iPoW #4 - How's Your Sister?

[Lesotheron]

I agree that swordsman3003 is intelligent and well-educated. I'm just trying to make him understand that he's using his intelligence and education in such a limited way.

His latest posts are prime examples. He still insists that I advocate violence and anarchy, even though I have pointed out that it is not necessary.

Yes, people can vote and people can donate to the ACLU. And what are they actually doing? They're putting their trust in the people who have the power to defend their beliefs, instead of standing up for their beliefs themselves. What if the votes don't actually get counted? What if the ACLU isn't willing to defend your rights?

Violence and revolution are only necessary when someone says "believe this or die". In the example of taxes, if the entire country, as a whole, refused to pay taxes, would the government be able to throw them all into prison? No, there aren't enough prisons and there would be nobody to throw them into prisons because the police wouldn't be paying their taxes either.

They're still defending their beliefs, but there's no need to violently overthrow the government to do so. Most people don't have a problem with taxes because there is a valid reason for having them (taxes are what the government uses to provide all of it's services to the people).

Are most people going to stop paying their taxes because a few people refuse? No, because the majority either agrees that taxes are necessary or is unwilling to fight for their belief that taxes aren't necessary.

It's the same thing with incest. The minority can say incest should be legal, but it makes no difference because the majority has already decided. They either feel that incest should be illegal or they're not willing to join those who feel that it shouldn't be.

I just have a big problem with those who aren't willing to stand up for what they believe in.

If the Klu Klux Klan came to your town and set up a gallows in the center of town to lynch anyone they thought deserved it, would you stand up to them or would you stay out of it because they're not after you and other people can get involved? What if the police are Klansmen and weren't going to do anything about it? Is it your place to stop it? What if the government sanctioned the Klan to do this? Should you stand up to the government?

At what point do people stop saying "It isn't my fight" and start saying "I can't allow this"?

Whether or not incest is illegal is decided by the people who believe that it should be or it shouldn't be. If the majority decides it should be, it stays illegal. If the majority decides it shouldn't be, it becomes legal.

The same thing goes for the religious position. A religion is not going to take a chance on offending the majority of it's congregation. That's why the different religions have altered their stances on birth control, revenge and even incest. The people showed what they were willing to accept and religion catered to the majority. It doesn't require a vote because religion guages the reactions of the people.

If every Catholic parishoner decided that abortion was "right", would the Catholic religion still preach that it isn't? No, because then they wouldn't have any parishoners. If even 60% of Catholics approved of abortion, they should leave the Catholic faith for decrying it.

But if they do believe that, they don't do anything about it. Historically, this has caused severe problems.

Look at Al-Qaeda. They preach from the Islamic religion, does that mean that all Muslims are terrorists? No, because the Islamic religion doesn't advocate terrorism. Al-Qaeda is a minority group twisting the religion to it's own advantange. If Islam advocated terrorism, Al-Qaeda wouldn't exist because their beliefs would already be supported.

Who helps Al-Qaeda? Those who believe in what Al-Qaeda does and those that refuse to take a stand to stop Al-Qaeda from doing what they want. Do you blame Islam for Al-Qaeda? No, because Islam doesn't support the Al-Qaedan beliefs.

In the end, you have three sides: Al-Qaeda, those who want to stop Al-Qaeda and those who are just "staying out of it". The majority of society sits on the sidelines and watches the other two sides battle it out.

If Al-Qaeda wins the fight, is the majority going to rise up against them? You might think so, but as swordsman3003 has pointed out, historically, that doesn't happen very often.

But Al-Qaeda doesn't even have to win. They only have to make it difficult enough for the other side to give up (just look at Vietnam). Once the other side gives up, is the majority going to stand up against them? Once again, not likely.

What if Al-Qaeda managed to control the entire Islamic religion, whose fault would it be? It would be the fault of the people who believe in Al-Qaeda and the people who didn't do anything to stop Al-Qaeda from rising to power. Would it be the fault of those who fought and died to stop Al-Qaeda? No, they stood up for their beliefs and defended them.

And this is not tied to my earlier example of Bush's war in Iraq. I don't hold any illusions that the war in Iraq has anything to do with Al-Qaeda.

swordsman3003:

I've already shown you how your belief in science is exactly the same as a bible-thumpers faith in religion. Much like the bible-thumper, you refuse to see the evidence right under your nose.

Science's "facts" are only facts until they're proven wrong. At any point in time, everything you "know" could be proven wrong. It's happened before and it will happen again. You hold to your beliefs that what you "know" is right because you have "facts" and "evidence" backing them up, but you don't allow for the possibility that you could be wrong.

You say religion is wrong because it hasn't been proven, but since there's no way to prove it or disprove it, there's no way of knowing whether or not it's wrong. By disregarding the possibility that religion could be right, you're no different than the religious zealots who say that religion has to be right because it can't be proven wrong.

You say evolution disproves the common religious belief of creationism. Great, but what if science finds out that evolution is wrong? At one point in time, science didn't support evolution. Then they found evidence that supported evolution and made it into a theory. If they found evidence that proved evolution was impossible, would the theory still be valid? Would you still defend it?

What about fossils, radiometric dating shows that there are some fossils billions of years old? Great, but once again they're dated according to science's best guess of how they should be dated. The radiometric dating is based off how radioactive isotopes behave now and how they may have behaved a long time ago. Any circumstance that science can find that would change how those isotopes may have behaved in between then and now would throw those dates out the window.

Science is the best guess of what is. Religion is the best guess of what might be. Neither one is conclusive and either one could be just as wrong as the other. Believing in one doesn't automatically make the other one wrong.

[Swordsman3003]

They're still defending their beliefs, but there's no need to violently overthrow the government to do so. Most people don't have a problem with taxes because there is a valid reason for having them (taxes are what the government uses to provide all of it's services to the people).

The taxpayer revolt scenario is pretty interesting.

However, in America, it would be a lot easier just to vote for different politicians. I'm pretty sure that if 100% of the U.S. hated the government so much that they didn't pay their taxes, they would have been dealing with the problems long before that. But whatever, I understand your example.

But what I've said previously is entirely true: a taxpayer revolt will incite incredible violence and anarchy. You said there's no police force. That means there's nobody enforcing any laws at all!

Look, the only way it would be worth it to start a revolution would be if the government were so awful that having hundreds of thousands of Americans die would be a fair trade. It's possible, but highly unlikely.

And now that I think about it, the government doesn't have to get tax dollars if it just starts seizing everyone's assets. They won't have the manpower you say? Hundreds of foreign national are currently in the employ of the federal government, fighting in Iraq in the name of America. I don't think it would be that difficult to get more mercenaries, but I digress.

In case I have not been clear enough, let me state again: Maybe you didn't invite anarchy before, but you just did in your last post.

It's the same thing with incest. The minority can say incest should be legal, but it makes no difference because the majority has already decided. They either feel that incest should be illegal or they're not willing to join those who feel that it shouldn't be.

While your assessment is sort of acurrate, I think you need to remember that in America we have fundamental liberties that cannot be taken away except by a ridiculous super-majority.

If it could be proven to the judiciary branch that the constitution protects your right to commit incest, then it would become legal overnight, regardless of how the "majority" feels about it.

I just have a big problem with those who aren't willing to stand up for what they believe in.

The terrorist hijackers on 9/11 stood up for what they believe in, and died for it. Abortion clinic attackers, the unabomber, and the Ku Klux Klan all stand up for what they believe in. They kill and die for it.

What is this bullshit about it being so holy to slay people in the name of your beliefs?

There is no difference between you killing people for what you believe and those people killing you for what they believe, except that you "know" that your causes are worthy or some other nonsense.

Get over yourself. Your arguement comes out in support of every violent terrorist that ever lived; they fight and die for what they believe in.

If the Klu Klux Klan came to your town and set up a gallows in the center of town to lynch anyone they thought deserved it, would you stand up to them or would you stay out of it because they're not after you and other people can get involved? What if the police are Klansmen and weren't going to do anything about it? Is it your place to stop it? What if the government sanctioned the Klan to do this? Should you stand up to the government?

Well, first of all, I'd like to point out that the KKK would only be following your guide to morality.

Yes, there are times when itis necassary to stand up to the government. How did Martin Luther King, Jr., defeat a government that openly supported the KKK? By refusing to pay his taxes and arming blacks with machine guns?

Give me a FUCKING break. It's true that there are government that deserve to be overturned, especially when YOU are making up extreme, hypothetical examples, but most of the time there are alternative routes to change.

I'm not saying violence is never the answer, I'm just trying to show that dying or killing for a cause is not this great, honorable moment that you make it out to be.

At what point do people stop saying "It isn't my fight" and start saying "I can't allow this"?

When they've had enough of it. Sometimes that never happens.

Whether or not incest is illegal is decided by the people who believe that it should be or it shouldn't be. If the majority decides it should be, it stays illegal. If the majority decides it shouldn't be, it becomes legal.

Whether or not incest is illegal is decided by representative lawmakers and the judges who deem the laws constitutional.

There are plenty of things that the majority of Americans want that aren't happening. I shouldn't have to explain to you that the majority does not always win. Look how long the white minority was able to dominate South Africa.

Throughout the bulk history, the majority did not make the rules.

Your assessment is so simplistic as to have no value. "If the majority want it, it just happens, don't you know that?"

Right.

The same thing goes for the religious position. A religion is not going to take a chance on offending the majority of it's congregation. That's why the different religions have altered their stances on birth control, revenge and even incest. The people showed what they were willing to accept and religion catered to the majority. It doesn't require a vote because religion guages the reactions of the people.

What kind of bullshit fantasy version of history do you think happened?

For thousands of years, religious leaders did NOT have to wory about offending their congregations. There was only one church, and if they didn't go, they were ostracized or killed. Religion was monolithic and authoritarian. You won't worship the emperor? Tough shit. Dead.

Today, religious leaders have to be utterly terrified of offending their congregation, because there are so many competing churches to which their follows may go instead. The world was not always like that.

Also, in America, we have the seperation of church and state, so if a church doesn't like you, they don't have the power to burn you alive, luckily. Didn't used to be that way either.

Religion catered to a majority? WITHOUT VOTES TAKING PLACE?? How that fuck do you have the magical knowledge of how peons, statistically speaking, felt about their religious leaders decisions on a point-by-point basis?

I suppose you just "know" that the majority of aztecs sat around and came to the conclusion that they needed to rip the beating hearts out of adolescent girls in the name of the sky god.

Or, alternatively, religious leaders told their followers what they needed to do, and the fearful, ignorant, superstitious population did whatever they said.

If every Catholic parishoner decided that abortion was "right", would the Catholic religion still preach that it isn't? No, because then they wouldn't have any parishoners. If even 60% of Catholics approved of abortion, they should leave the Catholic faith for decrying it.

Well, catholics currently have the convinience of being able to opt out of the religion.

My family is catholic, and if we were living in Italy say 400 years ago, I would be tortured and killed. I know it because that's what actually happened to people.

Until very, very recently, the authority of the state would enforce devotion to religion.

Do you think a monolithic, state enforced, catholic church needs to even concern itself with what it's parishoners think?

Actually, there are GODDAMN HISTORICAL RECORDS of priests, bishops, cardinal, the whole fucking hierarchy, writing about how they don't give a shit about what the congregation wants the church to be, because they have their authority from god and answer to nobody.

But if they do believe that, they don't do anything about it. Historically, this has caused severe problems.

I'd like to point out that many, many people opposed the catholic church. They died horrible, painful deaths.

You know what caused the severe problems? The existence of such a church in the first place.

Look at Al-Qaeda. They preach from the Islamic religion, does that mean that all Muslims are terrorists? No, because the Islamic religion doesn't advocate terrorism.

The same way christianity doesn't advocate the stoning of homosexuals?

Al-Qaeda is a minority group twisting the religion to it's own advantange. If Islam advocated terrorism, Al-Qaeda wouldn't exist because their beliefs would already be supported.

And if muslims were so opposed to terrorism, Al-Qaeda wouldn't exist because nobody would join it.

Hey, wait, Al-Qaeda is an organization fighting, killing, and dying for what they believe. Isn't that what you keep saying people are supposed to do?

Or does that rule only apply when people believe the exact same things as you?

Who helps Al-Qaeda?

Well, according to your ealier comments, anybody who doesn't go out of their way to kill Al-Qaeda operatives is passively accepting and therefore supporting terrorism.

Those who believe in what Al-Qaeda does and those that refuse to take a stand to stop Al-Qaeda from doing what they want.

Is that even a complete sentence?

Do you blame Islam for Al-Qaeda?

Yes.

No, because Islam doesn't support the Al-Qaedan beliefs.

Prove it. I've read the Qu'ran, and there are definitely some passages in there that I can find to support the violent surpression of non-muslims.

How do you think the religion spread so quickly? In a manner of 400 years, islam conquered an area comparable in size to the Roman empire.

In the end, you have three sides: Al-Qaeda, those who want to stop Al-Qaeda and those who are just "staying out of it". The majority of society sits on the sidelines and watches the other two sides battle it out.

It definitely is a practical, intelligent decision for me to travel to Afganistan and march across the countryside, figure out which muslims are terrorists, and then kill them.

If Al-Qaeda wins the fight, is the majority going to rise up against them? You might think so, but as swordsman3003 has pointed out, historically, that doesn't happen very often.

Historically, Al-Qaeda is going to bite the dust. They are a poorly armed, non-logical minority living in an area with one resource, a resource doomed to expire in little more than a few decades.

Al-Qaeda will go away with targeted defensive strategies...and waiting for them to collapse on themselves.

Providing aid to nations susceptible to extremism might help, for example.


But, yes, if jihadis were running down the streets waving ak-47s, I would fight back.

But Al-Qaeda doesn't even have to win. They only have to make it difficult enough for the other side to give up (just look at Vietnam). Once the other side gives up, is the majority going to stand up against them? Once again, not likely.

That's it. I figured it out. You simply have no knowledge of history.

The side that America supported during the Vietnam war was the minority, for one.

Comparing the fight against islamic extremism to a skirmish during the cold war is absurd.

