What is faith? Really?

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

Why? What is so great about rational and reasoned evidence that imagination and faith should be discarded in its favor?

If all you want is your own subjective experience, and faith gives you emotional pleasure, then by all means...

However, people often take the supposed insights they have from faith, and translate them into a model of how the objective universe operates. This is utterly delusional...

Are you sure? If so, please cite the critically robust scientific evidence that God does not exist and is not capable of controlling time, space and matter.

Some people can manage to have a modicum of both, reserving the faith bit for emotional support, and perhaps guidance on how to treat other people, while accepting the basic scientific model of the universe. Certainly a better stance, at least pragmatically, but if they follow both paths to where they meet, they will find a serious disconnect...

So what?

[pErvinalia]

Nothing about democracy holds that any particular belief or ideology should be respected. I believe in a democracy with a rational constitution backing it up.

Actually democracy holds that the particular beliefs and ideology of the majority must be respected. Democracy with a "rational constitution" backing it is what we here in the US have, and it's not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic.

It's still a democracy. Democracy doesn't mean anything that the majority wants goes.

Wrong. That's EXACTLY what democracy means.

Wrong (as usual): "No consensus exists on how to define democracy, but legal equality, freedom and rule of law have been identified as important characteristics since ancient times.[6][7] These principles are reflected in all eligible citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to legislative processes. For example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no unreasonable restrictions can apply to anyone seeking to become a representative, and the freedom of its eligible citizens is secured by legitimised rights and liberties which are typically protected by a constitution.[8][9]" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Characteristics

There is of course majority consensuses (consensi?...) in democracy as there are in democratic republics (i.e. democracies). But there's nothing saying that that consensus is set at 50%. Most democracies have a higher test for changing their constitutions. But the point still remains that a specific majority of citizens can change the laws of a democratic nation, like your stupid country as much as my slightly less stupid country.

You are the one who is trying to argue that delusions and lying and conspiracy is a form of evidence.

Er, the point is that you cannot prove that it's delusion or a lie, and conspiracies do in fact exist, or had that escaped you?

Of course they exist. The concocting of the bible was a conspiracy of powerful people to keep the masses in check and under their thumb.

Or it's the Word of God. I certainly think it's highly plausible that religion is indeed a method of social control that preceded government in human history and that like government it was and is used abusively by some as a method of power and control. But I'm smart enough to know that I don't know if that's the ONLY reason religion exists, so I'm not arrogant enough to proclaim it a delusion.

I'm not proclaiming with 100% it's a delusion. I'm just using reason and evidence to suggest that it's likely it is a mass delusion (passed from parent down to child). There could be a giant teapot floating out in space. What are you going to believe when presented with evidence?

Moreover, there is nothing inherently bad about religion being used as a social control mechanism. Historically, when the rule of law breaks down, such as during the Dark Ages, religion is a powerful force for social stability. That remains true today even with the rule of law in place.

That's not the point up for discussion. You are saying that we should accept a likely conspiracy of elites as "evidence" for the existence of the thing they are conspiring about. That's idiotic.

Therefore, delusion or not, religion, like most things, can be used for good or for evil and is inherently neither.

True. But it's the evil, when it is used for that, that is most concerning and devastating.

The point is, why should anyone think that a conspiracy of thought is evidence for anything (other than a conspiracy)? Regarding proving a delusion or lie, why should anyone want to do that? As I said below, it is indistinguishable from psychosis. It has zero explanatory power and zero value in the realm of rational evidence.

Why do you think that human beings are required to live entirely within the realm of rational evidence?

They aren't required to do anything. But if you want to have an intelligent discussion about the likelihood of religious stories, then you'll want to employ some rationality and reason. Otherwise it is pointless discussing it.

If it can't be distinguished from psychosis, then it has no value to anyone.

Strangely, that "psychosis" you complain of appears to be of deep and important value to some 80 percent of the world's population. Who then should we believe, 4.8 billion people or you?

