A case for religion, and against AA.

[Retro Rob]

You make the argument that idolatry is wrong, in approximately the same degree as SSM, but you think one should be legal and the other not. At the same time you make the argument that your views that SSM should be illegal is based on the same religious morals that the view against idolatry is based on. Yet you still ended up with different conclusions on SSM and idolatry. It makes your arguments seem hypocritical. Would you explain how you reconcile the two?

You're wrong. I don't personally care either way, as I won't make laws against either one since I am neutral to the debate from a legal and political standpoint.

Secondly, Bibically speaking and as I cleary stated, I view idolatry wrong as well as homosexuality. How is that hypocritical?

I doubt we can say that idolatry falls into a grey area. The bible is quite clear on the subject.

Who said idolatry falls into a "grey area"? You've contradicted yourself once in this thread, maybe you should read more carefully to not do it again.

 

[sandorski]

RobM: You do see the inconsistency of it though, right?

It is especially glaring when you consider that the one Unforgivable "Sin" would involve things like Idol Worship or worship of other "gods". Homosexuality, Promiscuity, and even Murder are all Forgivable in contrast.

 

[Retro Rob]

RobM: You do see the inconsistency of it though, right?

It is especially glaring when you consider that the one Unforgivable "Sin" would involve things like Idol Worship or worship of other "gods". Homosexuality, Promiscuity, and even Murder are all Forgivable in contrast.

There is no "inconsistency", as I am not arguing the gravity of sin "A" versus sin "B", but whether or not we actually remove our personal beliefs from how we frame our laws.

Strawmen and dishonestly abound in you and Cerpin Taxt...try paying attention to what I am actually arguing against here.

 

[sandorski]

There is no "inconsistency", as I am not arguing the gravity of sin "A" versus sin "B", but whether or not we actually remove our personal beliefs from how we frame our laws.

Strawmen and dishonestly abound in you and Cerpin Taxt...try paying attention to what I am actually arguing against here.

What have I said that is Dishonest?

The inconsistency is in the gravity of it. The alleged "god" is quite clear on what is and isn't Forgivable, is it not?

As for "Personal Beliefs", do you see why, given the inconsistency pointed out, we call this opposition Bigotry? All these people who claim communication/relationship with "god" are somehow fixated on these issues in a way that their own "god" isn't.

 

[Retro Rob]

As for "Personal Beliefs", do you see why, given the inconsistency pointed out, we call this opposition Bigotry? All these people who claim communication/relationship with "god" are somehow fixated on these issues in a way that their own "god" isn't.

I don't care that you call it bigotry...that has nothing to do with my point.

Secondly, there are plenty of non-religious people who would ban abortion and same-sex marriage.

To act as if the *only* opposition is religious-based is dishonest.

 

[sandorski]

I don't care that you call it bigotry...that has nothing to do with my point.

Secondly, there are plenty of non-religious people who would ban abortion and same-sex marriage.

To act as if the *only* opposition is religious-based is dishonest.

Umm, who is saying it is? It certainly is the majority of the opposition.

 

[Retro Rob]

Umm, who is saying it is? It certainly is the majority of the opposition.

You surely insinuated that the only the people who "claim a relationship with god" are the only ones "fixated" on this issue, and I would argue that this is simply the biggest issue, so that's why we hear so much about it.

Religious beliefs are personal too, and many people grew up with them...those are ingrained and lawmaking reflects that. More liberal left-leaning people let their personal views guide what they pass as law to a large degree as well, imo.

 

[sandorski]

You surely insinuated that the only the people who "claim a relationship with god" are the only ones "fixated" on this issue, and I would argue that this is simply the biggest issue, so that's why we hear so much about it.

Religious beliefs are personal too, and many people grew up with them...those are ingrained and lawmaking reflects that. More liberal left-leaning people let their personal views guide what they pass as law to a large degree as well, imo.

Ok, granted, people let personal views guide their decisions. That still leaves the issue of Religions' influence. Which is what we are discussing here. Bad Ideology is just Bad Ideology, especially when it is internally inconsistent. That is the problem above all else.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

*Can* is not *won't* Taxt.

It is a strawman, as I didn't say one CANNOT, but WILL NOT.

I didn't say can't.

This is why you're winning this argument, because you're knocking down your own strawman.