What if Al-Qaeda managed to control the entire Islamic religion, whose fault would it be? It would be the fault of the people who believe in Al-Qaeda and the people who didn't do anything to stop Al-Qaeda from rising to power. Would it be the fault of those who fought and died to stop Al-Qaeda? No, they stood up for their beliefs and defended them.

Actually, according to your warped sense of honor, it's only the fault of the people who stood by and did nothing, because Al-Qaeda was fighting for what it believes in!!

Apparently, all you have to do is believe something enough, and then it's ok to kill people for your beliefs!!

You are the kind of fanatic that would follow an organization like Al-Qaeda. An organization designed to kill people who are oppressing your beliefs.

And this is not tied to my earlier example of Bush's war in Iraq. I don't hold any illusions that the war in Iraq has anything to do with Al-Qaeda.

Fair enough.

I've already shown you how your belief in science is exactly the same as a bible-thumpers faith in religion.

Do you have to taste the air witih your tongue? Because you sure sound like a snake.

I do not have a belief in science, which I have stated.

I would willingly drop all of my ideas, all of them, if you could merely show evidence as to why some other idea is the correct one, something you have never done. You've merely repeatedly attacked the notion that logic and reason can lead us to fact.

How is my support of science "exactly" the same as a religious belief?

everyone who is skimming over the posts in this thread please pay attention to what lesotheron has said: supporting science and believing in religion are exactly the same.

Because Doctors and Physicists provide humanity with roughly the same amount of knowledge as Pat Robertson and Osama Bin Laden.


Not only that, you've proved it, and I just -refuse- to see how being amputated at the knee is a shoe size.

Much like the bible-thumper, you refuse to see the evidence right under your nose.

And what evidence is that? Your remarkable understanding of historical authoritarianism? Or your erudite explanation of how it is within the realm of possibility that science could be incorrect?

First of all, science is the practical application of logic and reason.

Do YOU think that logic is wrong? Prove that to me without using logic.

Science's "facts" are only facts until they're proven wrong.

As opposed to religious "facts," which are facts even if they are proven wrong.

At any point in time, everything you "know" could be proven wrong.

Right. I have repeatedly admitted that. As a matter of fact, I point that out as a virtue of my knowledge. I am willing to admit that anything I think can be proven wrong.

The opposite of that mindset is NEVER willing to admit that you HAVE been proven wrong.

By the way, you still ignore my adept disproof of the posibility of god's existance. Why is that?

What do you want me to admit??? What do you want me say?

I have already said that religious ideas are possible. I said they could happen. I said if somebody showed me evidence, I would accept it as true.

You sound like you want everyone to subscribe to the same kind of eternal agnosticism that you seem advocate.

It's happened before and it will happen again. You hold to your beliefs that what you "know" is right because you have "facts" and "evidence" backing them up, but you don't allow for the possibility that you could be wrong.

WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS SHIT???

I CONTINUALLY ADMIT THAT EVERYTHING I KNOW MIGHT BE WRONG.

I do not have goddamn beliefs either!!!

If my facts and evidence are so pitiful as to spit them out with quotes, then show me superior evidence. If you can find it, I'll accept it!

What's wrong with you lesotheron? You attack me for telling other people what they should think, by telling me what I should think.

Science probably is wrong, on many accounts, but a scientific, rational, logical, reasoned understanding of the universe is still preferable to a fantastic, imaginary, unsubstantiated viewpoint.

You say religion is wrong because it hasn't been proven, but since there's no way to prove it or disprove it, there's no way of knowing whether or not it's wrong.

Wrong, jackoff. I already disproved the existence of god, and you attempt to refute it was laughable. YOU are the one ignoring facts right under your nose.

And anyways, if there is no way of knowing whether or not the idea is wrong, the idea has no merit!!

There are an infinite number of undisprovable ideas, like LastThursdayism. They are possible, but so is anything and everything!!!!! Except 4 sided triangles, round squares, and omnipotence.

By disregarding the possibility that religion could be right,

Outright lies.

you're no different than the religious zealots who say that religion has to be right because it can't be proven wrong.

Wrong. I am entirely different. I'm not saying science is right because it hasn't been proven wrong, I'm saying it's much closer to the truth, true knowledge, because it is based on REALITY as opposed to FANTASY.

You say evolution disproves the common religious belief of creationism. Great, but what if science finds out that evolution is wrong?

If science finds a superior theory to evolution, I will accept it, with no hard feelings or spite.

At one point in time, science didn't support evolution.

Because the theory did not exist. And if I lived in that time, with people like Isaac Newton, I would have agreed that the primitive science of the time did support creationism.

Then they found evidence that supported evolution and made it into a theory. If they found evidence that proved evolution was impossible, would the theory still be valid? Would you still defend it?

I would defend evolution in the face of a new idea until enough evidence was accrued that evolution needed to be supplanted.

Whether or not I want evolution to be "true" has no bearing on it's authenticity. What I support is not the "teachings" of science, but rather the scientific method.

What kind of magical planet do you live on? If you change you mind once, you're always wrong? That's how you keep attacking a reason-based viewpoint of the universe.

"Hey, look, you were wrong on this one account. THAT MEANS YOU'RE WRONG FOR ALWAYS AND ETERNITY!"

I think being wrong some of the time, and admitting that you can be wrong, and changing your mind when you find that you are mistaken, is a far superior way to form your ideas then just pulling them out of your ass, and never admitting they can be false.

What about fossils, radiometric dating shows that there are some fossils billions of years old? Great, but once again they're dated according to science's best guess of how they should be dated. The radiometric dating is based off how radioactive isotopes behave now and how they may have behaved a long time ago. Any circumstance that science can find that would change how those isotopes may have behaved in between then and now would throw those dates out the window.

Right. Yup. I don't mind. If that happened, I would accept it.

BTW, are you a creationist?

Science is the best guess of what is.

Yep!! And that's why I support it.

Religion is the best guess of what might be.

No. Religion is not the "best guess" of what might be. It is a guess, of what could be, and sometimes it is the assertion that something impossible is actually possible!

How does religion provide a good guess of what might be?

I am going to guess, right here, right now, that tomorrow a person will be born.

I think that's a pretty good guess, don't you?

A christian fundamentalist is going to guess that tomorrow, Jesus will appear to take him up to heaven.

Just as likely to happen, is it not?

Get a life. Good guesses are based on what is actually likely to occur.

Neither one is conclusive and either one could be just as wrong as the other. Believing in one doesn't automatically make the other one wrong.

Actually, since religionists do not accept logic and reason, I will never be able to show them that they are wrong. Ever. Go figure.

And anyways, religion IS conclusive, retard! Religion makes a conclusion and then never needs to support it!



edited for brackets

[Lowky]

[img]image%20removed%20to%20save%20space[/img]

WORLDSEX

Yeah, fucking the globe is some good fucking.

shouldn't that version also have Cheney/Bush's head photoshopped in as well?

[Swordsman3003]

I thought I could drive the point home a little further:

Science is my religion?

I suppose homelessness is a house,

Marijuana is an anti-drug,

Unemployed is a job,

and an empty glass is a drink.

[Xero]

Marijuana is an anti-drug,

Unemployed is a job,

and an empty glass is a drink.

1.) weed can be an anti-drug, anti-(prescription million side-effects)appitite stimulator's

2.) keeping a house maintained is hardwork when you're the only one doing it

3.) if you can drink molten glass

[/assholery]

[Seth Marati]

Bringing the thread back to incest, this might make for interesting reference material. Posted at the suggestion of someone - you know who you are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2gID5bpXAU

I mean, it's one thing to discuss incest as a abstraction; it's quite another to contemplate a concrete example of it.

As for myself, I'm weirded out by it, but I don't really *object* to it. Not like this guy here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24Q4MDiWEOQ Being weirded out is one thing, but this guy just seems angry. Like he'd beat the shit out of them if he ever met them. The apparent hatefulness in his demeanor is way more appalling to me than any sort of deviant behavior.

[Lesotheron]

And that's why I love arguing with swordsman3003. You bring into question his beliefs and he flies off the handle just like any other zealot.

swordsman3003:

Once again, you seem to be mistaking defending your beliefs, standing up for your beliefs and fighting for your beliefs with "going out and killing anyone who disagrees with your beliefs". I really hate repeating myself, but since you don't seem to have been able to understand what I said, I'll try to break it down for you.

The tax example was to show how someone could stand up for their beliefs, fight for their beliefs and defend their beliefs without having to kill anyone. Could it lead to anarchy and violence? Sure, there are people who would take advantage of the situation for just that purpose. Of course, there are also people who would take advantage of you walking down the street to chuck a brick at your head (my guess is anyone who's actually tried to use actual reason and logic against your particular brand of reason and logic in a debate with you). You have to weigh your need to walk down the street with the possible brick-chucking the same as society would have to weigh refusing to pay taxes with the possible anarchy and violence that could result.

Sure, Americans could just vote for new politicians, but how can they guarantee that the new politicians are any better than the old ones? Once a politician is in office, it's not very easy to remove them. We could impeach them, but we've been able to do that how many times in the past? We could assassinate them, it happens more often than impeachment, but it's violent and despite your constant assurances, I have no interest in promoting violence. So how do we get the politician out of office? We have to wait 4 or more years and vote for someone different, who may not be different at all. Or, we could refuse to pay our taxes and force the government to change, non-violently.

While your assessment is sort of acurrate, I think you need to remember that in America we have fundamental liberties that cannot be taken away except by a ridiculous super-majority.

I had to quote this because it's so adorably naive. Those "fundamental liberties" that cannot be taken away, guess what, they're being taken away.

How many times have laws had to be stricken down for being unconstitutional? Did it stop those laws from being made, or did someone propose the law, it was passed and someone later had to fight for it to be repealed? If you don't stand up for your "fundamental liberties", someone will take them away from you, and you won't even realize that they're gone until it's too late. Are they really fundamental if you have to fight your own government to keep them?

Also, I have to ask, what's a super-majority? Is it a majority that's been bitten by a radioactive zealot? Did it come from a distant planet to use its majority-ness to save humanity? A majority is anything more than a half. Once you have a majority, be it a regular majority, a 2/3 majority, a 90% majority or even the almighty super-majority, it's the majority.

The terrorist hijackers on 9/11 stood up for what they believe in, and died for it. Abortion clinic attackers, the unabomber, and the Ku Klux Klan all stand up for what they believe in. They kill and die for it.

Do I have a problem with their beliefs? Yes. Do I have a problem with their methods? Yes. Do I have a problem with the fact that they actually stood up for their beliefs and got smacked down by the majority? No.

That's how things change. People try to introduce their beliefs and the majority either agrees with them or doesn't. This goes back to the religious discussion. The terrorist hijackers on 9/11, abortion clinic attackers, the Unabomber and the KKK all did what different religions have done throughout history, tried to force people to believe what they believed.

The difference? The majority has worked and is still working to stop the 9/11 terrorist group, abortion clinic attackers, the Unabomber and the KKK (the Unabomber is already taken care of, but the majority is working to prevent another one from popping up). The majority either agreed with religion or wasn't willing to stand against religion, so religion won.

That's my point, if you don't stand up for your beliefs; someone with different beliefs is going to walk all over you. In the end, the majority decides by working for or against those beliefs. As long as you stood up for your side of the issue, I may not agree with your side, I may not like your side, but I'll respect you for actually standing up for it.

I'm going to say something incredibly unpopular, and I know you're going to try to attack me for it, but I don't care.

I respect Hitler. I find his beliefs deplorable. I think he was insane in a magnitude that has only rarely been seen. I think Austria should have allowed his mother an abortion to prevent the terrible things he did. But at the same time, he pulled Germany out of a terrible depression and used it to convince an entire country to follow him on his crusade of madness. If he had been working to the betterment of mankind instead of his own twisted vendetta, he would be widely regarded as one of the most brilliant men alive. Instead he's instantly reviled whenever his name was brought up.

Had the entire world allowed him to do what Germany allowed him to do, he would still be considered one of the most brilliant men alive and there would be no Jews, Gypsies, Handicapped or any other "undesirable" on the planet.

The difference? The whole world didn't allow him to do that. The majority stood up and stopped him. Was he right or wrong? The majority says he was wrong, but if the majority thought he was right where would we be?

I'm not saying violence is never the answer, I'm just trying to show that dying or killing for a cause is not this great, honorable moment that you make it out to be.

I never said killing for a cause was noble or honorable. I said defending your beliefs was both noble and honorable. Once again, if you walked up to me and put a gun to my head and said I have to believe what you say or you'll shoot me, which is more noble and honorable?

1) Either accepting your beliefs or saying I accept your beliefs just so you don't kill me.

2) Sitting there refusing to accept or even say I accept your beliefs and letting you kill me.

3) Defend myself, which may or may not be successful, so that if one of us has to die, I at least had a chance.

If the only way to prevent you from killing me is to kill you, then yes, I would do it, not because of my beliefs, but because I'm not going to let you kill me for your beliefs. If you would rather have your beliefs oppressed or flat out die for your beliefs, go ahead. I'm not going down without a fight.

Whether or not incest is illegal is decided by the people who believe that it should be or it shouldn't be. If the majority decides it should be, it stays illegal. If the majority decides it shouldn't be, it becomes legal.

Whether or not incest is illegal is decided by representative lawmakers and the judges who deem the laws constitutional.

I particularly like this bit. Who puts the representative lawmakers and judges in power? Say it with me now... THE MAJORITY. See, you can learn, you just try hard not to.

*One big long rant about religious oppression*

I'm not going to actually quote the whole thing, I'm just going to ask you:

How was religion able to do this?

That's right, because the majority either agreed with them or didn't stand up against them. If the majority had put a stop to it, would it have been that way? Come on, I know you know this. Don't worry, I won't be grading your answers.

The Catholics have always had the convenience of opting out of the religion, just like any other religion. They just weren't willing to stand up and make it convenient to do so. The government enforced religious devotion? Wow, it's not like people have never overthrown a corrupt government before. You keep confusing "unwilling to" with "unable to".