You should believe in rational and reasoned evidence. Not in delusion.

Why? What is so great about rational and reasoned evidence that imagination and faith should be discarded in its favor?

Because faith is meaningless because it is indistinguishable from mental illness and lying and indoctrination. It can't add anything that we can trust. How do I know if Alice speaks to God, or whether she is just a fruitcake or an adult that was indoctrinated as a kid?

Particularly not the people you are trying to convince that it is evidence. Stop making weak arguments.

Well, the present dispute is whether something that exists that you don't know about or that hasn't been scientifically examined by a cadre of illuminati qualifies as evidence or not. As I said, the probative value of evidence is an entirely different issue from it's status as evidence.

I think the key point is that stories in the head are useless for anything other than personal satisfaction. And there's no problem with that, while ever said stories stay inside these people's heads. But when they start trying to impose them on others, then it becomes an offensive action.

Did you mean stories like "Anthropogenic CO2 release is causing the planet to warm so we must immediately go back to living in wattle-and-daub huts and grubbing for roots in the ground with pointy sticks in order to save the planet"? Those kinds of stories that have become an offensive action?

No wonder you don't like talking about "evidence". You clearly have no fucking clue what it is. You are on the wrong side of history for so many things, Seth (like most conservatives are).

[Hermit]

I have faith that the Bible is the truth because I have faith that it is the word of God that he inspired his prophets to write down for all of humanity. The Bible serves to instruct us to stone to death women who have been raped outside the confines of their own village, and it presents us with very many similarly explicit, useful laws. The Bible also tells us what the universe looks like. I have faith that all of it is true.

[Seth]

Nothing about democracy holds that any particular belief or ideology should be respected. I believe in a democracy with a rational constitution backing it up.

Actually democracy holds that the particular beliefs and ideology of the majority must be respected. Democracy with a "rational constitution" backing it is what we here in the US have, and it's not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic.

It's still a democracy. Democracy doesn't mean anything that the majority wants goes.

Wrong. That's EXACTLY what democracy means.

Wrong (as usual): "No consensus exists on how to define democracy, but legal equality, freedom and rule of law have been identified as important characteristics since ancient times.[6][7] These principles are reflected in all eligible citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to legislative processes. For example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no unreasonable restrictions can apply to anyone seeking to become a representative, and the freedom of its eligible citizens is secured by legitimised rights and liberties which are typically protected by a constitution.[8][9]" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Characteristics

There is of course majority consensuses (consensi?...) in democracy as there are in democratic republics (i.e. democracies). But there's nothing saying that that consensus is set at 50%. Most democracies have a higher test for changing their constitutions. But the point still remains that a specific majority of citizens can change the laws of a democratic nation, like your stupid country as much as my slightly less stupid country.

I provided the dictionary definitions of the words involved. If you want to argue, argue with Merriam and Webster.

You are the one who is trying to argue that delusions and lying and conspiracy is a form of evidence.

Er, the point is that you cannot prove that it's delusion or a lie, and conspiracies do in fact exist, or had that escaped you?

Of course they exist. The concocting of the bible was a conspiracy of powerful people to keep the masses in check and under their thumb.

Or it's the Word of God. I certainly think it's highly plausible that religion is indeed a method of social control that preceded government in human history and that like government it was and is used abusively by some as a method of power and control. But I'm smart enough to know that I don't know if that's the ONLY reason religion exists, so I'm not arrogant enough to proclaim it a delusion.

I'm not proclaiming with 100% it's a delusion. I'm just using reason and evidence to suggest that it's likely it is a mass delusion (passed from parent down to child). There could be a giant teapot floating out in space. What are you going to believe when presented with evidence?

What I believe is irrelevant. What I'm going to do is withhold judgment on the beliefs of others so long as they act peaceably. I'm not going to denigrate them or insult them or call them delusional because that falsely presumes that I know more than they do about their beliefs, which is not the case.

