more akin to a spell of 'dry heat' good day sir.
Rabble rabble rabble this thread is useful.

Exhibit A of how this topic has diminished from any form of intellectual integrity into 4chan mentality. Truly this being embodies the great ideals of 4chan... :rolleyes:

Oh and MrVicchio I leave you with this:
I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religious societies that the general government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting and prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them, an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises and the objects proper for them according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands where the Constitution has deposited it... Every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason, and mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents (letter to Samuel Miller, Jan. 23, 1808).
No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the power of its public functionaries, were it possible that any of these should consider a conquest over the conscience of men either attainable or applicable to any desirable purpose (Letters to the Methodist Episcopal Church at New London, Connecticut, Feb. 4, 1809).

"Check and mate." Stephen Colbert

[Baneblade]

I happen to believe that belief alone can be a powerful force in the right circumstances. I mean look at the world, you won't see much of anything else really having an effect.

Success is merely a mental game you play with yourself.

[MrVicchio]

That's some great switch and bate strategy employed there sadly for you I don't buy it. Whats the subject matter at hand again?

Your insatiable naivete at play here is not only derailing the topic at hand but it enervates it altogether. How can you honestly judge all human motive and action at face value? By your own logic you would deduce that Hitler was a christian simply because he invokes Christ death in many of his propitious speeches that were used to entice crowds into antisemitic sentiment.


Also I love how you employ a sweeping allegation that I hate religion or any of its committed devotees when I have made my case to the contrary. I don't hold adamant disdain for its followers rather its the doctrinal which they follow that I loathe which has lead many astray. I'm simply stating the facts, history shows us that religion as well as political systems can spur fanaticism and more times then not it impedes human progress.

Lastly since you have clearly evaded my on topic challenges and substantiated arguments without any succinct refutation of any sort this comes to a much needed end. Ergo my case is the prevailing force which is a potent tempest whereas yours is more akin to a spell of 'dry heat' good day sir.


Exhibit A of how this topic has diminished from any form of intellectual integrity into 4chan mentality. Truly this being embodies the great ideals of 4chan... :rolleyes:

Oh and MrVicchio I leave you with this:


"Check and mate." Stephen Colbert
There is no heck and mate here, you have yet to do much more then mock me, and you really should learn to play chess before you use it's terminology.


What your "check and mate" says:
Religion shouldn't be forced upon the people through the power of Government.


Which is what the Constitution says.

Which is what I've been arguing.

You on the other hand, you have been trying to argue that Rick Perry's Prayer Gathering event... well, that wasn't right. Why he, he showed that "religious beliefs" guide his behavior! It's a SCANDAL! Every President talks about God, and Religious influence on their lives and thinking (even Obama). Guess what, That's Constitutional.

[Senyu]

In response of OP's first post.


A man willing his beliefs/religion to help and support something else should be taken as a compliment. Might be better word. It's like me traveling in Asia and a monk says "May Buddah be with you." He is wishing me safety and luck on my travels and is a sign of respect. I acknowledge and am thankful for that. Please before flamming its early morning and I just tossed a random example no matter how incorrect or politically incorrect it may be. Just get the point I'm making.

And so for the speaker to express his religion and wish good things for us isn't a bad thing. My only concern though is if he becomes a more important decision maker in our government and let his religious beliefs sway over. Yes they are an important aspect of himself but the church and state should be separated in cases and president/congress/and senate most definitely should be separated. He must make logical decisions that will benefit our people and our country foremost than his religion.

[p0intman]

religious types are all pretty much insane, and as long as they dont try to shove it in my face, ill respect them.

that said, prayer seems to be a go-to fallback lately for a lot of things that people do otherwise known as bigotry.

so, you know... im all for outlawing religion influencing laws and such. it only pisses people like me and others off anyway.

tl;dr: it doesnt work, and i think all of the people who attended are massive idiots.

[MasterChief096]

Lulz at all the religion haters out there.

First of all, a politician letting his religious beliefs sway his political judgement and decision making is no different than an atheist elected president letting his lack of religious beliefs sway his decision making as well. Bunch of built in bias with this claim.

Secondly, all atheists do is judge religion based on the human constructed institutions that control it. Anything that is human created and human controlled (i.e. everything in society) is susceptible to human created lies and corruption. Corporations, the government, our schools, small business can all be manipulated and used in order for people to gain something, be it power, wealth, or just a small edge over someone else. Religious institutions are no different. They were created by people, they are managed by people, and people have flaws, no matter which way you look at it.

Simply saying that institutions like the Catholic Church are bad because they are religious is once again, a matter of extreme bias and intolerance on part of religion haters.

Basically your argument is something like, "Lets take a book (the bible) that was written a couple thousand years ago BY PEOPLE and then judge all future religion that stems from it on what is written in this book. CLEARLY the bible wasn't susceptible to human tampering and corruption when it was being written, nor did the Church decide which gospels or passages it wanted to not be included in the bible at the Council of Trent."