I'd like to point out that many, many people opposed the catholic church. They died horrible, painful deaths.

Why? Because the majority didn't support them. The majority turned them in to be tortured and killed. The majority sided with religion.

You know what caused the severe problems? The existence of such a church in the first place.

Wrong, the church was and is neutral. It is not the religion or the beliefs that caused any of that. It is the people who twisted the religion and beliefs that caused the severe problems. You'll find that all of the problems were caused by people who acted against the actual teachings of the religion.

And if muslims were so opposed to terrorism, Al-Qaeda wouldn't exist because nobody would join it.

I can't tell if you're just that intolerant or if you're actually less intelligent than I thought you were.

Was the Unabomber religious? Was Jeffery Dahmer religious? Was Ted Bundy religious? People can be deranged and violent without having religion.

Saying that Muslims must not be opposed to terrorism because some of them twist the teachings of Islam to promote terrorism is the single most idiotic thing I've ever heard you say (and you even tried to argue that a hypothesis wasn't a guess, even though according to the scientific method that you worship, it is).

Do you blame Islam for Al-Qaeda?

Yes.

Okay, then I blame science for making you unable to use the reason and logic that you supposedly live by. How is it reasonable or logical to blame an institution for the minority that perverts it?

Do me a favor, go to the national Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. and look at what Hitler did to people in the name of "Science". Sure, he had his religious beliefs (a twisted version of Christianity), but he wasn't working towards religious superiority, he was working for racial superiority, genetic superiority. He would also have people put into chairs, have their heads and chests cut open and then submit them to hours of torture, not for information, but to see how long they could take it. He would then use this information to train his soldiers to be superior. Auschwitz itself was part of a scientific experiment to find the most efficient way to commit genocide.

I guess science is just as evil as you think religion is. By your logic, Hitler only did it because science was there to use as a scapegoat.

Prove it. I've read the Qu'ran, and there are definitely some passages in there that I can find to support the violent surpression of non-muslims.

I can point out medical texts that say bloodletting is required for most ailments. Medicine has moved past its origins and so has Islam. Would you hold Medicine accountable if a small group of doctors went back to bloodletting? Not your precious science, OH NOES! If someone takes part of the basics and twists it to do something that completely contradicts the whole, you're an idiot if you blame the whole.

But, yes, if jihadis were running down the streets waving ak-47s, I would fight back.

And yet you accuse me of trying to incite violence and anarchy for saying the same damn thing. If that's your idea of reason and logic at work, I weep for anyone you consider reasonable and logical.

That's it. I figured it out. You simply have no knowledge of history.

Ah yes, I must have forgotten that I was dealing with the almighty history major. Clearly, you'll have the upper hand in this discussion. Please continue.

The side that America supported during the Vietnam war was the minority, for one.

Yes, now please enlighten my poor illogical, irrational self as to which side ended up with the victory, the majority of the communists or the minority that had America's support?

Comparing the fight against islamic extremism to a skirmish during the cold war is absurd.

A skirmish? Really? See, that's the wonderful thing about history majors, they know what really happened even though people who were there disagree.

Let me correct your horrible miseducation. I was not in Vietnam (I wasn't even born until a little while after it ended), however, my uncle fought in Vietnam and would beg to disagree with you.

See, according to many historical references that were written around that time (my uncle has them in a footlocker with his uniform and his purple heart), President Kennedy didn't want a war, but sent small amounts of troops to bolster the South Vietnamese army.

When two American ships were supposedly attacked off the coast of North Vietnam in 1964, President Johnson twisted the facts to pressure congress into helping him declare war. I say supposedly attacked because the details of the attack were never really clear and even President Johnson admitted that it may not have happened. Congress wasn't comfortable openly declaring war with the details unclear, so they passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which would allow the president to engage in military operations in Vietnam without having to declare war (so, it's an actual war, but we're not really going to call it that).

Now, this "military operation" was so massive that the entire United States military wasn't enough for it, so they brought back the draft. They pulled people out of their homes, put uniforms on them and told them to "shoot anyone who looked like they might shoot back" (my uncle still shudders when he tells me that).

In the end, over 30,000 American died. That's only 6,000 fewer casualties than America had in the Korean War, yet we sent over 50,000 more troops to Vietnam.

So, you can keep calling it a "skirmish". To the North Vietnamese, it was a war. To the South Vietnamese and the Americans who actually fought there, it was a war. Did the government call it a war? No, they called it a "police action". Did the media call it a war? Yes, many times and President Johnson repeatedly tried to assure the American people that we were only supporting the South Vietnamese troops and that we were not actually at war, despite the fact that we were doing everything we would be doing if we were actually at war.

Your revisionist history is a slap in the face to the soldiers who fought and died in any American conflict, regardless of whether or not the government called it a war.

I compare Vietnam to Iraq because both were started by a President misrepresenting facts. Both were promoted to the American people as "defending the liberty of the people". Both went on longer than they should have, leading to many unnecessary casualties (Iraq is still going on and people are still dying).

If this is what colleges are turning out as history majors, it's a wonder there's any evidence that last week actually happened.

I do not have a belief in science, which I have stated.

You have scientific facts (which you believe are true because they haven't been proven false, even though they could be), you have scientific evidence (which you believe supports those facts because you don't have any evidence to the contrary, either because you don't accept it or we haven't discovered it yet) and you have your ideas (which you believe are correct because they're backed up with those facts and evidence, even though they could be totally wrong and you just don't know it). Nope, there’s no belief in science here. Move along, people. You'll have to look for belief elsewhere else.

I would willingly drop all of my ideas, all of them, if you could merely show evidence as to why some other idea is the correct one, something you have never done.

Hey, if I had the evidence, I would gladly show it to you. I'd show you that religion is right, science is wrong and publicly humiliate you. But I'm not doing that. Why? Because I don't have the evidence. The evidence may not even exist.

The difference? I'm not saying religion is right and science is wrong. You're ranting and raving constantly about science being right and religion being wrong, just like the religious zealots who rant and rave that science is wrong and religion is right.

I'm saying that there's enough evidence to support your view, but it isn't conclusive enough that you should discount the possibility that religion could be right. As many times as you say "I admit I could be wrong", you still jump up and attack anyone who even hints that they might be religious or spiritual.

Would you like me to go through and pull quotes from when you called someone an "idiot" for believing in a soul? How about when you said that belief in the afterlife couldn't possibly be sane? Have you proven that souls don't exist? Have you proven that the afterlife couldn't possibly exist? Can you prove that those things don't exist?

By the way, you still ignore my adept disproof of the posibility of god's existance. Why is that?

1) It wasn't "adept disproof of the possibility of god's existence", it was a logical argument against the possibility of omnipotence being valid.

2) I didn't ignore it, I responded with an equally logical argument in defense of omnipotence's possible validity.

3) Since I never once said that I believe in any deity, nor did I say that any deity was actually omnipotent, I responded to your argument with one of my own and when you did not present a better argument, I let it drop.

What do you want me to admit??? What do you want me say?

I don't actually want you to admit or say anything. Every time I or anyone else on this board even mentions religion or spirituality (even if it's not their specific beliefs and they're only making reference to them), they can expect the great history major and devout science fanatic, swordsman3003, to jump down their throats for disagreeing with what only he and a select few could possibly be intelligent enough to see.

I'm hoping that eventually you'll realize that when you attack someone's beliefs because they disagree with yours, I'm going to argue back. I'm hoping that eventually people will be able to discuss things on this board without having to worry about having their views stepped all over by someone who "admits he could be wrong", but damn sure isn't going to act like it.

I'll wrap this up because it's gotten a lot longer than I intended it to be.

What kind of magical planet do you live on? If you change you mind once, you're always wrong? That's how you keep attacking a reason-based viewpoint of the universe.

"Hey, look, you were wrong on this one account. THAT MEANS YOU'RE WRONG FOR ALWAYS AND ETERNITY!"

Wow, that's kind of like you saying that evolution contradicts creationism and you think you've found a logical flaw with the concept of omnipotence so every religion throughout time must be wrong.

I never said that science is wrong. I said that science isn't as sure as you seem to think it is. Science is ever-changing and constantly in transition. All of your facts may be right and may be wrong, but what they definitely aren’t, is set in stone.

If you can admit that you could be wrong, and you can admit that religion could be right, why do you automatically attack anyone who even says that religion might be right?

[ManaUser]

Bringing the thread back to incest, this might make for interesting reference material.

I mean, it's one thing to discuss incest as a abstraction; it's quite another to contemplate a concrete example of it.

I have my doubts... Frankly I thought this Criss character was kinda creepy. It sounds like he has a history of releasing--how to put this nicely-- attention-whore-ish videos, so I'm skeptical about this one being for real. Anyway, I can see we people might not like him, but I don't understand comments like these:

ok I'm alllll for chris crocker but THAT was a fucking sick, I hope to God it's fake and a joke. omg, i see chris so much differantly now, haha. Fuck that was nasty.

alright man i have been in your favor because i think that you bring up a good point about lifestyle and the fact that you can do whatever you want but you have just crossed the line in my book i'm sorry but i can't watch this stuff anymore goodbye.

This one was amusing though:

oh boy...i cant believe my lil sis sent this to me in the first place...chris...agian i ask WHY YOUR FUCKING BROTHER!!!???, why dont you find a guy that looks like britney? youd have more fun, & it wouldnt be like...repulsive cuz its not incest...

But seriously, why does the mere thought of incest disgust people so bad? Maybe someone can help me out. Several of you gave the standard "eww" response, even if you don't think it should be illegal.

Do you have any idea why you feel that way? Or is it a completely automatic(?) reaction that you can't explain?

[Honor]

I've already shown you how your belief in science is exactly the same as a bible-thumpers faith in religion. Much like the bible-thumper, you refuse to see the evidence right under your nose.

What an incredible, indefensible, unmitigated crock of shit. And, above and beyond all that, it's tired. It's more than tired... It's bone-grindingly, ass-draggingly, hopelessly tired.

Science's "facts" are only facts until they're proven wrong. At any point in time, everything you "know" could be proven wrong. It's happened before and it will happen again.

Bullshit. It's never happened, and it never will happen. At no point in history has everything anyone knows been proven wrong. The "facts" of science are subject to change, of course, but those facts are built on the foundation of knowledge and experience, and those changes are incremental improvements in position...

Scientific "knowledge" is of a different paradigm than religious "knowledge". Religious knowledge is dogmatic and binary... It must be either right or wrong. Compromise in position necessarily means a loss of credible authority.

Scientific knowledge, by contrast, is authoritatively directionless and non-dogmatic... It's only direction is toward greater accuracy. Thus, it cannot be made "wrong" by further revelation, only improved and made more right.

You say religion is wrong because it hasn't been proven, but since there's no way to prove it or disprove it, there's no way of knowing whether or not it's wrong. By disregarding the possibility that religion could be right, you're no different than the religious zealots who say that religion has to be right because it can't be proven wrong.

...And it's at this point where you cross the line to where you are either a liar or an idiot. I say this without the intent to be unnecessarily abrasive or insulting... Merely very, very clear. "Liar" in this instance could be expanded to include someone who's making a false argument for the sake of argument, but not saying so. "Idiot" could be expanded to include "ignorant" or "undereducated"...

Edit: It occurs to me that enumerating only these two possibilities ignore a third. There's also "batshit crazy".

But, in either case, what you're saying is obviously not true, and hardly worth reply.

Without reducing ones self to philosophical masturbation by which we pretend that "literally anything is possible" the entire concept falls on it's ugly little face with a resounding thud.

The fact that something cannot be disproven simply and obviously does not mean that it is possible.

Keeping an open mind doesn't mean you have to keep it -so- open that no intelligent thought can be retained inside.

[Boring 7]

Mmm, it *is* possible, even likely amongst certain folks, to treat science as your "religion". It is most definitive when one is incapable of accepting new scientific theories or the possibility of being wrong.

So Swordsie can be defined as "dogmatic and science-worshipping" if he answers the following question with a negative:
"If God offered you proof of his existence that was *actual proof* beyond any reasonable doubt, would you accept him as being real?"

Of course that assumes such a proof would be possible or appear.

The question being posed by our resident angsty theist is whether or not Swordsman has Faith. And the undeniable answer is yes. He takes it on faith that his eyes see what is to be seen and that his ears hear what is to be heard. He assumes that he is not "in the matrix" or "trapped within a divine comedy" or otherwise deluded by paranormal or supernatural means.

The question that is being counter-proposed is whether or not that faith is, in any shape or form, RELEVANT, or if it is just shadows and dust, a game of the mind that ultimately matters little. The answer to this is-of course-"no it is not relevant."

Within this universe it is true that "anything is possible" including the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn. What is probable, beyond all reasonable doubt is what we see and hear; what science discovers and logic defines.

Intellectual honesty is a step towards civility.

For my own part, a question about the nature of religion. Over the course of the last brazillion years, Humankind has had many, many, MANY religions which usually crossbred and evolved over time by the unholy matings and bizarre mutations of disparate memes. Given that, and the evolution of Christianity over the course of the last 2000 years it has spent cooking, I disagree with the ideal that faith and religion should be fought.

The reason I disagree with this is because religion and faith have proven to be like government. For all its evils government is necessary to society, and so is faith. It keeps the plebs in line. Faith also helps people live, plenty of folks cannot handle the universe as it is, I fail to see what value is derived from taking away the one thing that keeps them sane.

Why can we not just be nice to the poor afflicted, the Jesus addicted?

[Honor]

"If God offered you proof of his existence that was *actual proof* beyond any reasonable doubt, would you accept him as being real?"

Why can we not just be nice to the poor afflicted, the Jesus addicted?

For my part, my answer to your first hypothetical is an offhand, matter-of-fact, but still emphatic "yes". I'd probably be struck to a cinder, anyway, though... Because I would not go gently. I'd have a great deal of very sharp and uncomfortable questions for said god, and not a little criticism. But, then, if it was -actually- god, then it would know I would react that way, since it made me that way... So, perhaps the conversation would be welcomed, and I'd not be punished at all... But rather praised for being critical and thoughtful.