Moreover, there is nothing inherently bad about religion being used as a social control mechanism. Historically, when the rule of law breaks down, such as during the Dark Ages, religion is a powerful force for social stability. That remains true today even with the rule of law in place.

That's not the point up for discussion.

Of course it is. You brought it up when you started talking about religious people forcing their beliefs on others and how delusional they are.

You are saying that we should accept a likely conspiracy of elites as "evidence" for the existence of the thing they are conspiring about. That's idiotic.

I'm saying nothing of the sort. I'm merely saying that neither you nor I can objectively prove that they are either wrong or delusional.

Therefore, delusion or not, religion, like most things, can be used for good or for evil and is inherently neither.

True. But it's the evil, when it is used for that, that is most concerning and devastating.

I agree, but then again baseball bats and frying pans may be used for evil. That doesn't make them inherently evil. It's nice to see you actually admit that religion may have social value when it's used for good, that's something entirely new and different.

The point is, why should anyone think that a conspiracy of thought is evidence for anything (other than a conspiracy)? Regarding proving a delusion or lie, why should anyone want to do that? As I said below, it is indistinguishable from psychosis. It has zero explanatory power and zero value in the realm of rational evidence.

Why do you think that human beings are required to live entirely within the realm of rational evidence?

They aren't required to do anything. But if you want to have an intelligent discussion about the likelihood of religious stories, then you'll want to employ some rationality and reason. Otherwise it is pointless discussing it.

Er, we're discussing faith, so the merits and demerits of rationality versus faith are certainly open to discussion.

If it can't be distinguished from psychosis, then it has no value to anyone.

Strangely, that "psychosis" you complain of appears to be of deep and important value to some 80 percent of the world's population. Who then should we believe, 4.8 billion people or you?

You should believe in rational and reasoned evidence. Not in delusion.

Why? What is so great about rational and reasoned evidence that imagination and faith should be discarded in its favor?

Because faith is meaningless because it is indistinguishable from mental illness and lying and indoctrination.

So you say. 4.8 billion people disagree.

It can't add anything that we can trust.

How would you know?

How do I know if Alice speaks to God, or whether she is just a fruitcake or an adult that was indoctrinated as a kid?

Does it matter?

Particularly not the people you are trying to convince that it is evidence. Stop making weak arguments.

Well, the present dispute is whether something that exists that you don't know about or that hasn't been scientifically examined by a cadre of illuminati qualifies as evidence or not. As I said, the probative value of evidence is an entirely different issue from it's status as evidence.

I think the key point is that stories in the head are useless for anything other than personal satisfaction. And there's no problem with that, while ever said stories stay inside these people's heads. But when they start trying to impose them on others, then it becomes an offensive action.

Did you mean stories like "Anthropogenic CO2 release is causing the planet to warm so we must immediately go back to living in wattle-and-daub huts and grubbing for roots in the ground with pointy sticks in order to save the planet"? Those kinds of stories that have become an offensive action?

No wonder you don't like talking about "evidence". You clearly have no fucking clue what it is. You are on the wrong side of history for so many things, Seth (like most conservatives are).

Typical ad hom because you don't have a rational rebuttal.

[Mick]

I don't see it that way. It is analogous to the parent-child case, I think.

Through natural theology and bibical studies, people believe that God exists, that the Biblical documents are reliable and that Jesus resurrected from the dead. The faith part comes in when we are faced with revelation that is not demonstrable or probable in the light of evidence we have (which is not to say it is improbable). We accept its truth based upon that trust in God, as He is demonstrated to be goodness itself (a demonstration found in natural theology) and our trust in the documents.

Very few people actually believe ''through'' those things.
They believe first, through indoctrination, and then build up some sort of ''logic'' to support that belief later.

How many people never got indoctrinated as children, but then became believers through that bullshit?
A teeny tiny meeeeny number.

The vast majority are indoctrinated as children, and that's why they believe. Then they dress it up, as you do, as being the result of some intellectual process.
Are you actually fooling yourself with that crap?

