CommanderJohnson Posted July 1, 2002 Report Share Posted July 1, 2002 Jaguar puts things so elegantly. He's right too. "PC" is stupid, and the Supreme Court already said they are going to toss the liberal garbage out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosko Posted July 1, 2002 Report Share Posted July 1, 2002 1984 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosko Posted July 1, 2002 Report Share Posted July 1, 2002 quote:If you wish to be free of religion, then go find a NICE cabin in the middle of the woods and lock yourself down, otherwise, DEAL WITH IT!!______In my opinion, religion should have died when Darwin spoke. This means I'm against the popularisation of religion... and that’s my belief!! ______The death of religion however, doesn’t happen straight away. People won't just stop believing in something so deeply hammered into there heads. It all starts with the popularisation of reality!! ______Oh, and by the way, people like myself don't just shutup and go away...DEAL WITH IT!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Remo Williams Posted July 1, 2002 Report Share Posted July 1, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Rosko: quote:If you wish to be free of religion, then go find a NICE cabin in the middle of the woods and lock yourself down, otherwise, DEAL WITH IT!!______In my opinion, religion should have died when Darwin spoke. This means I'm against the popularisation of religion... and that’s my belief!! ______The death of religion however, doesn’t happen straight away. People won't just stop believing in something so deeply hammered into there heads. It all starts with the popularisation of reality!! ______Oh, and by the way, people like myself don't just shutup and go away...DEAL WITH IT!! BAH! Rubbish! Staying true to form I see Rosko. [ 07-01-2002, 08:37 AM: Message edited by: Remo Williams ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunanta Posted July 1, 2002 Report Share Posted July 1, 2002 quote:Originally posted by DREADA: Several great scientists have in the past cast doubt on his ideas and have introduced the possibility that biblical explanations, though far-fetched according to 'limit-loving' western thinking, are not completely inconceivable.And several great philosopher have cast doubt on the very existence of one's own body and all of reality. In the same spirit of those scientists, of course. quote: Oh and btw if you do look deep enough your science-dictated-reality, also requires faith, not so dissimilar to Religion/God, huh? I wonder why is that? Science is all about probabilities, hence it requires no faith. That brings up a new problem, though--that means science doesn't really explain anything at all. That's why it will never supplant religion. [ 07-01-2002, 08:45 AM: Message edited by: Sunanta ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Remo Williams Posted July 1, 2002 Report Share Posted July 1, 2002 quote:Science is all about probabilities, hence it requires no faith. That brings up a new problem, though--that means Science doesn't really explain anything at all. That's why it will never supplant religion. Here is a quote from one of the greatest scientist of our time. "The evidence of god is everywhere we look." Albert Einstein But of course he didn't know squat right! Well this is the last I have to say on this topic. To all my fellow Christians God bless. To all you Atheists Salute and good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunanta Posted July 1, 2002 Report Share Posted July 1, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Remo Williams: Here is a quote from one of the greatest scientist of our time. "The evidence of god is everywhere we look." Albert Einstein But of course he didn't know squat right! He was indeed a wise man. Wise enough to distinguish between the complementary studies of faith and physics. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 2, 2002 Report Share Posted July 2, 2002 I can be rather neutral in this, considering I am neither Christian, nor an atheist. The fact is that this country is based on certain Judeo-Christian moral structures. A majority of our citizens are Christian in some way shape or form. The "under god" part of the pledge does not offend me, because I know where it strems from, since I do not believe in that particular part, I stay silent. A majority believe in it, therefore I keep my mouth shut. You wanna say it, be my guest, but I am not going to go to court to get it removed because I do NOT believe in it. I believe that the courts have better things to do with their time, such as lock up criminals. I as a nonreligious person am not going to tell the schools that they cannot have meetings etc in a public building, because they are public buildings, EVERYONE, no matter what they are talking about, should be allowed to use public buildings, they are as much an owner of them as I am. This whole spearation of Church and state is a falacy created by liberals who believe that the best way to control people is through judicial action. They couldn't legislate it, so they shove it through the judiciary, so that judges will legislate for them. Judges are there to judge, not legislate, and I believe it needs to be stopped before it can damage our country to a point where it is totally unrecognizable. You wanna say "under god" please feel free, you don't want to say "under god", please feel free. But to force it to stay or go is stupidity in the extreme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotharr Posted July 3, 2002 Report Share Posted July 3, 2002 I think that this is a step