Which is an amusing theory... What if god -is- real, and takes all this very, very careful effort to hide hirself as part of the test... Such that the only people who go to heaven are those who are strong and intelligent enough to not believe in hir? What if anyone who believes in god is deemed a failure because they haven't learned the one lesson of thinking for themselves?



On the second hypothetical, I'd say my answer is: "Because we've already tried that."

A large part of this "experiment in democracy" we've been engaged in over the last 200+ years has been to separate church and state... secular matters from spiritual.

Our founders clearly didn't want religion anywhere near government, and, for a while, in some times and places, it actually worked a bit... People of different religions were allowed to technically exist, even if they weren't welcomed very warmly.

But, the technical "acceptance" didn't last long. Slowly, they started fighting to integrate it back into governmental law. They simply -can't- be satisfied to have freedom of religion... They can't be satisfied to have their religion themselves, and let others do as they may.

They escalate... Constantly trying to alter laws on every level, so that not only are -they- bound by the rules of their religion, but -everyone- is.

I believe, for most of them, this might be because of a certain cognitive dissonance.

The more secure you are in your views, beliefs, or tastes, the less it matters to you if anyone else shares them... But, as doubt and uncertainty enter into those beliefs and views, you find greater and greater need to have them validated and shored up by the agreement of others.

Deep down, in their deepest minds, they -know- it's bullshit. It's absolutely ridiculous on it's face. If they hadn't been indoctrinated from birth, it wouldn't even pass the giggle test. That in and of itself makes the story all but impossible for anyone but the most complete idiots to swallow whole, and that failure fills them with dread, doubt, and discomfort.

Atheists never insist that our money or pledge of allegiance say "There is no god." but christians absolutely flip out if you suggest that the positive affirmation that there -is- one be removed. Atheists certainly don't mind if everyone else wants to go sit in church every week, but christians are deeply distrustful of anyone who doesn't sit in essentially the same kind of church they do.

Whatever the cause, they've proven, again and again and again, that they simply cannot play nice with the other children, over any appreciable length of time. They are invariably eventually intolerant, hostile, and dangerous.


Further... I have to reject the basic premise that religious faith is the only thing that could keep the majority of them in line or sane. I think it could theoretically be done quite well with just a sense of social responsibility and duty.

Even so, there are plenty of forms of non-offensive spiritualism or superstition for those who actually need such things... people who feel certain that, if they are nice and live well, some kind of rewarding experience awaits them.

If all religious people would become deists, I'd be quite happy... Simply the deeply held belief that nothing can be known of the nature of god, and that god does not care to intervene in the lives of humankind would be fine. Sure, I'd still think it was sad that they couldn't simply live in reality, but I'd not have to fight for my life and the future of the world.

Hell, if it could even somehow be instilled into our social ethics that it's deeply wrong to try to coerce anyone else to live under the rules of your faith, I'd be ok with it. Again... Sad, but acceptable.

But, as it stands right now, a huge percentage of people in this nation - you know, the one with more tanks and jets and submarines and nuclear fucking missiles than everyone else put together - vociferously believe that -they- are the only ones god is talking to, and the world must be violently destroyed before they can have welcome-back-jesus-happy-fun-time... Very many of them believe I, personally, should be imprisoned, rehabilitated, or simply killed, because of the way I was born. A not inconsiderable percentage of them believe that even my desire to work doing anything but raising babies for my husband, lord and master on earth is a sinful affront to god and a danger to society. In this time when more and more of what makes the world tick is based on science and engineering and mathematics, they're arguing to replace those topics with fairy tales in our schools.

Over on the other side of the world, we have a whole different batch of crazies... -they- also believe that they are the only ones god is talking to... And the views of the more parochial christians on my position as a female and a lesbian are absolutely pastoral compared to what these folks think of me and those like me... My very existence as a female, to them, is a contaminating force on earth, and a constant danger to males - god's favorites - because of the malicious temptation I represent. They can look back to a time, during the seventh century, when they were really kicking ass... Culturally, scientifically, and economically, they were at the top of their game... And they're -sure- that the fact that the infidels in the west are living high on the hog is a clear sign that god is pissed off at them for straying even one iota from the most strict and oppressive interpretation of islam. They're equally sure that, if they can simply do enough damage to the non-believers, in one brilliant stroke, the rest of the islamic world will band together with them and help them destroy us, allowing them to unite the world under a religious dictatorship that would enforce laws the Taliban can only presently dream of.


No. Spirituality is... Maybe a bit sad on some level, but I can live with it. Religion, on the other hand, is the single most clear and present danger facing our species.

There's a fucking spastic, epileptic, retarded child pointing an elephant gun at our heads, and you folks are saying "Oh, let him play with it... He -likes- it... What's it going to hurt?"

[Boring 7]

The following is clipped for brevity, I mean no offense if I stupidly clip something important.

For my part, my answer to your first hypothetical is an offhand, matter-of-fact, but still emphatic "yes".

Well then we're good to move on from the whole, "Science is your religion" bit. Rock on.

On the second hypothetical, I'd say my answer is: "Because we've already tried that."

A large part of this "experiment in democracy" we've been engaged in over the last 200+ years has been to separate church and state... secular matters from spiritual.

Our founders clearly didn't want religion anywhere near government, and, for a while, in some times and places, it actually worked a bit... People of different religions were allowed to technically exist, even if they weren't welcomed very warmly.

I see you did not think my little rhyme was witty. *Runs away cying pathetic loser emo-tears*

*ahem* Yes, they were *quite* for the separation of religious power and secular authority. Yet:

But, the technical "acceptance" didn't last long. Slowly, they started fighting to integrate it back into governmental law. They simply -can't- be satisfied to have freedom of religion... They can't be satisfied to have their religion themselves, and let others do as they may.

They escalate... Constantly trying to alter laws on every level, so that not only are -they- bound by the rules of their religion, but -everyone- is.

This implies a graduating escalation in the theistic influence of our legal code. This is untrue. You yourself have argued that the laws against incest are archaic religion-based law (and the laws themselves are as old as the states themselves). Further laws like the various sodomy laws, the numerous (and of late, struck-down by the SCotUS) sex and speech restricting laws, the ten commandment displays in court houses, all OLD and "traditional" and being fought against. My point is not that they should not be removed, but that they are losing.

Or in the vernacular, "Mellow out maaaaan, they're not some big bad wolf, just a little hairy spider."

Deep down, in their deepest minds, they -know- it's bullshit. It's absolutely ridiculous on it's face. If they hadn't been indoctrinated from birth, it wouldn't even pass the giggle test. That in and of itself makes the story all but impossible for anyone but the most complete idiots to swallow whole, and that failure fills them with dread, doubt, and discomfort.

Nah. If that were true we (as a species) would not have developed the craziness in the first place. We humans *like* our ritual, our magic, our weird-ass zombie gods.

Atheists never insist that our money or pledge of allegiance say "There is no god." but christians absolutely flip out if you suggest that the positive affirmation that there -is- one be removed. Atheists certainly don't mind if everyone else wants to go sit in church every week, but christians are deeply distrustful of anyone who doesn't sit in essentially the same kind of church they do.

Actually, some Atheists do. I call them "assholes". The fundamental thing I am disagreeing with you on is that you seem to be saying you *do* "mind if everyone else wants to go sit in church every week."

Whatever the cause, they've proven, again and again and again, that they simply cannot play nice with the other children, over any appreciable length of time. They are invariably eventually intolerant, hostile, and dangerous.

Not *all* of them, just the ones I call "assholes" (I am a very boring man so I use the same words a lot).

Further... I have to reject the basic premise that religious faith is the only thing that could keep the majority of them in line or sane. I think it could theoretically be done quite well with just a sense of social responsibility and duty.

We are at loggerheads here. My understanding of sociological structure theorizes that the majority (no matter how many individuals "rise above") of humans cannot behave in a reasonable manner unless they have some threat of punishment, some "do it or I'll fucking spank you" hanging over their heads to "keep 'em honest."

Even so, there are plenty of forms of non-offensive spiritualism or superstition for those who actually need such things... people who feel certain that, if they are nice and live well, some kind of rewarding experience awaits them.

Which is who I am defending when you say, "Faith is bad."

No. Spirituality is... Maybe a bit sad on some level, but I can live with it. Religion, on the other hand, is the single most clear and present danger facing our species.

Retards with nukes will not kill the species, though it may kill our civilization. But do try to remember that the Soviet Union had little to nothing to do with being run by religion and they, too, were quite dangerous with their rattling sabers and "noocleear wessels" and preparation for nuclear war.

There's a fucking spastic, epileptic, retarded child pointing an elephant gun at our heads, and you folks are saying "Oh, let him play with it... He -likes- it... What's it going to hurt?"

No, there is a spastic, epileptic, retarded child waving a flower about next to the gun-wielding child and I think we can leave that little mutant alone, or maybe even derive enjoyment his amusing antics.

The child waving a gun, well, it is another story. . .

[Lesotheron]

...And it's at this point where you cross the line to where you are either a liar or an idiot. I say this without the intent to be unnecessarily abrasive or insulting... Merely very, very clear. "Liar" in this instance could be expanded to include someone who's making a false argument for the sake of argument, but not saying so. "Idiot" could be expanded to include "ignorant" or "undereducated"...

Edit: It occurs to me that enumerating only these two possibilities ignore a third. There's also "batshit crazy".

But, in either case, what you're saying is obviously not true, and hardly worth reply.

Once again, I have a different perspective on the situation, so I must be lying, an idiot or batshit crazy. It couldn't possibly be that I've seen things from your perspective and realized that your answer is not the only one. It couldn't possibly be that as sure as you are that you're right, you're not the only one who could be right. And it couldn't possibly be that if you pulled your head out of your ass for a minute, you'd see that people holding different ideas and beliefs that you do, doesn't make them stupid, dangerous or crazy.

These IPOW's of yours are nothing more than an opportunity to stroke your overly-large ego. You post a topic, gather responses from a very specific and exclusive minority of any population, then you tout any results that agree with you as a sucess.

Then, even if someone agrees with you, Science forbid it if they came to the same conclusion by a different path. Anyone mentions religion or spirituality and *here comes Honor and her drooling zealot boy-servant, swordsman3003* "HOW DARE YOU BRING UP FAITH IN MY HOUSE?"

I'd like you to show me how I'm lying, an idiot or even remotely batshit crazy. I've been attacked several times in several different topics for doing nothing more than saying "try seeing this another way". I'm not even advocating religion. I'm not saying everyone should bow down and worship some flying spaghetti monster, pink unicorn, invisible man in the sky or anything of the sort. All I've said is that if someone believes in those things, it doesn't make them automatically wrong.

Several times, when pushed against the wall, you've responded "I don't have the time or the inclination to complete your education." Guess what, Honor, my education will never be complete. Unlike you, I don't take whatever answer sounds right and bash anyone who might think differently. When I encounter ideas and beliefs different from my own, I try to learn about them and see if they make sense.

If my ideas and beliefs are so wrong, educate me. You can't complete my education because I'll never stop looking for answers, but at the very least you could try to make me understand how an intelligent, well-educated, supposedly rational person can close her mind open her mouth and expect other people to take her seriously.

There is no discussion on these polls. There is the people who follow the Honor approved way of seeing things, and then there are the targets of abuse who are obviously too stupid or crazy to follow the Honor approved way of seeing things.

Step down off your high-horse for a minute and actually discuss this like the rational, logical person you claim to be.

[Seth Marati]

lesotheron: Does your worldview allow for any sort of conviction at all? What's the point of seeking answers to questions if there can't be any validity attributed to them?

As for "trying to see it another way", it sounds like there's an implication of "equal consideration for all ideas", which I have to take issue with as it's commonly understood. For one, equal consideration is not the same as equal *credence*. Consideration means giving every new idea the honest scrutiny it warrants by simply being an idea. It does not mean that we have to attribute equal validity to every idea after it's been scrutinized. Two, we - the individual forum members relevant to this discussion - have considered these ideas in the past, and arrived at the conclusion that they aren't worthy of serving as a basis for any sort of policy for life. Asking the same questions repeatedly isn't going to bring us back to a completely neutral stance every time, nor should it. This is why we would need new evidence to reconsider the validity of religious thought, because the old "evidence" has already been examined and debunked.

And if it's education you want, I'll step in for a bit in lieu of Honor. You made the point before about religion and science being morally equal, since people can do good things and bad things in the name of either one - you brought up Hitler and his experiments in Auschwitz as an example of evil done in the name of science, comparing it to evil done in the name of religion. The flaw here is that religion encompasses a wider scope of influence than science does. Science is a tool of discovery; religion tries to provide answers to the same questions that science faces, but it also tries to establish rules of morality, something that science is unconcerned with. Science can replace the mythic, explanatory elements of religion, but not the ethical elements. That's why we have secular ethical philosophy, which I would argue is a step up from religious ethical philosophy by virtue of its being grounded in worldly matters, instead of the speculative desires of a transcendent god. According to what you said about Hitler, this is where he failed - doing things "in the name of" science, while ignoring the ethics behind actions that any decent person could have told you were atrocious.

And don't construe the moral neutrality of science as an opportunity for equality to religion. Break religion up into component parts - the explanatory and the ethical - and worldly systems for each have their religious counterparts beat.

[Honor]

...And it's at this point where you cross the line to where you are either a liar or an idiot. I say this without the intent to be unnecessarily abrasive or insulting... Merely very, very clear. "Liar" in this instance could be expanded to include someone who's making a false argument for the sake of argument, but not saying so. "Idiot" could be expanded to include "ignorant" or "undereducated"...

Edit: It occurs to me that enumerating only these two possibilities ignore a third. There's also "batshit crazy".

But, in either case, what you're saying is obviously not true, and hardly worth reply.

Once again, I have a different perspective on the situation, so I must be lying, an idiot or batshit crazy.

No... Your so-called "different perspective" is obviously and demonstrably -false- so you must be one of the above.

The fact that it's different doesn't make it incorrect, the fact that it's incorrect does that.

Honest and valid "different perspectives" are awesome. I love them. I tend to learn from them.