Right. They believe it based upon trust, that of their parents or priests, or whatever. That's fine. It's having faith in the community and the priest. There's nothing irrational about this. Likewise, I put that trust into my mechanic, doctor and teacher. Likewise, children are taught to accept secularism, multiculturalism, feminism, and so on. How many adults can put on defenses for these ideologies? Not many. Does that make them indoctrinated? I suppose, in a sense. Is their position irrational? I will let you answer that.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

Are you sure? If so, please cite the critically robust scientific evidence that God does not exist and is not capable of controlling time, space and matter.

Typical theist illogic. Someone making an extraordinary claim has to prove it, not those who are not convinced that the claim is illusory. We have no objective evidence for the existence of a supernatural being. The simplest hypothesis is that god does not exist, and in the absence of any data that negates that hypothesis, that is the most logical position to adopt. No atheist needs to prove the non-existence of Thor, or Zeus, or Vishnu, or any of the hundreds of putative deities that have festered in the fevered imagination of mankind since the first tall tale was told around a hominid campfire...

Show me clear evidence that a supernatural entity is controlling space and time, and defying the laws of physics. You can't do it, nobody ever has...

So, in the absence of evidence, the theist resorts to the private fantasy of faith. As I've said many times in this thread, they can enjoy their private emotional faith fest as much as they like, but as soon as they use it as a springboard to make unsupported claims about the operating principles of the universe, they become nothing more than a waste of oxygen.

[pErvinalia]

Actually democracy holds that the particular beliefs and ideology of the majority must be respected. Democracy with a "rational constitution" backing it is what we here in the US have, and it's not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic.

It's still a democracy. Democracy doesn't mean anything that the majority wants goes.

Wrong. That's EXACTLY what democracy means.

Wrong (as usual): "No consensus exists on how to define democracy, but legal equality, freedom and rule of law have been identified as important characteristics since ancient times.[6][7] These principles are reflected in all eligible citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to legislative processes. For example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no unreasonable restrictions can apply to anyone seeking to become a representative, and the freedom of its eligible citizens is secured by legitimised rights and liberties which are typically protected by a constitution.[8][9]" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Characteristics

There is of course majority consensuses (consensi?...) in democracy as there are in democratic republics (i.e. democracies). But there's nothing saying that that consensus is set at 50%. Most democracies have a higher test for changing their constitutions. But the point still remains that a specific majority of citizens can change the laws of a democratic nation, like your stupid country as much as my slightly less stupid country.

I provided the dictionary definitions of the words involved. If you want to argue, argue with Merriam and Webster.

No, I'll argue with you. You are simply wrong. Republicanism is an alternative mode of governance to Monarchy. But both can and often are democracies. Until you can find a definition that states that democracies can't have constitutions and that a majority simply equals 50% + 1, then you are talking shit. As usual.

What I believe is irrelevant. What I'm going to do is withhold judgment on the beliefs of others so long as they act peaceably. I'm not going to denigrate them or insult them or call them delusional because that falsely presumes that I know more than they do about their beliefs, which is not the case.

Shame you can't take the same approach to other things you know nothing about like socialism and science etc. You have no problems insulting or denigrating people who you think are wrong in other areas of thought. Basically, you are, as usual, a hypocrite.

Moreover, there is nothing inherently bad about religion being used as a social control mechanism. Historically, when the rule of law breaks down, such as during the Dark Ages, religion is a powerful force for social stability. That remains true today even with the rule of law in place.

That's not the point up for discussion.

Of course it is. You brought it up when you started talking about religious people forcing their beliefs on others and how delusional they are.

This conversation is about faith and evidence. You can't even follow a fucking simple progression of posts.

Therefore, delusion or not, religion, like most things, can be used for good or for evil and is inherently neither.

True. But it's the evil, when it is used for that, that is most concerning and devastating.

I agree, but then again baseball bats and frying pans may be used for evil. That doesn't make them inherently evil. It's nice to see you actually admit that religion may have social value when it's used for good, that's something entirely new and different.