In my opinion the formation of religious institutions that have a rather bad track record is no basis to justify atheism as I believe the existence of them is also no reason to justify being religious. People, especially people in ancient times, were easily tempted by corruption, greed, and power. Its possible that the creation of the bible and what was written and omitted from it was all done for a group of people who were leading the Christian religion at the time to gain more power and more hold over its subjects. More than likely they were very smart (corrupt, but smart) men that knew people of the time would easily believe in something like the bible, and so they manipulated it to institute their own beliefs rather than what a God (if there is one) would have wanted. Its just a plan for gaining control, and would be no different than say the United States trying to create systems to control its citizens by saying that China was preparing to invade or something like that (just an example, not a probable one). The whole concept does not apply to religion alone, but to any form of human institution that can currently exist within our society.

There are passages in the bible that talk about God as being nothing but benevolence, and then passages that say we should stone people for not honoring the Sabbath, sound contradictory? Yes, and that, to me, is a sign of human tampering with what was otherwise a pure idea.

The ironic thing about my post, is that I'm not even Catholic. Hell, I'm not even Christian. My own personal belief is that there is a God but he is not restricted to humans alone nor our planet. I also happen to believe that his mind changes with the times, much like our society changes. Whereas the lack of women's rights 2000 years ago in the Middle East might have been the standard, it no longer is, and according to my belief set God's mind would have changed with society's. Following along my own belief set its entirely possible that God believed religion was necessary for our species 2000 years ago, but as time progresses and humans become more moral without the need for religion his mind changes and he accepts that people might be atheist. I don't think he's 100% benevolent or 100% malicious, but more like 100% curious and cautious. Like watching something grow and develop, he doesn't want to see human society disappear but he also doesn't want it to be perfect, thus he doesn't interfere and may not even be anywhere near us right now. I've even thought of some crazy ideas for novels and stories that depict the creation of religion as an attempt by a higher being to help humans, only to see that said religion has actually created more violence (crusades, modern day religious conflict) and thus God goes and helps spread atheism to counteract this effect :D. I think of all sorts of interesting stuff to write about.

Despite the fact I don't call myself a Christian I often end up sticking up for them because just like a religious fanatic can be close-minded and dogmatic I often find that many of the atheists that argue against them are just as close-minded and assertive as the institutions they are arguing against. Bias is bias no matter who it comes from and as soon as a polite atheist starts getting hammered by someone of a religious denomination in a very impolite and cruel way, I'll just as easily side with the atheist.

[Crator]

Well said MasterChief. I feel the same way.

[Sovereign]

First of all, a politician letting his religious beliefs sway his political judgement and decision making is no different than an atheist elected president letting his lack of religious beliefs sway his decision making as well.

all atheists do is judge religion based on the human constructed institutions that control it.

:lol: Wrong on so many accounts...

You say that someone who is an atheist can make the same errors in judgment on the basis of belief based realism but if you actually knew the meaning of atheism then you would know this is a leap over faith and logic. Yeah my faith in no faith will drive me to crusade against stem cell research because of my rigid canon. Oh wait that's right I don't have one!

If you actually knew anything about rational discourse and debate or logic even then you would know that this is the most deplored strawman you could construct. Here let me give you an example from this exert limerick by the physicist George Gamow that captures the poorly devised paradox that is the god construct:

There was a young fellow from Trinity
Who took the square root of infinity
But the number of digits
Gave him the fidgets
he dropped Math and took up Divinity

In conclusion if you truly want know how to repress and even expel the dogma demons of the brain, I'd suggest buying Micheal Shermer's book "The Believing Brain" It's a game changer no doubt about it. :)

/end of discussion or veer back on topic

[Firefly]

Atheists who run their fucking mouths about how stupid Christians are, and who scream constantly about how the Bible should be in the fiction section, and use derogatory terms like "xtian"...

... are just as fucking bigoted and just as fucking judgmental as ultra-right Bible thumpers. Shut the fuck up and let people believe what they want. It's not harming you to let someone else believe in something, and being an obnoxious cunt about your beliefs and throwing them in peoples' faces makes you a goddamned hypocrite.

It's fucking annoying. Grow the fuck up and look at yourself before you start thumbing your high-and-mighty nose at others.

Shithead.

[Baneblade]

I believe in boobs.

[MrVicchio]

I believe in boobs.

I should hope so.

[Xaine]

People always seem to get so wound up by this subject, its incredible.

Whatever religion is, it has been used for both good and evil by Humans. The crusades for example, and this stupid terrorist shit that is going on now has all sparked from a man's interpretation of religion, and with all interpretations, it says what the interpretor wants, or thinks it says.

It has been used as control and to justify genocide, but it has also brought forth great civilizations and people who have done alot of good in the world.

We're not even talking about religion, we're talking about people who manipulate/inspire other people into acts, using this idea of a higher power and something that is intrinsically 'good'.