Horseshit nonsense masturbatory circular "different perspectives" are just a drain on my time... Partly, I'm sure, because it's a bit foreign to me to assume that anyone would prosecute such a position just to be an ass, so I tend to assume they can be reached for valid discussion.

In other words... Just because you claim a "different perspective" doesn't make it automatically equally valid. It has to actually show some tiny shred or hint of, you know, validity.

It couldn't possibly be that I've seen things from your perspective and realized that your answer is not the only one.

If that were the case, I'd be quick to apologise... But you give no indication of that being so.

The positions you seem to be advocating are that:

• A) the existence of god is equally probable as the inexistence of god,
  B) the current findings of science are equally likely to be proven inaccurate on a wholesale scale and basis as they are to be borne out, and
  C) the reliance on the best and most current available information, with the built-in policy of exchanging that information as newer and more accurate information becomes available, is of equal value as a world view to accepting, without question, single-source ancient superstition as an all encompassing answer.

Have I missed something? Is that -not- what you're saying?

It couldn't possibly be that as sure as you are that you're right, you're not the only one who could be right.

...Again. I'm fully willing to entertain any opposing ideas that actually show merit.

And it couldn't possibly be that if you pulled your head out of your ass for a minute, you'd see that people holding different ideas and beliefs that you do, doesn't make them stupid, dangerous or crazy.

And again... No. It's not disagreeing with me that makes them so... It's the stupidity, dangerousness, and craziness of the ideas they represent.

These IPOW's of yours are nothing more than an opportunity to stroke your overly-large ego. You post a topic, gather responses from a very specific and exclusive minority of any population, then you tout any results that agree with you as a sucess.

Bullshit. First, my ego is as large as it is for very good reasons.

The poll questions are questions I feel have little chance of a consensus. Hence the names. They're intended to be inflammatory.

As to gathering responses from a minority... ::shrugs:: They're posted here and in my LJ. I gather responses from those who choose to respond.

Exactly one time, in a 'conversation' with you, have I pointed out that the majority of the answers agree with me. I've made no such mention elsewhere, including here.

Still, even if the majority did agree with me, that agreement wouldn't make me right... When I'm right, as I endeavor to be, it's the weight of my facts and ideas that make me right. The poll just means, in that case, a lot of people in the very limited sample agree with me.

In another topic, the majority can't agree with me, because I haven't been fully convinced on that topic one way or another.

Then we've got this topic. I'm a bit annoyed that it's devolved into Yet Another Flamewar About Religion... But that disappointment doesn't mean I won't try to participate or keep the debate reasonable.

Then, even if someone agrees with you, Science forbid it if they came to the same conclusion by a different path.

Only if they come to those conclusions by a deeply and obviously flawed methodology... Then, yes, of course I'll argue that the methodology is flawed.

I've been attacked several times in several different topics for doing nothing more than saying "try seeing this another way".

Would that this were true, you'd have never been attacked for it. But it's not. You don't say "try seeing it another way", you say "basing your conclusions on the best available data is exactly equal in value to basing them on ancient superstition" ...And then, you expect not to be countered?

I'm not even advocating religion. I'm not saying everyone should bow down and worship some flying spaghetti monster, pink unicorn, invisible man in the sky or anything of the sort. All I've said is that if someone believes in those things, it doesn't make them automatically wrong.

Yes. Yes, it does. If the position they are advocating requires the acceptance of something that is obviously not correct, then they are incorrect.

Several times, when pushed against the wall, you've responded "I don't have the time or the inclination to complete your education."

Don't flatter yourself with the delusion that you've ever pushed me up against a wall. You've never even been close. You've just maundered around in tight little circles until I was forced to sigh and throw up my hands. Not everyone can be reasoned with.

Unlike you, I don't take whatever answer sounds right and bash anyone who might think differently. When I encounter ideas and beliefs different from my own, I try to learn about them and see if they make sense.

You're obviously thinking of someone else here.

I will neither hold nor advocate any serious position without excellent evidence in it's favor, and I never dismiss a rational alternative without due consideration. It's simply my nature. Nor do I ever simply "bash anyone who might think differently"... Although I will and do energetically argue against positions that are obviously flawed and/or dangerous.

Just because I may be prepared to refute a given idea you present doesn't mean I haven't already been exposed to and fully considered those ideas at an earlier time... As original as a position may seem to you, it may have already been thought of by someone else. I've been looking for answers on the Big Questions for a long, long time now. That doesn't mean I've stopped looking, it just means I'm encountering new ideas with diminishing frequency.

If my ideas and beliefs are so wrong, educate me. You can't complete my education because I'll never stop looking for answers, but at the very least you could try to make me understand how an intelligent, well-educated, supposedly rational person can close her mind open her mouth and expect other people to take her seriously.

See... I've tried that. It doesn't seem to work. You just circle and maunder and re-position and duck behind meaningless sophomoric philosophical word-games.

I offer a clear, concise opposition to a specific point, and you just ignore it and whirl of to some even less definable nonsense.

You say "Anything is possible." and I reply "But many things are spectacularly improbable." You ignore that, and say "Science is just a belief system." and I point out "But it's a belief system founded on evidence and subject to change." You ignore that, and say "But you're just as blindly following it's mandates as do the faithful the mandates of religious authority!" and I point out "No. Anyone who tries to blindly follow the 'mandates' of science, automatically fails, since chief among those 'mandates' is that information, proven incorrect, must be abandoned for better information." You ignore that, and say "But anything is possible!!"

And I get tired and say "You know... You just can't reason with some people. It's neither my job, nor my intention, to continue* your education."

* you're quite correct in that, at least... since education should never be considered "complete", "continue" is a more appropriate term.

There is no discussion on these polls. There is the people who follow the Honor approved way of seeing things, and then there are the targets of abuse who are obviously too stupid or crazy to follow the Honor approved way of seeing things.

Step down off your high-horse for a minute and actually discuss this like the rational, logical person you claim to be.

Do you think you're the first person to scream "The game is rigged!" just because a majority of those who are vocal disagree with them, and agree with me?

Do you think you're the first who's concluded that, since Swordsie and several others tend to agree with me partially on some given issue, they must be slavering sheep under my thrall?

Do you think you're the first to completely ignore that they disagree with me as well, on other topics, or that I tend to disagree with them or the way they present their arguments, because admitting that would be damaging to your conspiracy theory?

Do you think you're the first person to ignore the fact that -nobody- on this forum agrees with me entirely, and people disagree in larger numbers, over more posts, than they agree, just because they're not being agreed with at the moment...?

-Someone- disagrees with me in every thread of substance I can think of here... Usually more than one someone. On many topics, it turns out that the majority agree with me on that topic, but that doesn't prevent them, individually, from disagreeing on others... So that, on most any topic, the majority of us seem to agree, but the composition of that majority changes... Except that some of us seem to be in that majority more often than not.

Is it more likely that it's a conspiracy, and we all only come here to beat you down on your idea that superstition is equally valid to scientific evidence? Or is it more likely that some of us here are very intelligent, mature human beings who've already had these arguments a lot of times, and thus already come to some pretty solid and respectable (and, not coincidentally, similar) points of view on them?

[Lesotheron]

Seth Marati:

In my worldview, conviction is one of the most important things a person can have. However, conviction has nothing to do with attacking anyone who has a different perspective.

If instead of automatically calling into question the validity of anyone's beliefs, certain people of this board said things like, "that's not how I see it" and "maybe, but maybe it's more like this", there would be more discussion and things might actually get accomplished.

Instead, anytime someone says the words religion, spirituality, faith, belief or anything else that isn't considered "rational" or "logical" by the "athiest stormtroopers", they get told that they're so obviously wrong they must be stupid or crazy to believe what they do. Several times, I've seen the supposed "proof" of these claims, but it's never anything more than evidence that religion might be wrong or that certain parts of specific religions are highly unlikely. To me, that isn't proof that anyone who believes in religion is stupid or crazy, it's proof that they might see things differently than I do.

Is there a God? Who knows. There are people that believe there is, there are people that believe there isn't. I have no definite proof either way, so I choose to believe that God could exist, but probably doesn't (just like some people choose to believe that God does exist and others choose to believe that God doesn't exist).

Is there an afterlife? Well, if there is, nobody is going to know for sure until it's too late to say anything about it. Whether there is or not doesn't really affect life, so it doesn't really matter that much either way, does it? If you want to live your life in such a way that you'll get into whatever afterlife you believe in, more power to you. It doesn't affect me in any way because I can choose to live my life any way I want, even if it means living with no regard for any possible afterlife.

I'm not asking you to hear the religious side of any argument and say "Well, it's equally valid to mine, so I should believe it". I'm asking you to say "Well, I don't believe what they do, but maybe it shines a different light on the subject". It's not about you treating their beliefs as equally valid to your own, it's about you understanding that their beliefs are more valid to them than your beliefs the same way your beliefs are more valid to you than theirs. They're not stupid or crazy for believing that any more than you are stupid or crazy for believing what you do.

The jury is still out on the whole "reality" thing, so until there's some conclusive proof, there's no need to attack people because they see things differently.

I'll give you a few examples of things that have been "believed" throughout history:

Mermaids: Sailors told stories about half women/half fish that would swim alongside the boats and sometimes drive men crazy with their songs (similar to the more malicious sirens of lore). Later on, it was discovered that mermaids were actually what we now call manatees or dugongs. Did mermaids actually exist? Yes, they just weren't what we originally thought they were.

The Kraken: A giant sea monster that would grab ships and pull them under the water. Science has already discovered giant squids that match the descriptions of these "mythical" creatures. Did the Kraken exist? Well, whether it did or not, it seems to exist now. They're just not in the habit of sinking ships at this time.

The Loch Ness Monster: A giant creature or serpent that lives in a lake in Scotland. There have been many sightings and many photographs of this mysterious legend. Science has discovered ancient creatures that may be what's in Loch Ness and science has also proven that alligators have continued to exist virtually untouched by evolution since around the same period in time. Does the monster exist? It's scientifically possible, but nobody's been able to find conclusive proof one way or the other.

Bigfoot: A mostly western legend of a bipedal humanoid creature that stalks the Pacific Northwest area of North America. Photos and videos have been taken of the creature, but they could easily be faked by a large person in a suit. Does Bigfoot exist? Well, the creature is similar to the myth of the Yeti that comes from an entirely different part of the world, but it is possible that it's the same creature and it migrated through Asia and across the Bering Strait and ended up in North America, so it could exist. However, there has been no scientific evidence that suggests it actually does.

All of these creatures are myths and legends. Some of them have been found to be true, some of them have been found to be highly unlikely. The difference is that all of these things could exist, regardless of whether or not you or I or anyone else actually believes they exist. God is a similar mythical/legendary being. Could God exist? Yes, maybe not the way its commonly thought of, maybe as something entirely different than we're expecting, maybe not in a way we'll ever be able to know for sure. Science hasn't found a way of even looking for God yet, so there's no way to know for sure.

It's the same thing with the afterlife. Almost all people, from any society, agree that death causes a drastic change to human conciousness. Some say conciousness dies, some say it lives on in another plane of existence, some say it's actually linked to a soul that gets judged and can spend eternity in heaven, purgatory or hell. Since science doesn't even have a full understanding of human conciousness, it can't effectively say what happens to it when a person dies, so once again, there's no conclusive evidence either way.

Will these questions be answered? It's possible, but if they do get answered, you and I and any of our decendents for several generations would probably have already died and any of our opinions on the matter don't really mean shit. In the meantime, people argue constantly over things like "my God is better than your God", "your God doesn't exist" and "you're stupid, dangerous and crazy because you believe something I don't" and only a few people are actually doing anything about what actually is.

[Swordsman3003]

While I feel that the replies that have been posted over the last couple of hours have been pretty strong, I want to post this just because I spend so much time working on it.

By the way, while I was typing this in MS word….

This response is 25 pages long, including the quotes and all that. It took me about 6 hours to write. Also, there are probably grammar mistakes I have missed. You have been warned.

For a good summary, head to the last section, marked off by a bunch of dashes and it’s numbered.

And that's why I love arguing with swordsman3003. You bring into question his beliefs and he flies off the handle just like any other zealot.

I fly off the handle because I cannot stand the utter horseshit you spew every time I read one of your posts.

In addition, maybe it's because I DON'T HAVE BELIEFS and you keep repeating that I do.

Once again, you seem to be mistaking defending your beliefs, standing up for your beliefs and fighting for your beliefs with "going out and killing anyone who disagrees with your beliefs". I really hate repeating myself, but since you don't seem to have been able to understand what I said, I'll try to break it down for you.

Alright. I suppose I took the idea of killing people who threaten personal beliefs to the extreme.

You will only kill people who want you to do things on pain of death, is that it?

The tax example was to show how someone could stand up for their beliefs, fight for their beliefs and defend their beliefs without having to kill anyone. Could it lead to anarchy and violence?

Not "can" it lead to anarchy and violence...it WILL lead to anarchy and violence. If you disable the government, then by the very definition of the word anarchy, that is what will happen!

Sure, there are people who would take advantage of the situation for just that purpose. Of course, there are also people who would take advantage of you walking down the street to chuck a brick at your head (my guess is anyone who's actually tried to use actual reason and logic against your particular brand of reason and logic in a debate with you). You have to weigh your need to walk down the street with the possible brick-chucking the same as society would have to weigh refusing to pay taxes with the possible anarchy and violence that could result.

Right. That's what I do every day, and for the most part, violence, death, and anarchy are nice things to avoid.

There are people who could take my wallet when I walk down that street....

I don't think that walking down the street is inviting the same kind of danger as abolishing the entire police force.

Sure, Americans could just vote for new politicians, but how can they guarantee that the new politicians are any better than the old ones? Once a politician is in office, it's not very easy to remove them. We could impeach them, but we've been able to do that how many times in the past? We could assassinate them, it happens more often than impeachment, but it's violent and despite your constant assurances, I have no interest in promoting violence. So how do we get the politician out of office? We have to wait 4 or more years and vote for someone different, who may not be different at all.

That's right. The president is the only politician in the entire United States.