If you weren't such a blinkered twat you'd realise a lot of things you currently miss. But a point of clarity about your first sentence, baseball bats and frying pans aren't ideologies and they aren't granted special status by unthinking idiots. Religion has the potential to be VERY dangerous, as has been proving over and over again throughout history. That's why it needs constant rational scrutiny.

The point is, why should anyone think that a conspiracy of thought is evidence for anything (other than a conspiracy)? Regarding proving a delusion or lie, why should anyone want to do that? As I said below, it is indistinguishable from psychosis. It has zero explanatory power and zero value in the realm of rational evidence.

Why do you think that human beings are required to live entirely within the realm of rational evidence?

They aren't required to do anything. But if you want to have an intelligent discussion about the likelihood of religious stories, then you'll want to employ some rationality and reason. Otherwise it is pointless discussing it.

Er, we're discussing faith, so the merits and demerits of rationality versus faith are certainly open to discussion.

No, we're discussing faith and EVIDENCE. Are you in the wrong thread again??

If it can't be distinguished from psychosis, then it has no value to anyone.

Strangely, that "psychosis" you complain of appears to be of deep and important value to some 80 percent of the world's population. Who then should we believe, 4.8 billion people or you?

You should believe in rational and reasoned evidence. Not in delusion.

Why? What is so great about rational and reasoned evidence that imagination and faith should be discarded in its favor?

Because faith is meaningless because it is indistinguishable from mental illness and lying and indoctrination.

So you say. 4.8 billion people disagree.

Fallacious.

It can't add anything that we can trust.

How would you know?

How do I know if Alice speaks to God, or whether she is just a fruitcake or an adult that was indoctrinated as a kid?

Does it matter?

When we talk about evidence, then of course it matters.

Particularly not the people you are trying to convince that it is evidence. Stop making weak arguments.

Well, the present dispute is whether something that exists that you don't know about or that hasn't been scientifically examined by a cadre of illuminati qualifies as evidence or not. As I said, the probative value of evidence is an entirely different issue from it's status as evidence.

I think the key point is that stories in the head are useless for anything other than personal satisfaction. And there's no problem with that, while ever said stories stay inside these people's heads. But when they start trying to impose them on others, then it becomes an offensive action.

Did you mean stories like "Anthropogenic CO2 release is causing the planet to warm so we must immediately go back to living in wattle-and-daub huts and grubbing for roots in the ground with pointy sticks in order to save the planet"? Those kinds of stories that have become an offensive action?

No wonder you don't like talking about "evidence". You clearly have no fucking clue what it is. You are on the wrong side of history for so many things, Seth (like most conservatives are).

Typical ad hom because you don't have a rational rebuttal.

I've told you before, your idiotic conspiracy theories are not going to get any respect. You have absolutely nothing to back up the assertion that climate change science is a big conspiracy. You simply don't like it as it is a shocking indictment of your religion of capitalism. Follow the money, Seth.

[Seth]

No, I'll argue with you. You are simply wrong.

No I'm not. The quote you posted said ""No consensus exists on how to define democracy" and it's correct. The actual definition of democracy is the one found in the dictionary, which is the authoritative reference source for the definition of words.

Republicanism is an alternative mode of governance to Monarchy. But both can and often are democracies. Until you can find a definition that states that democracies can't have constitutions and that a majority simply equals 50% + 1, then you are talking shit. As usual.

You need to ponder the difference between "a democracy" and "democratic processes or principles." The United States is a constitutional Republic that uses some limited aspects of democracy in its election of representatives to government. It is NOT a democracy.

What I believe is irrelevant. What I'm going to do is withhold judgment on the beliefs of others so long as they act peaceably. I'm not going to denigrate them or insult them or call them delusional because that falsely presumes that I know more than they do about their beliefs, which is not the case.

Shame you can't take the same approach to other things you know nothing about like socialism and science etc. You have no problems insulting or denigrating people who you think are wrong in other areas of thought. Basically, you are, as usual, a hypocrite.