in the right direction...whenever there is some Army function we are all supposed to pray in some way…usually the Christian dogma is overpowering. Sometimes they even want you to bow your head. When I don't, I feel the eyes on me. Get rid of the god stuff....we just don't need it. If all countries took the religion aspect out of politics we might be able to make some real progress in certain areas. I do believe in a God...however I acknowledge the potential for abuse when the institutional link from the divine to the mortal is made. Take out the language but keep the morals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosko Posted July 4, 2002 Report Share Posted July 4, 2002 quote:You wanna say "under god" please feel free, you don't want to say "under god", please feel free. But to force it to stay or go is stupidity in the extreme.You know,....you got a point! Maybe if they gave a neutral quota, and allowed people to choose their pledge, we could work this out flame-free. I'm sure atheists, like myself, would be happy if the state acknowledge our existence in the pledge rather than devote it to god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosko Posted July 4, 2002 Report Share Posted July 4, 2002 I'm NOT against people going to the Sunday sermon. I would recommend it. I see the church as a powerful medium of delivering a code of ethics & culture to the community. But, I hate the religion part of it...I’m almost completely certain, the money milking founders of the church, didn't know the fundamentals of life while dreaming up the bible. I see faith, as something we individually have to create in or own heads. Where not here for no reason.....our purpose is to find out why where here, and how where here!! There fore, I put my faith in science!! BTW, I wonder if this guy will get flamed here -> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menchise Posted July 4, 2002 Report Share Posted July 4, 2002 quote:BTW, I wonder if this guy will get flamed here -> I don't think anyone would flame that smiley. It's so cute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 4, 2002 Report Share Posted July 4, 2002 as a member of the dyslexic agnostic society, I refuse to believe in DOG. Furthermore, we absolutely deny the claims of certain religious establishments that we are servants of SANTA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menchise Posted July 4, 2002 Report Share Posted July 4, 2002 LOL! That is so mean. [ 07-04-2002, 01:00 AM: Message edited by: Menchise ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Posted July 4, 2002 Report Share Posted July 4, 2002 LMAO As far as the whole pledge of allegiance thing goes (you know, the topic of this thread you do remember the topic dont you?) I have to go with Jag, say it or dont say it, no big deal (and your right, any kid who is actually brainwashed by the pledge is pretty dumb). I think it would be cool if it sticks, but I really dont care. As far as the whole science vs. religion argument goes, there is no hope; there is simply no way anyone will be convinced by argumentation on this type of subject. None the less, while science doesnt explain everything, it does make a good attempt. Thats the real difference, science doesnt claim an answer, it just claims a series of increasingly more accurate approximations that none the less are useful, religion claims absolute accuracy without any empirical evidence. Everyone is so used to looking at this form an internal view, my religion against your religion, or my religion against your atheism, or whatever, why dont you try to step out of it for a moment. Imagine that youre someone completely devoid of religion and you go down to the highly fictitious ye ol religion shope to pick out a religion. Only, which one do you pick? How do you decide who is right? Is it through the gathering of empirical evidence? Do you trace them back through history to some initial truth? Do you decide based on the universally excepted truth? To all of these, no. There is no real empirical evidence that supports religion, only unknown phenomena that suggest something science cant yet explain. There is no path back to the initial truth, only a series of semi-logical steps from one religion to another that any half assed historian can document. There is no universal consensus (or virtually so) like there is with science, only a series of groups that are larger then others. People choose based off of what makes them feel good, or what they were taught as a child, or what there relatives believe (especially relatives with money), or what is popular among there group of friends. I dont know about you, but this doesnt seem the way to make an important decision I choose not to believe I'm driving off a cliff because it makes me feel good I came to decision some time ago to believe nothing absolutely, but to go with whatever model of the universe that is right most often. If science one day proves that god exists then I will (feeling the total fool) believe in god, but then god will be the realm of science. Even if god exists there is no logical reason to believe in him until empirical evidence exists to prove his existence. If I were to go back in time and tell an early scientist that thermal energy is really molecules bouncing around and insane speeds and that he should accept it on faith he would be crazy to do so. That doesnt mean I advocate believing nothing without evidence, instead believe nothing without doubt and let the level of doubt be a derivative of the quantity and apparent quality of evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now