Or, we could refuse to pay our taxes and force the government to change, non-violently.

Except that not paying your taxes either gets you sent to prison, or, if it's widespread, causes the collapse of our society.

While your assessment is sort of acurrate, I think you need to remember that in America we have fundamental liberties that cannot be taken away except by a ridiculous super-majority.

I had to quote this because it's so adorably naive. Those "fundamental liberties" that cannot be taken away, guess what, they're being taken away.

How many times have laws had to be stricken down for being unconstitutional?

That's our fundamental liberties in action.

Attacking the fact that many laws are revoked as proof that our liberties are being taken away is analogous to saying that criminals are getting away with crime, and pointing out how many arrests are made each year as proof.

I’m not saying I don’t agree with you that the government, especially the Bush administration, is working to take away American freedoms, I’m just saying your evidence is illogical.

Did it stop those laws from being made, or did someone propose the law, it was passed and someone later had to fight for it to be repealed? If you don't stand up for your "fundamental liberties", someone will take them away from you, and you won't even realize that they're gone until it's too late. Are they really fundamental if you have to fight your own government to keep them?

I do stand up for my rights. I'm just trying to point out that revolution is NOT the optimum means for salvaging your freedom!

Also, I have to ask, what's a super-majority? Is it a majority that's been bitten by a radioactive zealot? Did it come from a distant planet to use its majority-ness to save humanity? A majority is anything more than a half. Once you have a majority, be it a regular majority, a 2/3 majority, a 90% majority or even the almighty super-majority, it's the majority.

A super-majority in the U.S. is 2/3+1.

The terrorist hijackers on 9/11 stood up for what they believe in, and died for it. Abortion clinic attackers, the unabomber, and the Ku Klux Klan all stand up for what they believe in. They kill and die for it.

Do I have a problem with their beliefs? Yes. Do I have a problem with their methods? Yes. Do I have a problem with the fact that they actually stood up for their beliefs and got smacked down by the majority? No.

So their method of attacking the government they feel is violently repressing them is completely different from your method of attacking a government that violently represses you? Got it.

That's how things change. People try to introduce their beliefs and the majority either agrees with them or doesn't.

What the hell kind of bullshit is this? People either agree or disagree, and that's the end of it?

First of all, haven't you heard of compromise?
Secondly, people can change their minds over time! That's what a minority group tries to do; it tries to influence others to join its cause.


The majority of Germans did not agree with the Nazis. It took time, labor, and cunning to subvert that country.

Let me repeat: the Nazis never had the majority behind them.

This goes back to the religious discussion.

Gee, doesn't everything?

The terrorist hijackers on 9/11, abortion clinic attackers, the Unabomber and the KKK all did what different religions have done throughout history, tried to force people to believe what they believed.

Wait, I thought people couldn't be forced into believing things?

Or are you just using the expression to mean "terrorize people into submitting to another's beliefs" the same way everybody else was doing before?

The difference? The majority has worked and is still working to stop the 9/11 terrorist group,

Um. What?

What, precisely, is the majority of...who? Americans? Are the majority of Americans fighting Al-Qaeda?

That's my point, if you don't stand up for your beliefs; someone with different beliefs is going to walk all over you.

That’s a very good point. I agree.

I suddenly remembered something else I wanted to say: you seem so distraught because you think I am misrepresenting your ideas, or putting words in your mouth.

Feels good, doesn’t it? Maybe I would have been a little more inclined to carefully reword your commentary if you had actually bothered to do the same for me, and had quit calling my ideas beliefs, which they are not, and I’ve told you are not.

In the end, the majority decides by working for or against those beliefs. As long as you stood up for your side of the issue, I may not agree with your side, I may not like your side, but I'll respect you for actually standing up for it.

Is this some vague attack on all the lazy Americans who never bother to do anything about the stuff that they gripe about?

I'm going to say something incredibly unpopular, and I know you're going to try to attack me for it, but I don't care.

Actually…reading your comments…I can agree with you.

Hitler was t3h aw3some

Hitler was an intelligent, cunning person, the only man who had an honest hope of achieving a goal of world domination.

I don’t really see what that has to do with the discussion, but I agree.

Had the entire world allowed him to do what Germany allowed him to do, he would still be considered one of the most brilliant men alive and there would be no Jews, Gypsies, Handicapped or any other "undesirable" on the planet.

Quite true, quite true.

The difference? The whole world didn't allow him to do that. The majority stood up and stopped him.

Quit with this rosary of anecdotal tales of how majorities were able to emerge victorious.

There are plenty of times in history where powerful men such as Genghis Khan or Julius Caesar were able to dominate swaths of the planet with followers fractions of the size of the people they dominated.

While some people enjoyed being part of the Roman Empire…I don’t think very many people enjoyed being raped and pillaged by the Khanate.

The people Genghis Khan conquered saw their options pretty much this way:

1. give khan all our money
2. die

They were certain that they would be killed by the Mongol hordes if they resisted. Everybody who opposed Khan in any form were slaughtered, and the people who submitted to him just had to pay a tribute.

Sure, maybe you, personally, respect people who stood up for their rights and fought against Khan and died, but I think they were incredibly stupid, and threw their lives away.

Was he right or wrong? The majority says he was wrong, but if the majority thought he was right where would we be?

What’s popular is not always what’s best, and what’s best is not always popular. It’s how things go, I suppose.

I'm not saying violence is never the answer, I'm just trying to show that dying or killing for a cause is not this great, honorable moment that you make it out to be.

I never said killing for a cause was noble or honorable. I said defending your beliefs was noble and honorable.

Defending beliefs isn’t honorable and noble if your beliefs are things like “EVERYONE MUST GIVE ME THEIR MONEY OR I’LL KILL THEM!!!”

The act of defending your beliefs necessarily isn’t some glorious cause, but seeing as how defending your beliefs is one of your beliefs, I guess I can’t convince you otherwise.

And anyways, your idea that defending your beliefs is separate from killing for your beliefs is a weak distinction.

Defending anything in the face of death is going to involve a violent resolution.

Once again, if you walked up to me and put a gun to my head and said I have to believe what you say or you'll shoot me, which is more noble and honorable?

Which is more intelligent how about?

1) Either accepting your beliefs or saying I accept your beliefs just so you don't kill me.

2) Sitting there refusing to accept or even say I accept your beliefs and letting you kill me.

3) Defend myself, which may or may not be successful, so that if one of us has to die, I at least had a chance.

Tell, oh great arbiter of honor and nobility, how ridiculous is your scenario?

You walk down the street and a person shows up, puts a gun to your head, and yells “ADMIT THAT BOB ROSS IS THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE OR I’LL SHOOT YOU!”

You know what? I’d fucking admit to him that Bob Ross created the universe. He is probably crazy, and if I can live long enough to go tell somebody about him, he can be incarcerated or maybe put into an asylum.

Whipping out my own handgun and blowing him away, or saying “NO! NEVER!” are both idiotic resolutions.

What kind of magical, medieval universe do you live in where “nobility” and “honor” take precedence over “survival” and “sanity.”

If the only way to prevent you from killing me were to kill you, then yes, I would do it, not because of my beliefs, but because I'm not going to let you kill me for your beliefs. If you would rather have your beliefs oppressed or flat out die for your beliefs, go ahead. I'm not going down without a fight.

He who turns, and runs away, will live to fight another day.

Agree with your oppressors in public, and then subvert them in secret until you have enough power to overthrow them in a coup.

You are making this is into a fallacious black and white discussion, when there are hundreds of other ways to fight oppression besides killing the grunt who is trying to enforce the rules.

I think you’ve seen 300 or maybe Braveheart too many times.

Whether or not incest is illegal is decided by the people who believe that it should be or it shouldn't be. If the majority decides it should be, it stays illegal. If the majority decides it shouldn't be, it becomes legal.

Whether or not incest is illegal is decided by representative lawmakers and the judges who deem the laws constitutional.

I particularly like this bit. Who puts the representative lawmakers and judges in power? Say it with me now... THE MAJORITY. See, you can learn, you just try hard not to.

First of all, no.

There are plenty of people who cannot vote, such as children. In addition, many American polls have a less than 50% turnout.

You can hardly call the fraction of American who is able to vote, multiplied by the fraction of Americans who DO vote, multiplied by the fraction that votes for the candidate who gets 51%...the majority. That’s not a goddamn majority.

And also, most judges are appointed. I just want to point that out.

*One big long rant about religious oppression*

I'm not going to actually quote the whole thing, I'm just going to ask you:

How was religion able to do this?

That's right, because the majority either agreed with them or didn't stand up against them. If the majority had put a stop to it, would it have been that way? Come on, I know you know this. Don't worry, I won't be grading your answers.

You are so condescending and repulsive that I don’t even know if I want to dignify this part with a response.

Look: Most religions are supported by a majority….today. Do you know why?

That’s because a well-armed, state-backed minority can just KILL EVERYONE until they become the majority.

For example, atheists in America are a minority. Well, what if 99% of all the theists in America were dead by tomorrow? That’s an extreme example, but I’m just trying to make a point.

Don’t think that’s what happened in the real world? What do you think happened when the Spanish invaded modern day Mexico? They killed everyone who wasn’t catholic until Catholicism became the majority religion, understand?

The Catholics have always had the convenience of opting out of the religion, just like any other religion. They just weren't willing to stand up and make it convenient to do so.

That’s right…because every rebellion that ever occurred in history was a success. From the way you phrase your quote, you seem to think that revolutions can happen at the drop of a hat, and they always succeed.

PEOPLE DID STAND UP TO CATHOLICISM! THEY DIED.

The government enforced religious devotion? Wow, it's not like people have never overthrown a corrupt government before. You keep confusing "unwilling to" with "unable to".

No, you just assume that just because people are “willing” to fight, that they will win.

Maybe you don’t mean that, but all your commentary phrases revolution in a such a simplistic framework that it’s the only information I can derive from it.

I'd like to point out that many, many people opposed the catholic church. They died horrible, painful deaths.

Why? Because the majority didn't support them.

Your understanding of the nature of conflict is both patently false, and downright absurd.

I’ll use a really basic example: a firefight.

There are two gunmen on team red, and four gunmen on team blue. According to your philosophy of history, THERE IS NO POSSIBLE WAY TEAM RED CAN WIN, BECAUSE TEAM BLUE IS THE MAJORITY.

Your understand of the nature of conflict is limited to your apparent belief that majorities always emerge victorious.

The majority turned them in to be tortured and killed. The majority sided with religion.

Here’s your circular and backwards logic at work: “the majority must have supported the church, because the church won, and majorities always win!”

That’s why the Aztec army of 70,000 warriors or whatever number absolutely crushed the Spanish invasion force of 500 men.

Wait? How about not? Well armed minorities can decimate majorities, and have done so plenty of times in the past!

You know what caused the severe problems? The existence of such a church in the first place.

Wrong, the church was and is neutral.

Are you fucking kidding me?

That’s right, the Catholic Church had no effect on the incredible violence during such periods as the crusades or the inquisition.

The church went around telling people “well, here are our ideas, we’re neutral, you don’t have to accept them. Make up your own mind ”

Once again you demonstrate your clear misunderstanding of history.

It is not the religion or the beliefs that caused any of that.

Let me get this straight: he catholic church, which is the religion and dictates the beliefs, never killed anybody or told anybody to kill anybody.

What do you think the catholic church is, exactly? If the pope ORDERS HIS FLOCK TO KILL THE GODDAMN MUSLIMS, THEN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS RESPONSIBLE AND CAUSED THE DEATH OF THE MUSLIMS!!!

It is the people who twisted the religion and beliefs that caused the severe problems. You'll find that all of the problems were caused by people who acted against the actual teachings of the religion.

I don’t think you are familiar with how the catholic church works. There is not “twisting” of beliefs; the church invents the beliefs all on its own.

Saying that the leaders of the catholic church have twisted catholic beliefs is like saying J.R.R. Tolkien twisted the character of Gollum when Gollum betrays Frodo at the end of the book. It’s his goddamn character, and whatever he says Gollum does, Gollum does!

Likewise, it is the pope and the cardinals and the bishops who decide what makes up the catholic church, so whatever they say is a catholic teaching, is a catholic teaching.

And if muslims were so opposed to terrorism, Al-Qaeda wouldn't exist because nobody would join it.

I can't tell if you're just that intolerant or if you're actually less intelligent than I thought you were.

Was the Unabomber religious? Was Jeffery Dahmer religious? Was Ted Bundy religious? People can be deranged and violent without having religion.

And people can kill you without owning a gun. Does that mean guns never ever kill people?

Saying that Muslims must not be opposed to terrorism because some of them twist the teachings of Islam to promote terrorism is the single most idiotic thing I've ever heard you say (and you even tried to argue that a hypothesis wasn't a guess, even though according to the scientific method that you worship, it is).

You make me sick.

First of all, weren’t you the person who just argued that if people passively accept something, it’s the same as supporting it? Like how Germans passively accepted Hitler?

Most muslims around the world do not actively oppose Al-Qaeda, and many muslim peoples support or fund support Islamic extremist groups which may not be Al-Qaeda in name. I was trying to demonstrate that according to your understading this dichotomical world, anyone who doesn’t oppose something, must definitely support it!

Secondly, calling a hypothesis a guess is like calling a cow a dog. Sure they’ve got four legs and breathe air and all that, but there is a reason we have two words to distinguish between dogs and cows. There not the same fucking thing.

Thirdly, what the fuck, “worship” science?

You know what? You worship your inane assumption that perpetual ignorance is preferable to any knowledge at all.

Do you blame Islam for Al-Qaeda?

Yes.

Okay, then I blame science for making you unable to use the reason and logic that you supposedly live by. How is it reasonable or logical to blame an institution for the minority that perverts it?

Al-Qaeda isn’t a perversion of Islam, it’s an expression of it. Many leaders of extremist Islamic organizations are among the most educated muslim scholars in the world.

Do me a favor, go to the national Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. and look at what Hitler did to people in the name of "Science".

Actually, I went there this summer. Do you know what I learned caused the holocaust?