Well, that's what this forum is for, so it falls outside the tenets of Tolerism™ with respect to debates here. Here you are what you write, nothing more and nothing less, and if you don't write and think rationally I'll be happy to tear you a new asshole and shove your hypocrisy and bigotry right up it.

Therefore, delusion or not, religion, like most things, can be used for good or for evil and is inherently neither.

[quoteIf you weren't such a blinkered twat you'd realise a lot of things you currently miss. But a point of clarity about your first sentence, baseball bats and frying pans aren't ideologies and they aren't granted special status by unthinking idiots. Religion has the potential to be VERY dangerous, as has been proving over and over again throughout history. That's why it needs constant rational scrutiny.

If you weren't such a fuckwit you'd realize that Atheism is a religion and it's just as dangerous.

It can't add anything that we can trust.

How would you know?

How do I know if Alice speaks to God, or whether she is just a fruitcake or an adult that was indoctrinated as a kid?

Does it matter?

When we talk about evidence, then of course it matters.

Why?

I've told you before, your idiotic conspiracy theories are not going to get any respect. You have absolutely nothing to back up the assertion that climate change science is a big conspiracy. You simply don't like it as it is a shocking indictment of your religion of capitalism. Follow the money, Seth.

And I've told you that your fuckwitted conspiracy theorism and blatant bigotry about religion aren't going to get any respect either.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

Are you sure? If so, please cite the critically robust scientific evidence that God does not exist and is not capable of controlling time, space and matter.

Typical theist illogic. Someone making an extraordinary claim has to prove it, not those who are not convinced that the claim is illusory.

Sez who? You? The Gods of Science? The National Science Foundation? Fuck them, they have no authority to lay the burden of proof of anything.

Theists say "God exists." They are making a statement of faith, not presenting a scientific thesis for peer review. You are free to believe or disbelieve it, and they don't really care what you think, because they know what they know and are satisfied with the evidence they have affirming their belief.

You are saying "God does not exist," and since you are the scientific rationalist it's up to you to support this presumably scientifically based postulate, otherwise you are abandoning your scientific rationality by trying to shift the burden to someone who has not made a scientific claim of any kind and is not expecting any scientific analysis of that statement of belief.

We have no objective evidence for the existence of a supernatural being.

YOU don't have... The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence I'm afraid.

The simplest hypothesis is that god does not exist,

Thanks for stating it as a scientific hypothesis, that confirms what I just said, the burden of proof is on you to prove it.

and in the absence of any data that negates that hypothesis,

Oh, there's plenty of evidence, you just don't believe it's true. That's far different from there being no evidence.

Besides, as a scientist making a hypothesis that God does not exist it is up to you to go FIND the evidence of the nonexistence of God.

that is the most logical position to adopt.

"I've never seen a subatomic particle, so the most logical position to take is that they don't exist" Really?

No atheist needs to prove the non-existence of Thor, or Zeus, or Vishnu, or any of the hundreds of putative deities that have festered in the fevered imagination of mankind since the first tall tale was told around a hominid campfire...

Correct, they don't need to prove anything...unless they make a claim about a thing...and then according to their own Atheist Rationalist religious dogma they have imposed a burden of proof upon themselves by making that claim.

Show me clear evidence that a supernatural entity is controlling space and time, and defying the laws of physics. You can't do it, nobody ever has...

Which doesn't mean that an entity capable of performing those acts does not exist and is not entirely "natural" and you're just an ignorant hairless ape.

So, in the absence of evidence, the theist resorts to the private fantasy of faith.

The key word in that sentence is "private."

As I've said many times in this thread, they can enjoy their private emotional faith fest as much as they like, but as soon as they use it as a springboard to make unsupported claims about the operating principles of the universe, they become nothing more than a waste of oxygen.

So what? It's their oxygen to waste.

Why do you care what they think?

[pErvinalia]

No, I'll argue with you. You are simply wrong.