Oh, please. There is no distinction where you are trying to make one. To claim with certainty that something will not happen is semantically equivalent to claiming it can't happen.

You said yourself, of a person's religious moral beliefs, "it's not something you can turn on and off like a radio" (emphasis added).

If this was indeed a key distinction like you hope we'd believe it to be, shouldn't you have said "it's not something you will turn off like a radio"?

What does it take for you to be honest about your own statements?

 

[Retro Rob]

Oh, please. There is no distinction where you are trying to make one. To claim with certainty that something will not happen is semantically equivalent to claiming it can't happen.

You said yourself, of a person's religious moral beliefs, "it's not something you can turn on and off like a radio" (emphasis added).

If this was indeed a key distinction like you hope we'd believe it to be, shouldn't you have said "it's not something you will turn off like a radio"?

What does it take for you to be honest about your own statements?

You're the one who decided to parse my statements and turn this into your usual arguments over semantics.

As one of the most idiotic and dishonest posters I've ever seen, you're obviously in way over your head.

What a waste of time you've become.

 

[soulcougher73]

You're wrong. I don't personally care either way, as I won't make laws against either one since I am neutral to the debate from a legal and political standpoint.

Secondly, Bibically speaking and as I cleary stated, I view idolatry wrong as well as homosexuality. How is that hypocritical?

He wasn't saying your view on idolatry or SSM was hypocritical. He is saying that allowing one to be legal and one illegal via law is hypocritical when you view them both as being equally bad.

How you personally view them is not the real issue. Its how the laws are framed that is.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You're the one who decided to parse my statements and turn this into your usual arguments over semantics.

You appear to be confused. You were the one that tried to introduce a semantic distinction -- where there wasn't one -- in order to weasel out of the clear inconsistency in your position. I did nothing of the sort. In fact, I quite clearly showed that you did not make this distinction earlier in your arguments, and only introduced it once it was made clear that your claim was without merit.

As one of the most idiotic and dishonest posters I've ever seen, you're obviously in way over your head.

What a waste of time you've become.

There's the Rob with whom we're all too familiar. No longer able to hide behind this imaginary distinction, he returns to his wheelhouse: vitriol.

Here's a tip, from me to you: if you don't want to be taken to task for the dumb things you say, stop saying dumb things.

 

[ThinClient]

He wasn't saying atheists can't be happy or aren't happy, or even that religion is needed for happiness. Statistically, religious people are happier.

I'd say that they're less happy because they're always sticking their nose into other people's business and can't be content with controlling only their own lives.

 

[ThinClient]

Real science doesn't search for god, so I'm not sure what kind of psuedo-science crap the atheists have built their beliefs around.

Sure real science searches for god. It doesn't get very far because there's no evidence to support the hypothesis that he exists.

 

[ThinClient]

An infant is born with the sins of it's previous life. It does not know good or evil, that comes when they mature enough to deal with it.

Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds? There's no evidence whatsoever that a "previous life" is connected to the current life.

You're just making shit up.

 

[ThinClient]

All it takes is ignorance which is an inherently human trait anyway. I feel like Atheists really show their lack of understanding of the human condition. The entire point of religion is to give the average joe a couple of critical tools they can use deal with the complexities of life.

You mean give a weak mind a crutch to prop itself up instead of acknowledge the bleak truth that their religion is bullshit and that the universe is a cold, pointless place, a place in which each individual human mind must derive its own meaning and value?

 

[ThinClient]

What "evidence to the contrary"? This has been requested at least once in this thread.

This is where you guys get empty-headed. You claim, again, to have evidence to the contrary, then say you cannot "prove a negative".

Again, where's this "evidence to the contrary"?

I think it's funny that people like you have been asked for proof a thousand times and you all simply refuse to even tackle that argument.

Then when someone mentions evidence in any other way, you're all like WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE? HUH? WHERE

What a joke.

 

[Retro Rob]

I think it's funny that people like you have been asked for proof a thousand times and you all simply refuse to even tackle that argument.

Then when someone mentions evidence in any other way, you're all like WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE? HUH? WHERE

What a joke.

Have you been reading the thread, Johnny-come-lately?

Both SMOGZINN and Soulcaugher claimed there is "evidence to the contrary", one of which said he "misued the word evidence" when called out on it, and the other saying the evidence is the lack of evidence.