Nationalism, racism, authoritarianism, all kinds of crap let people commit the holocaust and feel good about it. Never once in that fucking museum is there a little display showing how science taught people to commit the extermination of millions of people. In fact, there were plenty of displays showing how religious leaders taught people to support Hitler.

What kind of GODDAMN WARPED REALITY DO YOU LIVE IN?

Science, first of all, has no specific teachings. It is a method of determining what is fact. Science simply cannot teach people to commit atrocities. Science might provide them with deadly chemicals such as Zyklon B, but science never, ever, can teach people to use it. Saying that science told people to commit the holocaust is like saying knives tell people to commit murder. Science is a tool, and like knives, can be used for progress or for murder.

It’s true that there were crazy fucks who were running eugenics programs and crap, but their goals were not to find the truth, but to prove how jews were inferior. Their conclusions were never tested, there were no peer reviews. They had the trappings of science, but none of the substance.

It is true that there were scientists who conducted horrible experiments on living subjects against their will. That shit is the worst kind of crime against humanity in my opinion. I suppose the experiments on starvation and survival were scientific in nature, but what allowed those scientists to get away with those crimes was the society in which they lived; science does not teach any ethics or morals, and it never will.

Science is not an ethical code.

Physics teaches us that if you drop a rock, it will fall. Does physics teach us that we should go around knocking things off of shelves because the force of gravity wants them to fall?

Even if science could find a way of asserting that people of Jewish descent have some kind of “inferiority,” that in no way means we should go around killing them! Do you understand?

The shit that went down in the rest of Nazi controlled Germany had nothing to do with finding scientific truth.

Sure, he had his religious beliefs (a twisted version of Christianity),

Oh really? How twisted was his understanding of history?

The bulk of religious leaders and clerics in Germany came out in great favor of his policies. I suppose I’m not fit to judge what Christianity “is,” but shouldn’t priests’ and reverends’ opinions on what the definition of Christianity is count for something?

You can look back and discount what hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Christians have done in the past and claim that they weren’t following the “true” Christianity. Whatever. I’m not a Christian and I could not care less.

You can say that Al-Qaeda doesn’t follow “true” islam. Well, they say everyone else isn’t following true islam! Looks like a stalemate to me.

Do you think mormons are “true” Christians? Who made you the arbiter of the teachings of jesus christ?

In reality, anybody who says they are following the teachings of jesus has just as much claim to the title “Christian” as anybody else. Since we don’t know for certain what jesus said or even if he existed at all, everyone is free to supply any definition of Christianity they like.

Anyone who says they are a Christian is a “true” Christian, goddamnit.

but he wasn't working towards religious superiority, he was working for racial superiority, genetic superiority. He would also have people put into chairs, have their heads and chests cut open and then submit them to hours of torture, not for information, but to see how long they could take it. He would then use this information to train his soldiers to be superior. Auschwitz itself was part of a scientific experiment to find the most efficient way to commit genocide.

Claiming that science is a force of evil because the Nazis used scientific reasoning to develop methods of murder is the same as claiming baseball bats are evil because criminals have used them to rob houses.

Baseball bats, like science, do not dictate how they must be used.

I guess science is just as evil as you think religion is. By your logic, Hitler only did it because science was there to use as a scapegoat.

Hitler would have done whatever he was going to do no matter what tools he had available. He claimed god was on his side! He claimed science was on his side! He claimed that the national right of the german people was on his side!

He claimed a lot of things.

Are tanks evil because Hitler used them? Is mickey mouse evil because it was hitler’s favorite cartoon character?

It didn’t matter to Hitler whether or not science supported him. He just lied and said that it did. It wasn’t that hard.

What made Hitler so powerful is that his sheer force of will was enough to convince people that religion, god, science, the nature of mankind, all supported him and his ideas!

Science is no more good or evil than a fork. Science is a tool.

Religion is a tool too, just an outdated and useless one.

Prove it. I've read the Qu'ran, and there are definitely some passages in there that I can find to support the violent surpression of non-muslims.

I can point out medical texts that say bloodletting is required for most ailments.

That’s perfectly fine. Point out any outdated books you like! Science ABANDONS TEACHINGS THAT ARE FALSE, and Islam does not.

The difference between science and islam is that today, over a thousand years after the Qu’ran was written, muslims still claim it to be an accurate testimonial of the nature of the universe, when this is demonstrably untrue.

Medicine has moved past its origins and so has Islam.

You have to be fucking kidding me.

Muslim teachings are based on the 7th century mindset of tribal desert warriors. From my understanding, the Qu’ran says the same thing today as it did when it was written in 600-whatever the hell.

Would you hold Medicine accountable if a small group of doctors went back to bloodletting?

Well, first of all, there are doctors who use outdated and disproven methods. It’s not my fault if they refuse to understand progress.

Not your precious science, OH NOES! If someone takes part of the basics and twists it to do something that completely contradicts the whole, you're an idiot if you blame the whole.

OMG KNOWLEDGE!!! RUN AWAY!!!!!!

If I take a fork and stick it someone’s eye, is it the fault of the fork? Obviously not.

If my friend at school tells me to murder his roommate, is that his fault? Despite whatever you might claim or think, yes, it is partially his fault, and he could easily be found guilty several crimes.

The scientific method doesn’t tell you what to think, it tells you how to think. How you can have certainty over what you claim.

The teachings of islam do not tell you how to think. They tell you precisely what to think, and what to do. The Qu’ran directly advocates the slaughter of infidels. If I believe the Qu’ran and listen to it’s teachings, I am not “perverting” islam, I am following it!!!

You seem completely unable to accept the idea that religions can advocate violence and death. As far as I know, the only religion that forbids it’s followers to harm anyone or anything is Jainism.

You don’t hear about jains blowing shit up because god tells them so, because their religious books tell them they can’t do it!! The Qu’ran not only permits it, but TELLS YOU TO DO IT.

But, yes, if jihadis were running down the streets waving ak-47s, I would fight back.

And yet you accuse me of trying to incite violence and anarchy for saying the same damn thing. If that's your idea of reason and logic at work, I weep for anyone you consider reasonable and logical.

I was just trying to explain that I wasn’t a pacifist.

The kind of violence that you advocate is turning against your own government, or against anybody who threatens you with death at all.

I’m saying that I would comply with the demands of people who are an immediate threat to my safety so I might more effectively work against them.

If jihadis are running down the street and nobody is stopping them, it’s kind of implied that the government has been destabilized and there’s nobody there to protect me at all.

Whatever, I was trying to concede that there are circumstances that warrant violence resistance, such as the invasion of your entire country.

Plenty of people have threatened me with death during my life if I did not comply with them, dozens, if not a hundred. I’ve never killed anybody, and I’m sitting here today not complying with their demands.

Now, they weren’t the kind of hypothetical “gun to the head” threats that you’ve described, but they were death threats none-the-less.

That's it. I figured it out. You simply have no knowledge of history.

Ah yes, I must have forgotten that I was dealing with the almighty history major. Clearly, you'll have the upper hand in this discussion. Please continue.

Yes. Thank you.

The side that America supported during the Vietnam war was the minority, for one.

Yes, now please enlighten my poor illogical, irrational self as to which side ended up with the victory, the majority of the communists or the minority that had America's support?

The communist were victorious. I do not feel that I have concede anything to you with that comment.

You have been repeatedly trying to argue that majorities always win, and the winners are always the majority.

If I can even point out one single instance where minorities repressed and dominate majorities, then I am victorious.

Comparing the fight against islamic extremism to a skirmish during the cold war is absurd.

A skirmish? Really? See, that's the wonderful thing about history majors, they know what really happened even though people who were there disagree.

Let me correct your horrible miseducation. I was not in Vietnam (I wasn't even born until a little while after it ended), however, my uncle fought in Vietnam and would beg to disagree with you.

See, according to many historical references that were written around that time (my uncle has them in a footlocker with his uniform and his purple heart), President Kennedy didn't want a war, but sent small amounts of troops to bolster the South Vietnamese army.

When two American ships were supposedly attacked off the coast of North Vietnam in 1964, President Johnson twisted the facts to pressure congress into helping him declare war. I say supposedly attacked because the details of the attack were never really clear and even President Johnson admitted that it may not have happened. Congress wasn't comfortable openly declaring war with the details unclear, so they passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which would allow the president to engage in military operations in Vietnam without having to declare war (so, it's an actual war, but we're not really going to call it that).

Now, this "military operation" was so massive that the entire United States military wasn't enough for it, so they brought back the draft. They pulled people out of their homes, put uniforms on them and told them to "shoot anyone who looked like they might shoot back" (my uncle still shudders when he tells me that).

In the end, over 30,000 American died. That's only 6,000 fewer casualties than America had in the Korean War, yet we sent over 50,000 more troops to Vietnam.

So, you can keep calling it a "skirmish". To the North Vietnamese, it was a war. To the South Vietnamese and the Americans who actually fought there, it was a war. Did the government call it a war? No, they called it a "police action". Did the media call it a war? Yes, many times and President Johnson repeatedly tried to assure the American people that we were only supporting the South Vietnamese troops and that we were not actually at war, despite the fact that we were doing everything we would be doing if we were actually at war.

Your revisionist history is a slap in the face to the soldiers who fought and died in any American conflict, regardless of whether or not the government called it a war.

And comparing the global war against terrorism to a single military conflict is a misrepresentation of the scale, threat, and nature of the war that is happening all over the world right now.

I used the term skirmish improperly, and I apologize to any Vietnam veterans I may have offended.

The reason why I chose such wording is that the Cold War was fought between proxy armies over the course of decades, and the war in Vietnam was just one of those many wars.

Let me make my analogy properly:

The Vietnam War is to the Cold War as the Afganistan War is to the War on Terror.

Is that fair?

I compare Vietnam to Iraq

No, you compared Vietnam to the War on Terror.

If you meant to say Iraq, or I misunderstood your comments, then I apologize.

I agree that Vietnam and Iraq are eerily similar engagement.

because both were started by a President misrepresenting facts. Both were promoted to the American people as "defending the liberty of the people". Both went on longer than they should have, leading to many unnecessary casualties (Iraq is still going on and people are still dying).

Very accurate.

If this is what colleges are turning out as history majors, it's a wonder there's any evidence that last week actually happened.

Actually, that brings up an interesting question for me.

How do you know that the world even existed before last week? Where is your proof that weren’t all were created last Thursday with all our memories intact?

Prove to me that there actually was a war in Vietnam without using science. Because science is a belief!! It’s guessing!! It’s just as made up as religion, so it can’t be true!!

Prove that there was a war in Vietnam without using scientific evidence. Or do you accept that it happened “on faith?”

I do not have a belief in science, which I have stated.

You have scientific facts (which you believe are true because they haven't been proven false, even though they could be),

No, I do not believe they are true. I accept them as true on a tentative basis.

Use the proper terminology please.

you have scientific evidence (which you believe supports those facts because you don't have any evidence to the contrary,

Um, what the fuck? No.

I accept that evidence supports the facts because THAT’S HOW YOU KNOW WHAT FACTS ARE.

I know more “believe” in science than you “believe” in any aspect of reality that you experience.

either because you don't accept it or we haven't discovered it yet)

That’s right. Because as you and I can agree, nature reality and the laws of physics change so often that it is completely worthless and useless to try to learn anything about them!

and you have your ideas (which you believe are correct because they're backed up with those facts and evidence, even though they could be totally wrong and you just don't know it).

I don’t believe they are correct. I think they are correct. They may or may not be, and I’m ok with that, because I know that when more accurate information is uncovered, I will abide by that information instead.

Nope, there’s no belief in science here. Move along, people. You'll have to look for belief elsewhere else.

You know what, asshole? You keep throwing around the word “believe” in your definition of what science consists of, but your definition is full of festering bullshit.

Learn what believe actually means and then get back to me.

I would willingly drop all of my ideas, all of them, if you could merely show evidence as to why some other idea is the correct one, something you have never done.

Hey, if I had the evidence, I would gladly show it to you. I'd show you that religion is right, science is wrong and publicly humiliate you.

I would not feel shame or humiliation at all. I would be content that my earlier understanding of the universe was based on limited information, and quite glad that I had been informed of the true nature of reality! If anything, I would be sad that I didn’t find out sooner.

And anyways, you wouldn’t find out that “science” is wrong, just that many scientific conclusions were false.

You have no way of proving religion without resorting to science in the first place. Science is the method of determining factuality.

But I'm not doing that. Why? Because I don't have the evidence. The evidence may not even exist.

Right. And as long as your claim has absolutely no evidence, then it is just as worthless, inane, and full of shit as the rest of the infinite number of claims that have no evidence to support. Them.

The difference? I'm not saying religion is right and science is wrong.

First of all, yes you have said science is wrong.

Secondly, you continually claim that all knowledge is false , and that I am an idiot for not realize WE COULD BE IN THE MATRIX or whatever bullshit you feel like defending.

You're ranting and raving constantly about science being right and religion being wrong, just like the religious zealots who rant and rave that science is wrong and religion is right.

If you showed up here and claimed that dogs can speak english, ranted and raved about it, you would be a zealot, right?

And of course, telling you that dogs do not, in fact, speak enlgish, is zealotry as well.

Just because my personal passion is discovering truth and attaining actual knowledge, as opposed to fake truth and bullshit knowledge does not make me a “the same.”

Alike, but not the same.

I'm saying that there's enough evidence to support your view, but it isn't conclusive enough that you should discount the possibility that religion could be right.

First of all, religion is not some monolithic entity that espouses a uniform viewpoint.

Secondly, I have admitted that religion could be right. It’s just that every time I point that out, I also remind my readers that deriving knowledge from religious beliefs is about equal to deriving knowledge from drug trips, dreams, or fortune telling.

It is entirely possible that all those methods could produce valid information. It’s possible, but before I anoint astrology as a replacement to my library of books, I’d like to see some actual evidence that it is accurate.

As many times as you say "I admit I could be wrong", you still jump up and attack anyone who even hints that they might be religious or spiritual.

Because their ideas are unfounded. My ideas have evidence, and their do not.