No I'm not. The quote you posted said ""No consensus exists on how to define democracy" and it's correct. The actual definition of democracy is the one found in the dictionary, which is the authoritative reference source for the definition of words.

Huh? How can it be both correct and not correct at the same time??

Republicanism is an alternative mode of governance to Monarchy. But both can and often are democracies. Until you can find a definition that states that democracies can't have constitutions and that a majority simply equals 50% + 1, then you are talking shit. As usual.

You need to ponder the difference between "a democracy" and "democratic processes or principles." The United States is a constitutional Republic that uses some limited aspects of democracy in its election of representatives to government. It is NOT a democracy.

None of our countries are a pure democracy (even if that can be adequately defined, which it can't). But they are forms of democracy. Republicanism isn't an alternative to democracy. They aren't mutually exclusive. The simple fact is that in your country, as in mine, a specific majority of people and/or voting units (i.e. States) can change the rights available to citizens and government of our countries. Hence your whole line of "reasoning" (I'm being generous) is specious.

What I believe is irrelevant. What I'm going to do is withhold judgment on the beliefs of others so long as they act peaceably. I'm not going to denigrate them or insult them or call them delusional because that falsely presumes that I know more than they do about their beliefs, which is not the case.

Shame you can't take the same approach to other things you know nothing about like socialism and science etc. You have no problems insulting or denigrating people who you think are wrong in other areas of thought. Basically, you are, as usual, a hypocrite.

Well, that's what this forum is for, so it falls outside the tenets of Tolerism™ with respect to debates here. Here you are what you write, nothing more and nothing less, and if you don't write and think rationally I'll be happy to tear you a new asshole and shove your hypocrisy and bigotry right up it.

So why can't I call religious twits deluded then??

Therefore, delusion or not, religion, like most things, can be used for good or for evil and is inherently neither.

[quoteIf you weren't such a blinkered twat you'd realise a lot of things you currently miss. But a point of clarity about your first sentence, baseball bats and frying pans aren't ideologies and they aren't granted special status by unthinking idiots. Religion has the potential to be VERY dangerous, as has been proving over and over again throughout history. That's why it needs constant rational scrutiny.

If you weren't such a fuckwit you'd realize that Atheism is a religion and it's just as dangerous.

Nice non-sequitur, and totally specious.

So explain again how atheism is a religion.

Why?

I've told you before, your idiotic conspiracy theories are not going to get any respect. You have absolutely nothing to back up the assertion that climate change science is a big conspiracy. You simply don't like it as it is a shocking indictment of your religion of capitalism. Follow the money, Seth.

And I've told you that your fuckwitted conspiracy theorism and blatant bigotry about religion aren't going to get any respect either.

So what are you whinging about then??

[pErvinalia]

Seth wrote:

Are you sure? If so, please cite the critically robust scientific evidence that God does not exist and is not capable of controlling time, space and matter.

Typical theist illogic. Someone making an extraordinary claim has to prove it, not those who are not convinced that the claim is illusory.

Sez who? You? The Gods of Science? The National Science Foundation? Fuck them, they have no authority to lay the burden of proof of anything.

Says everyone who understands what the scientific method is and what science can and can't prove. Science can't prove in a near infinite universe that something 100% doesn't exist. It can only provide evidence and explanations for physical phenomena. So you are asking Jim to do something that science isn't even supposed to do. Once again showing you know virtually nothing about science.

You are saying "God does not exist," and since you are the scientific rationalist it's up to you to support this presumably scientifically based postulate, otherwise you are abandoning your scientific rationality by trying to shift the burden to someone who has not made a scientific claim of any kind and is not expecting any scientific analysis of that statement of belief.

It would help if you could actually read and understand English. He most definitely isn't saying that.

[Hermit]

I provided the dictionary definitions of the words involved. If you want to argue, argue with Merriam and Webster.

No need to argue with Merriam and Webster, for that dictionary provides not only what you call the definition of democracy, but five others as well, none of which include the word "majority".