I simply asked for it, since they claimed there is some. Why are you ignoring that?

 

[soulcougher73]

Have you been reading the thread, Johnny-come-lately?

Both SMOGZINN and Soulcaugher claimed there is "evidence to the contrary", one of which said he "misued the word evidence" when called out on it, and the other saying the evidence is the lack of evidence.

I simply asked for it, since they claimed there is some. Why are you ignoring that?

I may be technically wrong by saying lack of evidence is evidence but it works for me. Imagine if i isolated you in a wooded area for 2000 years and told you "there is a purple unicorn that created these woods and he is here, go find him". And you searched for 2000 years for anything that would lead you to believe a purple unicorn was here. Then i come back and say show me the evidence and you say "I could not find any after 2000 years so i dont believe a purple unicorn did create these woods" Youd be using the lack of evidence as evidence for your claim.

That is how i view it as well. You can search and search but when you find nothing..well...maybe its time for a new theory.

 

[dphantom]

You mean give a weak mind a crutch to prop itself up instead of acknowledge the bleak truth that their religion is bullshit and that the universe is a cold, pointless place, a place in which each individual human mind must derive its own meaning and value?

You may want to avoid such sweeping statements. There are many examples, current and historical, of brilliant minds who are also deeply religious - Christian or otherwise.

 

[Retro Rob]

I may be technically wrong by saying lack of evidence is evidence but it works for me. Imagine if i isolated you in a wooded area for 2000 years and told you "there is a purple unicorn that created these woods and he is here, go find him". And you searched for 2000 years for anything that would lead you to believe a purple unicorn was here. Then i come back and say show me the evidence and you say "I could not find any after 2000 years so i dont believe a purple unicorn did create these woods" Youd be using the lack of evidence as evidence for your claim.

That is how i view it as well. You can search and search but when you find nothing..well...maybe its time for a new theory.

As long as you've been posting here, you still fail to understand why this argument doesn't prove/disprove anything about the existence of God, nor does it address the existence of God on its own merit.

Not being able to prove purple unicorn exists, only means you're not able to prove purple unicorns exists. This is what makes this argument a fallacy and thus irrelavant to the existence of God.

If this is a valid argument, I can prove you're bad at math by proving that other men your age are bad at math.

I have similarities (men, aged X, bad at math) so my arguement is valid.

 

[soulcougher73]

As long as you've been posting here, you still fail to understand why this argument doesn't prove/disprove anything about the existence of God, nor does it address the existence of God on its own merit.

Not being able to prove purple unicorn exists, only means you're not able to prove purple unicorns exists. This is what makes this argument a fallacy and thus irrelavant to the existence of God.

If this is a valid argument, I can prove you're bad at math by proving that other men your age are bad at math.

I have similarities (men, aged X, bad at math) so my arguement is valid.

My point being that if you couldnt find any existence of this purple unicorn you'd wonder why people keep believing it exists. Why not just move on to another theory and see where that takes you instead of hanging your hat on something for all eternity that you can find no evidence for?

 

[Retro Rob]

My point being that if you couldnt find any existence of this purple unicorn you'd wonder why people keep believing it exists.

Who believes purple unicorns exists, firstly? You have no point, and by extension, no arguement.

The funny thing about your "arguement" is that you're more than willing to examine what you deem are similarties between God and purple unicorns (not being able to see them, test them scientifically etc), but you ignore the obvious differences (no one has ever claimed to believe in purple unicorns, and purple unicorns are completely arbitrary). We call that painting the target around the arrow.

 

[JD50]

Who believes purple unicorns exists, firstly? You have no point, and by extension, no arguement.

The funny thing about your "arguement" is that you're more than willing to examine what you deem are similarties between God and purple unicorns (not being able to see them, test them scientifically etc), but you ignore the obvious differences (no one has ever claimed to believe in purple unicorns, and purple unicorns are completely arbitrary). We call that painting the target around the arrow.

My god you have a hard time understanding analogies.

 

[JD50]

I don't think I ever said no one "could" divorce their moral/personal veiws, I said our personalites are in the laws we make to a large degree. If you want to argue against that, please do.

You said

You want a person to divorce his moral compass of right and wrong from lawmaking. That will simply NOT happen.

when people do just that with regards to idolatry. That was the point.