Once again, you claim that it is better to know nothing than to know a little bit.

I use science, logic, and reason to determine which ideas are more likely to achieve solutions to the problems facing society today. My conclusions may be wrong, but it’s certainly better than throwing my hands in the air and saying “WELL, THE OPINION THAT OSAMA BIN LADEN ORCHESTRATED 9/11 IS EQUAL TO THE OPINION THAT THE JEWS DID IT! I’m a bad person if I tell somebody his opinion that the Jews did 9/11 is wrong!!”

According to your logic, I am obligated to admit to a holocaust denier that the holocaust might not have happened.

While that is within the scope of concievablity, I think it’s a good idea for people to base their perceptions on fact, because I’d rather live in a world where people based their opinions on reality instead of the Iliad and the Odyssey.

Would you like me to go through and pull quotes from when you called someone an "idiot" for believing in a soul?

Sure

How about when you said that belief in the afterlife couldn't possibly be sane?

How is believing in an afterlife any different than believing you are napoleon? Both have no evidence supporting them, so there both are equally true. Which is to say, not.

Have you proven that souls don't exist?

Prove that we weren’t created last Thursday. Prove that YOU AREN’T IN THE MATRIX!
I am obligated to “disprove” everything that anybody says? FUCK NO!

It is the job of a person who believes in a soul to show evidence. Otherwise, they are making it up.

Have you proven that the afterlife couldn't possibly exist? Can you prove that those things don't exist?

I don’t have to. There is nothing obligating me to disprove every idea that comes across my computer screen. If the person supposing the idea can’t back it up, then it’s bullshit and I don’t have to respect it.

By the way, you still ignore my adept disproof of the posibility of god's existance. Why is that?

1) It wasn't "adept disproof of the possibility of god's existence", it was a logical argument against the possibility of omnipotence being valid.

If your god isn’t omnipotent, I don’t think he’s worthy of the title.

2) I didn't ignore it, I responded with an equally logical argument in defense of omnipotence's possible validity.

No, you responded with a tautology.

3) Since I never once said that I believe in any deity, nor did I say that any deity was actually omnipotent, I responded to your argument with one of my own and when you did not present a better argument, I let it drop.

What happens when an unstoppable force meets an movable object?

The entire question is absurd. It’s nonsense. It’s not conceivable by the human mind because it is logically impossible to occur.

Omnipotence is not possible, and if god is not omnipotent, then I’m not calling him god.

What do you want me to admit??? What do you want me say?

I don't actually want you to admit or say anything.

I realize now that it’s not that you want me to say something, it’s that you want me to say nothing at all!

You’ve berated me for espousing the idea that it’s possible to obtain knowledge, however tentative. You deem it fit to live in a world of eternal ignorance.

Every time I or anyone else on this board even mentions religion or spirituality (even if it's not their specific beliefs and they're only making reference to them), they can expect the great history major and devout science fanatic, swordsman3003, to jump down their throats for disagreeing with what only he and a select few could possibly be intelligent enough to see.

I don’t have particular venom for religion. Please understand that.

It’s just that holocaust deniers, UFO believers, and ghost hunters have yet to stake a claim on the forum.

I will argue against any ideas that are unfounded, and especially any mode of thought that says it is ok to make shit up, as long as you believe it.

I'm hoping that eventually you'll realize that when you attack someone's beliefs because they disagree with yours, I'm going to argue back.

What is wrong with attacking someone’s ideas? How am I going to further my knowledge and better my person without arguing about what is true or false? If it turns out that my ideas are wrong, if they are shot down and shown to be based on ignorance or unfounded claims, I will admit that I am wrong.

Maybe I’m just an idealist, but I’d like the rest of the world to hold their notions and ideas to the same level of scrutiny that I hold mine. They don’t have to, it’s their prerogative to think however they want to think. But it’s also my prerogative to tell people that they are wrong, if I want to.

This is a forum and it is a means of communication. Saying every whimsical thought that gets posted here has validity completely destroys the notion of finding truth.

You said that nothing can be 100% proven, and that you won’t accept something as true unless it can be proven 100%. Feel free to live in a universe where we don’t know if the sun will rise tomorrow. And remember!!! The belief that the sun will rise on it’s own is just as valid as the belief that the sun only rises if we sacrifice a virgin the previous night!! DON’T BE A JERK AND TELL THOSE PEOPLE THAT THEIR IDEA IS MADE UP!!!!

I'm hoping that eventually people will be able to discuss things on this board without having to worry about having their views stepped all over by someone who "admits he could be wrong", but damn sure isn't going to act like it.

You say that I’m not acting like “I could be wrong.”

You know what? I would be a lot more inclined to admit that some of my ideas were wrong if you would admit that there is actually a way of determining knowledge or finding truth. How can I even be “wrong,” in your universe, where every idea is just as valid as the other? Valid does not mean “possible,” it means based on fact.

If their ideas are so shitty that I can step all over them and they have no way to defend themselves, then I find it perfectly courteous to point out the gaping flaws in their logic.

As a matter of fact, I think it’s perfectly fine to attack an ironclad notion! If you SAY IT, then it's open to question!!

In our society, it’s good that we have the notion of tolerance. I tolerate other people’s ideas.

You take this notion of tolerance to an absurd peak, suggesting that not only should we acknowledge that all ideas have validity, but that it’s WRONG to question what other people think!

I'll wrap this up because it's gotten a lot longer than I intended it to be.

I spent like 3 hours crafting this response.

[actually, I spent 3 hours up to this point, now it's like 6 hours]

I never said that science is wrong.

*cough* bullshit *cough*

You may not have said it flat out, but it was implied in every seething sarcastic comment about science in your post.

I said that science isn't as sure as you seem to think it is.

I’m sure 50 years from now, half of the things that I learned in the science classroom will be obsolete. I don’t think that science “absolutely certain,” but rather that the scientific method is a superior mechanism for learning the truth than unfounded conjecture and imagination.

Science is ever-changing and constantly in transition. All of your facts may be right and may be wrong, but what they definitely aren’t, is set in stone.

And that’s ok! That’s the benefit of science. Criticizing science because it is subject to change is the same as criticizing a strainer because it doesn’t hold water. You’re missing the point here.

If you can admit that you could be wrong, and you can admit that religion could be right, why do you automatically attack anyone who even says that religion might be right?

The holocaust did not happen.
The Vietnam war is a hoax.
The jews orchestrated 9/11.
The earth is flat.
George Bush is a woman.
Aliens visit my house and tell me how to pick the right lotto numbers.

Do admit that all of those ideas could be right?

Would you let someone who said that all that stuff was true get away with it?????????

There is equal, if not less evidence for the accuracy of the bible, the existence of souls, and the power of prayer.

Whenever someone asserts bullshit, I am COMPELLED to point it out.

Also, have you yet to realize the paradox of attacking me because I attack other people? That’s like smacking me in the face to teach me I shouldn’t hit people.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary:

1. I do not have beliefs.
2. Killing someone who threatens you with death is not necessarily the appropriate response.
3. While large numbers of people are formidable, it is quite common throughout history for minorities to assert control and dominance over a larger population.
4. Science is not a religion.
5. Al-Qaeda and the Inquisition are not “perversions” of religion, but rather expressions of religious belief.
6. I do not have beliefs.
7. Science is amoral. It does not tell people what to do, or how to use scientific findings.
8. Hitler is a man worthy of respect, if just by the fact that he was able to convince people to listen to him.
9. The Vietnam war was not a skirmish. I apologize.
10. Vietnam is comparable to Iraq.
11. Vietnam =/= the war on terror.
12. Any idea that has no evidence supporting it is just as worthless as any other groundless idea. I think there is no reason to respect baseless claims.
13. Just because something it possible does not mean anybody is obligated to disprove it.
14. lesotheron is a dick.
15. I do not have beliefs.
16. The notion that we should all shut up and never contradict what another person says is bullshit.
17. Omnipotence is not possible, and therefore an omnipotent god is not possible. A god without omnipotence isn’t worthy of the title.
18. I admit that I can be wrong.
19. Knowing a little bit is better than knowing nothing.
20. I do not have beliefs.



[edited for stuff, as i'm sure you can imagine]

[Swordsman3003]

In my worldview, conviction is one of the most important things a person can have. However, conviction has nothing to do with attacking anyone who has a different perspective.

Really? That honestly surprises me.

You have argued for agnosticism on a number of subjects. I thought we couldn't "know" things, and if you can't know things, how can you have conviction?

Also, conviction scares the shit out of me. It's people like Stalin, Hitler, and Alexander the Great who have conviction.

If instead of automatically calling into question the validity of anyone's beliefs, certain people of this board said things like, "that's not how I see it" and "maybe, but maybe it's more like this", there would be more discussion and things might actually get accomplished.

First of all, dumbshit, say "maybe, but maybe it's more like this" IS CALLING INTO QUESTIONT HE VALIDITY OF THE PERSON'S BELIEFS!!

And anyways, don't confuse content with demeanor. What you are criticising here is not what people say, but how they are saying it. I guess that's a fair critique.

Instead, anytime someone says the words religion, spirituality, faith, belief or anything else that isn't considered "rational" or "logical" by the "athiest stormtroopers", they get told that they're so obviously wrong they must be stupid or crazy to believe what they do. Several times, I've seen the supposed "proof" of these claims, but it's never anything more than evidence that religion might be wrong or that certain parts of specific religions are highly unlikely. To me, that isn't proof that anyone who believes in religion is stupid or crazy, it's proof that they might see things differently than I do.

My respect is not something that you get by default; you have to earn it.

And you know what? I might say things like "interesting, I've never thought about it that way before" or "that's a viewpoint I should take into consideration" if those opinions and viewpoints were actually things I have never heard of before or taken into consideration. The fact is, I've heard almost all the religious bullshit there is to hear, so when somebody says something like "it's possible that god exists! it's possible we have souls!" I think to myself "yeah, well, tell me something I haven't heard every day of my life since I could comprehend speech."

Is there a God? Who knows. There are people that believe there is, there are people that believe there isn't.

Woop de fuckin doo.

There are people who think dinosaurs walked the earth less than 6,000 years ago, and there are people who don't.

There are people who think Elvis is alive, and there are people who don't.

There are people who think Hitler was one of the great moralists of our time, and there are people who don't.

The average person has an IQ of 100, by definition. I could not care less what "people" believe.

I have no definite proof either way, so I choose to believe that God could exist, but probably doesn't (just like some people choose to believe that God does exist and others choose to believe that God doesn't exist).

Emphasis added. I think this speaks for itself.

Is there an afterlife? Well, if there is, nobody is going to know for sure until it's too late to say anything about it. Whether there is or not doesn't really affect life, so it doesn't really matter that much either way, does it? If you want to live your life in such a way that you'll get into whatever afterlife you believe in, more power to you. It doesn't affect me in any way because I can choose to live my life any way I want, even if it means living with no regard for any possible afterlife.

If afterlives do exist, then it should definitely impact the life you lead.

I'm not asking you to hear the religious side of any argument and say "Well, it's equally valid to mine, so I should believe it". I'm asking you to say "Well, I don't believe what they do, but maybe it shines a different light on the subject".

Yes. It changes the very nature of the debate.

If we were discussing the holocaust, and somebody came up and said I DENY THAT IT EVEN HAPPENED, then it would definitely shed some light on the subject.

How is responding to that person with "your idea that the holocaust is a conspiracy is bullshit" the wrong thing to do?

It's not about you treating their beliefs as equally valid to your own, it's about you understanding that their beliefs are more valid to them than your beliefs the same way your beliefs are more valid to you than theirs. They're not stupid or crazy for believing that any more than you are stupid or crazy for believing what you do.

You know what? I did not treat their beliefs as equally valid to my own, and you berated me. I honestly could not care and less about your opinions right now.

And yeah, a schizophrenic believes a lot of shit too. I feel sorry for schizophrenics, but I'm not going to patronizingly pretend that their hallucinations are reasonable.

The jury is still out on the whole "reality" thing, so until there's some conclusive proof, there's no need to attack people because they see things differently.

Actually, there is quite a need to attack people who see things differently.

There are people who think I need to have my rights as a citizen stripped from me on the basis that I openly challenge the validity of their religion.

I SURE AS FUCK NEED TO ATTACK THAT BELIEF!! And hundreds of other ideas that I don't want to see pass into reality.

I'll give you a few examples of things that have been "believed" throughout history:

*a list of magical creatures*

And all those ideas are just as mistaken, untrue, and unfounded as religious ideas.

All of these creatures are myths and legends. Some of them have been found to be true, some of them have been found to be highly unlikely. The difference is that all of these things could exist, regardless of whether or not you or I or anyone else actually believes they exist. God is a similar mythical/legendary being. Could God exist?

In my personal opinion, the likelihood of the existence of a god is even less likely than all that other crap you listed. At leas they are philosophically concievable.

Yes, maybe not the way its commonly thought of, maybe as something entirely different than we're expecting, maybe not in a way we'll ever be able to know for sure.

What a nice cop-out.

Science hasn't found a way of even looking for God yet, so there's no way to know for sure.

Actually, there have been plenty of tests to find out if there is a god.

Study on the power of prayer (there is none) is a good example. I expect superior tests will be developed in the future.

If there is a god, and it wants us to know it exists, there should be evidence, somewhere that indicates it.

[Xero]

I have a question

can we stop the e-peen war and get back to talking about incest?
kthnx

[Seth Marati]

can we stop the e-peen war and get back to talking about incest?

I tried. I really did.

But anyway, ManaUser: I think a lot of it has to do with upbringing. Putting aside the sexual element, most people don't achieve that degree of *intimacy* with their siblings. That's what I think weirded me out more than anything else.

Of course, from this, there are all sorts of speculations and reasonings and what else that could shoot off, like why we're brought up that way, whether there's a biological impetus to do so for better recombination of genes (not too likely, since people tend to go for sameness over exoticness), why I still feel that way if I'm cognizant of why it might be so, and so on. But I don't want to break into a mess of tangents right now, because I'm sick and achy and tired and whine whine whine whine whine.

Maybe later.