People who blindly follow religion scare the hell out of me. Someone who gives all his money away and lives in a mud hut saving kittens from trees isn't really all that far away from someone running into the London underground with a bomb strapped around his waist. or someone with a broadsword chopping up women and children in the middle-east because 'GOD WILLS IT!'. A mind that is that open to impression on that level is a scary, scary thing. It seems to depend on which person you got your lessons from, some nice old man in a church or someone with an eye patch in a bunker somewhere.

All religious texts are good, and are pretty much a life style guide. You can sum up the Bible, Qur'an, The Tipitaka and every other one in just about one sentance.

Be a good person, don't be a cunt. Treat everyone with respect and empathise with your fellow man.

[Quovatis]

As a prominent atheist once said:
"Bad people will do bad things and good people will do good things, but only religion can make good people do bad things"

I tend to agree with that. I only know of one incident where someone has done harm to another in the name of atheism (this happened just 2 years ago). Yes there are some bad atheists in the world, but they don't do it because they are atheists, they do it for other reasons. But there are many examples every day of religion causing violence. Religion can get a kind, loving, moral, and normally peaceful person to kill someone else. There is a logical path to do harm to others through religion, but that does not exist in an atheist. On the other side of things, there is nothing that religion can do to benefit society that can't be achieved through secular means.

But having said that, I fully support the right to believe whatever you want as long as it doesn't affect my life, my family, and my money. Too often, however, it does.

As for Perry, he stepped over the line from his personal religion practices to representing Texas with the same religion. But I mostly find it hilarious that he has to ask god to fix the things he was elected to fix.

[Crator]

Meh, typically a Christian is asking God to help guide them. Not that God will fix it for them...

[Xaine]

On the other side of things, there is nothing that religion can do to benefit society that can't be achieved through secular means.


While i agree with your post in general, i'm going to advocate the old devil here because i'm an annoying bastard and i like a good discussion :love:.

I wouldn't agree with the above statement. The idea of there being a higher power that is omnibenevolent, that is truly looking after us, must be an amazing thing to believe in - i don't see how you could get so much hope and general satisfaction from anywhere else, especially if its man made/controlled.

[Crator]

Science and human rational/reasoning comes to mind....

[CutterJohn]

I wouldn't agree with the above statement. The idea of there being a higher power that is omnibenevolent, that is truly looking after us, must be an amazing thing to believe in - i don't see how you could get so much hope and general satisfaction from anywhere else, especially if its man made/controlled.

If the world was all sunshine and roses it'd be a great thing to believe in. The world, however, rather sucks in general. Not terribly bad, and far less so than it has in the past. But I can't see how anyone could justify the existence of an omnibenevolent god creature that is looking out for us when looking at the world as it is.

There are two possibilities if a god(s) does exist:

1. He's not actually all knowing/loving/powerful

or

2. He is those things, but is also incredibly incompetent.



http://www.theonion.com/articles/god-angrily-clarifies-dont-kill-rule,222/

10 minutes of his time would fix a whole hell of a lot.

[MasterChief096]

:lol: Wrong on so many accounts...

You say that someone who is an atheist can make the same errors in judgment on the basis of belief based realism but if you actually knew the meaning of atheism then you would know this is a leap over faith and logic. Yeah my faith in no faith will drive me to crusade against stem cell research because of my rigid canon. Oh wait that's right I don't have one!

If you actually knew anything about rational discourse and debate or logic even then you would know that this is the most deplored strawman you could construct. Here let me give you an example from this exert limerick by the physicist George Gamow that captures the poorly devised paradox that is the god construct:

In conclusion if you truly want know how to repress and even expel the dogma demons of the brain, I'd suggest buying Micheal Shermer's book "The Believing Brain" It's a game changer no doubt about it. :)

/end of discussion or veer back on topic


Take it easy on the thesaurus there thesaurusraptor. Every other word in your reply doesn't have to be fancy in order to make a point. And no, not wrong. If someone who is religious can be biased towards atheists in political judgement, then it is entirely possible for someone who is atheist to be biased against any or ALL religions when it comes to political judgement. Its called humanity.

[Baneblade]

I still do not see what this topic has to do with politics.

[Quovatis]

You can depend on your friends and family for real, tangible, support through tough times. That's much better than any god can do. You don't have to worry about them letting you down because you didn't pray enough or wonder why they are angry. You can just ask them and get a real reply.

Although I've never done it, I'm sure you can get a lot of satisfaction doing cocaine too. It doesn't mean it's good for you.

[Mezorin]

Prayer to the allmighty is one thing, and there's nothing wrong with finding spiritual salvation and comfort within the teachings of the Lord. The problem is when it becomes visible, political, and just little more than a show for the right wing moral majority.

There's something disgusting about a man (Perry) who will show up and hold a multimillion dollar rally and pray in front of CNN and FOX News cameras, but will cheerfully profess treason (Texas secedding from America), and will have the mentally ill executed as a governer.

Matthew 6:5 - 7

5. And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites [are]: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

[Crator]

^^^ Oh, nice verse for topic there Mezorin :)