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

"I've never seen a subatomic particle, so the most logical position to take is that they don't exist" Really?

You have just shown your utter ignorance of the scientific method. Vast amounts of quantitative measurements from a huge variety of experiments have supported the standard model of sub-atomic particles. The evidence is quite compelling, and no-one other than a complete ignoramus would make such a statement.

But not only have I not seen god with my own eyes, but there has been no data or objective evidence presented to support his existence. Rather an important difference...

No atheist needs to prove the non-existence of Thor, or Zeus, or Vishnu, or any of the hundreds of putative deities that have festered in the fevered imagination of mankind since the first tall tale was told around a hominid campfire...

Correct, they don't need to prove anything...unless they make a claim about a thing...and then according to their own Atheist Rationalist religious dogma they have imposed a burden of proof upon themselves by making that claim.

We make only the claim that there is no evidence which supports their existence, and invite believers to show that we are wrong. They never, ever have...

Show me clear evidence that a supernatural entity is controlling space and time, and defying the laws of physics. You can't do it, nobody ever has...

Which doesn't mean that an entity capable of performing those acts does not exist and is not entirely "natural" and you're just an ignorant hairless ape.

Of course, but why should I bother about a putative possible deity when nothing suggests they exists other than the emotive rantings of many, utterly conflicting theist models?

So, in the absence of evidence, the theist resorts to the private fantasy of faith.

The key word in that sentence is "private."

Here, I quite agree. Private religious faith will hear no criticism from me. However, the moment their ranting starts to demand equal billing as a model of the universe, I shall say "put up or shut up"

[Animavore]

The constitution was presumably voted on by someone. And if people "simply didn't bother questioning" the ban, then they implicitly must have found the ban to be acceptable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituti ... ng_process

De Valera personally supervised the writing of the Constitution. It was drafted initially by John Hearne, legal adviser to the Department of External Affairs (now called the Department of Foreign Affairs). It was translated into Irish over a number of drafts by a group headed by Micheál Ó Gríobhtha (assisted by Risteárd Ó Foghludha), who worked in the Irish Department of Education. De Valera served as his own External Affairs Minister, hence the use of the Department's Legal Advisor, with whom he had previously worked closely, as opposed to the Attorney General or someone from the Department of the President of the Executive Council. He also received significant input from John Charles McQuaid, the Archbishop of Dublin, on religious, educational, family and social welfare issues.

A draft of the constitution was presented personally to the Vatican for review and comment on two occasions by the Department Head at External Relations, Joseph P. Walsh. Prior to its tabling in Dáil Éireann and presentation to the Irish electorate in a plebiscite, Vatican Secretary of State Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli, the future Pope Pius XII, said about the final amended draft "We do not approve, neither do we disapprove; We shall maintain silence."[4] The quid pro quo for this indulgence of the Catholic Church's interests in Ireland was the degree of respectability which it conferred on De Valera's formerly denounced republican faction and its reputation as the 'semi-constitutional' political wing of the 'irregular' anti-treaty forces.

It was drafted by politicians in colaboration with the Church.
So no. It wasn't democratically elected by the people.

[Animavore]

Well, the argument would be, I suspect, that divorce makes a mockery of the institution of marriage and the important social goals of marriage, which include stability of the family unit, support and proper parenting for the children, and the social stability that results from the aforesaid policies.

I'm not at all sure they were wrong in those assessments, based on the American experience with "no fault divorce" and the like that has resulted in serious negative social consequences as generations of children raised in broken homes and often without adequate fatherly influence perpetuate the crumbling of a stable society.

So in that respect, everybody gets fucked by allowing divorce, and the easier it is to divorce, the worse everyone gets fucked as society as a whole has to take up the burden of supporting single mothers and their children, a duty which naturally accrues to BOTH parents in a stable no-divorce family.

People still get seperated even when there is no divorce. Not allowing divorece doesn't mean that people stay together and play happy family.